Conference yukon::christian_v7

    No offense is intended, but what I find sort of ironic (or tongue-in-cheek) 
    about all of this is that, as a UU member, Patricia rejects the inspiration 
    and inerrancy of the Bible.  As a feminist she rejects the Bible because 
    of its contributions from members in male-dominated cultures and their
    treatment of women.  Yet, she has to rely on alleged male domination 
    writings to read into interpretations such as these.  If the culture of
    that day was truly male-dominant, none of the writers of the gospels 
    would've wrote what they did with any feminist viewpoint in mind. 
    Further still, Jesus Christ as just a man would've been less prone to
    have anything to do with any woman.  Looking at it this way, the whole
    scenario defies reason.
    
    Instead you have God incarnate showing that He not only cares for Jews
    (BTW - which includes women) but also Gentiles (which also includes
    women).  Again, He knew what was coming and gave this woman the
    opportunity to step out in faith.
    
    There is no small matter going on here.  Jesus broke Jewish oral law
    just by talking to a Gentile.  It was supposed to make them ritually
    unclean.  Jesus shows the Old Covenant is invalid by deliberately
    talking to her.  God is also telling us here that the kingdom is not
    limited to Israel.  Finally, this is the only healing at a distance 
    recorded in Mark's gospel.
    
    How about some other great women in the Bible and their significant
    roles such as Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Naomi, Ruth, Esther, and the
    Hemorrhaging woman!
    
    Mike

    Mike
    
    re 705.17
    
    Mike I do take offense at this note even if no offense is meant.
    
    Your first paragraph contains a whole slew of assumptions about me most
    of which are untrue.  Again I find myself trying to discuss what I find
    in the Bible and a retort to a personal attack regarding why I should
    not be allowed to quote the Bible.
    
    1. I am a UU and proud of my Faith.
    2. I love the Bible.
    3. I hold the Bible to be inspirational and contain the revelation of
    God.
    4. You are correct in that I do not hold the Bible to be inerrant.  I
    hold the Bible to be the inspirtion and revelation of God in a "Clay
    Jar" communicated to us through human means.
    5. I hold the Bible to be culturally conditioned and influenced by the
    Male dominated culture from the time of Adam to present.
    
    6. I find it amazing that the Bible really is a resource for feminists
    in spite of the "clay jar" of male dominated culture.  That there is so
    much that speaks to the egalitarian nature of God, his love for the
    poor, women, sinners, prostitutes, tax collectors etc is undeniably
    revelational.  No work of humanity could contain such inspiration.
    
    7. I choose to focus on the passages in the Bible about women or about
    issues important to women because I am a women, and I look toward those
    passages for inspiration.  I am inspired by many other stories as well
    that are not of special concern to women.  
    
    8.  I am deeply inspired by Jesus because he is a kind, loving, gentle,
    feministic man.  As the incarnation of God, he redefines what is 
    critical about manhood.  In fact he defines what is critical about
    personhood.
    
    
    
    Mike,
    
    These are the reason's I will proclaim the Good News. 
    
    
     Do you have a problem with that?
    
                                          Patricia

    Mark,
    
    I love you too!  I love Mike as well!
    
    Mike seemed to suggest  that I shouldn't be quoting the Bible and
    arguing from the Bible.  Do you have a problem with me quoting the
    Bible and arguing from it?
    
    As humans we disagree with a lot of things.
    
                                       Patricia

>    Mike seemed to suggest  that I shouldn't be quoting the Bible and
>    arguing from the Bible.  Do you have a problem with me quoting the
>    Bible and arguing from it?

Some people can use a screw driver to open a can of tuna.  It might
even get the can open.  The point is that to argue effectively from 
the Bible, one has to do so with as little filter as possible retaining
the actual intent and message as much as possible.

Without agreement on using all of the Bible, instead of some of the Bible,
means that there can be no real basis for discussion or agreement.
By selecting portions of the Bible and rejecting other portions, one
can skew the interpretation to suit their own filters.  By using the whole
of the Bible, there is certainly still room for interpretation but the
basis for understanding changes to the point that the whole of Scripture
can be brought to bear on any issue we discuss.

I don't consider using an editor's pen as a valid mechanism for interpretation
so in this regard I would have a "problem" if you quoted the Bible outside
of its context to support a view that other portions of Scripture would
not support.

The problem is with a fundamental basis for communication.  Without this
common basis for understanding, we will never understand things each other
is trying to convey.

Mark

re: Inerrancy of Scripture - please see 2.* of this conference

>    Mike seemed to suggest  that I shouldn't be quoting the Bible and
>    arguing from the Bible.  Do you have a problem with me quoting the
>    Bible and arguing from it?
    
    That's not my intention at all.  What I think I was trying to say is
    that I don't understand how you can logically find feminist support
    from writings in what you call a male-dominated culture (which I don't
    agree entirely with).  If they truly were male-dominating, you are
    reading your views into something that was never their intention.
    
    hope this is better,
    Mike

>Without agreement on using all of the Bible, instead of some of the Bible,
>means that there can be no real basis for discussion or agreement.

For example, I could write some stuff about some of the wicked women in
the Bible.  Some feminists would take this as bashing all females.
(See the reaction to Note 680 when I transcribed the "Male-Basher's Checklist.")
Some chauvinists might take this as showing the true nature of women.

In reality, we see in the Bible that there are good, bad, and ugly 
on both sides and if we faced reality, we can examine the good 
qualities of (and differences in) men and women, as well as their bad
qualities, and their beautiful and ugly attributes as well.

I don't think there is a significant difference between "chauvinism"
and "feminism" and find both (by and large) to be bigotry against 
the opposite sex.  "Humanism" is pride, in my opinion, and denies God,
and is a type of Bigotry against the supernatural (except when it is 
expressed through humanity).

When people have taken the Bible, the whole of Scripture, at its word, 
and allow it to filter their lives (instead of filtering the Bible through
their lives), it WILL challenge us to change or find ourselves in opposition
to the Word.  But those who have submitted to the Authority of the Word
can testify to its Truth and that it changes them into Christ-likeness
and not some patriarchal monster or weak and oppressed female.

Mark

    I have no problem with you guys being inerrantists.
    
    If you believe the whole bible is inerrant then you believe every piece
    of it is inerrant.  We have a whole lot to work with if we use the
    subset that both of us agree is inspirational.
    
    I won't try to prove to you where you ere in your thinking.  As long as
    we are reading the same Bible that has repeated in many different
    places the the greatest commandment of all is to love.  It is hard to
    take that commandment out of contexts.
    
    I learned today how much I love 1 John.  I am happy!
    
                                  Patricia

    re .27
    
    You got my point.
    
    It was never their intention.
    
    It was God's intention.
    
                            Patricia

>    If you believe the whole bible is inerrant then you believe every piece
>    of it is inerrant.  We have a whole lot to work with if we use the
>    subset that both of us agree is inspirational.

I think this is a very tenuous position to hold.  It breaks down the 
minute the "inerrantists" use a portion that you don't believe is
inspired to support the context of the view.  There is no real basis
for communication and it is a fallacy to think that we can discuss 
things in any wholeness using a subset of what is available to us.

In fact, you often stray into "inerrantist" territory with a view
that is contrary even calling one of my pieces "evil at its core"
(which you have since ignored).  With such a declaration, we see
a demonstration of the lack of communication in discussing the 
whole context of an issue.

I hope you can see my point.

Mark

    Mark,
    
    Now I know what you are getting at.
    
    In the old testament, Israel is treated as the whoring wife of God.
    
    As such God punishes Israel.  In some passages, the punishment is
    described in terms of beating and violating a woman.  The analogy
    you used, God is to man as man is to women is an anaology that many
    experts in domestic violence believe contribute to Wife abuse.
    
    I was not trying to imply that your article was evil, but that if that
    analogy does in fact lead some men to feel they can beat and punish
    their wifes, then the analogy is evil.
    
                                  Patricia

>    As such God punishes Israel.  In some passages, the punishment is
>    described in terms of beating and violating a woman.  The analogy
>    you used, God is to man as man is to women is an anaology that many
>    experts in domestic violence believe contribute to Wife abuse.
>    
>    I was not trying to imply that your article was evil, but that if that
>    analogy does in fact lead some men to feel they can beat and punish
>    their wifes, then the analogy is evil.
    
 
And this is precisely why we cannot communicate without a fundamental 
agreement on the basis and validity of the whole of God's Word.

People who use the Bible to thier own end, and distort it to their
own means have not taken into account the whole of the Bible.  The whole
of the Bible demonstrates that not only was the analogy NOT evil but it
was actually GOOD and the husband/wife relationship IS a reflection of
the God/man relationship.

The "experts" you allude to apparently do not know their Scripture.

Mark

    Mark,
    
    So how do the women in here speak to that point.
    
    Do they agree that the absolute authority that God has over man is the
    same kind of authority that a Husband has over his wife?
    
    How would a pastor counsel a woman who was being beaten by her husband.
    How would a pastor counsel a man who was beating his wife, insisting
    that she deserved it just as Israel deserved the beating that God gave
    Israel.
    
    How would you counsel a man such as this who was beating his wife and
    insisting that she deserved it.
    
                                               Patricia
                              Patricia

One-sidedness prevails.

>    How would you counsel a man such as this who was beating his wife and
>    insisting that she deserved it.

From Ephesians 5:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave
Himself up for her ... So husbands ought also to love their own wives as
their own bodies.  He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever
hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does
the church ... let each individual among you love his own wife even as
himself...

Paul

    In a lot of Christian churches, the women counsel each other.  Some
    exceptions are made, but the smart ones always have another woman
    (usually the pastor's wife) present.

    Then anology began as the relationship between God and Israel and was
    transformed in the new Covenant to the relationship between Christ and
    the Church.
    
    God too loved Israel.  It was however important for God to demonstrate
    that love for Israel by Beating Israel and then Forgiving Israel when
    she was punished enough.  
    
    Mark,  Does that theory of authority allow scriptural support for a man
    to beat his wife in some instances?  Does it give men the same
    authority to punish their wives as God has to Punish the whoring
    Israel?
    
                                    Patricia
    
    
                                            Patricia

    Actually Mike, the Bible tells the older women to teach the younger
    women.  
    
    Nancy

>    Mark,  Does that theory of authority allow scriptural support for a man
>    to beat his wife in some instances?  Does it give men the same
>    authority to punish their wives as God has to Punish the whoring
>    Israel?

It does not allow Scriptural support for beating one's wife.

While God may have "punished" Israel by sending them into exile,
their punishment was a direct result of their own adultery.  The
inflicted damage was by those Israel prostituted herself with.
If you examine the text in Hosea, you will see that God is willing
to buy Israel back from bondage despite her whoring and destituteness.

Secondly, the husband/wife picture is ONE aspect of our relationship 
to God.  When Jesus was asked about Moses' granting divorce, Jesus
doesn't talk about divorce (except to say that it happened because
of the hardness of *their* hearts) but instead talks about what the
proper marriage should be, as it was intended from the beginning.
You want to focus on the whoring Israel, but Jesus wanted to focus
on the way the marriage relationship was intended from the beginning.
It is this intent that should be seen as God's model for the husband/wife
relationship; God's love, even in the face of whoredom sought reconcilliation.
There was never a punishment that God was willing to make ("He is not
willing that any should perish"), yet His holiness and righteousness 
demands a judgment when it comes to "full measure" whatever that is,
and only God knows His measure to act.

The intended marriage model is not of a parent child and this is a 
misunderstood authority structure of husband and wife if you see it 
this way.  However, in ANOTHER aspect of our relationship to God, 
He is also Father to His children.  So the question becomes, how
can this be, and when is He Father and When is He Husband?

In dealing with different aspects of god we need to see the context
of the relationship and we get into trouble, as you indicate, when 
we blur the distinction.

Mark

Sorry, Patricia.  The "Here we go again" and "One-sidedness prevails"
comments were uncalled for.  The verse applies, and I do get frustrated by
your incredibly persistent insistence on only seeing one side of male/female
issues.  But I will avoid sarcasm in my responses.

Paul

    I've read the Bible through several times, but I'm seeing all sorts
    of things today that I never saw in it before.

.32>    Now I know what you are getting at.

Just to be clear about what I've been getting at by bringing up the
fact that you called something I wrote "evil at its core," you returned
to this conference to warn people of the peril of judging something
to be "of Satan," and even quote the "judge not lest ye be judged" 
Scripture but seem to have forgotten that your own warnings point
a finger directly back at you.  You are guilty of the warning you 
want to give to others.  Did you see this?  Can you see this?

Mark

I was thinking exactly the same thing, Mark.

Patricia, you have unabashedly and unashamedly proclaimed that "Patriarchy"
and everything which proceeds from it is inherently and completely evil and
wrong.  Many of your pronouncements on the subject have left no room for "in
my opinion" or "I think," but have been unequivocal denouncements not just as
being wrong, but as being evil.

You have returned to this conference holding out the offense of having had
some of your views called "Satanic."  I don't know if you make a distinction
between "evil" and "Satanic," but many people here would not.  Satan is the
founder and author of evil.  Yet the position you are taking on your return
to this conference is to "get people to listen - for their edification" to
the fact that "It is wrong for anyone to tell [someone] that their beliefs
are demonic." and "My goal ... is to make every person ... think twice before
insulting others in that way."

Could you address the inconsistency of these positions?

Perhaps this tangent should be moved out of this note.

Paul

    I believe Patriarchy is Evil.  I believe Sexism is evil.  I believe the
    anology is evil. 
    
    I believe that the acceptance of the analogy
    means the acceptance of the unconditional power of the husband over the
    wife including the power to punish her anyway the husband wants if he
    does not feel she is living up to her half of the covenant.
    
    
    It is quite different to say that an idea is evil, or a practice is
    evil than it is to say a person is evil. I even hear conservative
    christians use this argument all the time.
    
    It is even different to say a persons conduct is evil than to say a
    persons faith is evil.  Hitler was evil.  I'm not going to deny that or
    say that it is wrong to say that.
    
    A husband Beating his wife is evil.  any analogy that implies that God
    gives husbands authority to beat their wifes is evil. 
    
    Now I may call someone misguided for believing that analogy.  I
    wouldn't call them evil unless they beat their wife.
    
                       
    Can you understand the difference!
    
    I was arguing on the basis of potential heresy against the holy spirit.
    Since no one of you knows whether I am influenced by the holy spirit or
    not, then to assume and claim that I am influenced by the Devil rather
    than the Holy Spirit leaves you open to blasphemy against the holy
    spirit.  A sin which you all believe is an unforgiveable sin.
    
    

    And I must even confess to a bit of emotionalism in the last reply
    
    
    We are all pretty good at pushing each others buttons!
    
                                       Patricia

>    I believe that the acceptance of the analogy
>    means the acceptance of the unconditional power of the husband over the
>    wife including the power to punish her anyway the husband wants if he
>    does not feel she is living up to her half of the covenant.

Your belief is unfounded and a result of your filter.  Shed your filter
and you may be able to see clearly.

Mark

    Amen

>    I was arguing on the basis of potential heresy against the holy spirit.
>    Since no one of you knows whether I am influenced by the holy spirit or
>    not, then to assume and claim that I am influenced by the Devil rather
>    than the Holy Spirit leaves you open to blasphemy against the holy
>    spirit.  A sin which you all believe is an unforgiveable sin.
    
    God's Word is the basis for good/bad fruit and determining who's
    abiding in Him and who isn't.  Christ was clear on this as well as the
    rest of the NT.  
    
    btw - the unpardonable sin is the rejection of Christ as God's Son and
    refusing His atonement for us.  This is the only thing that God can't
    forgive and the only thing that keeps us out of heaven.  That is why it
    grieves God's Holy Spirit.
    
    Mike

    Mike,
    
    the way you and I interpret the Biblical texts produces considerable
    different results.
    
                                    Patricia

>    the way you and I interpret the Biblical texts produces considerable
>    different results.

Despite the fact that you can agree on a subset of Scripture, Patricia?
Doesn't this tell you something about the inability to communicate based
on a "subset" of the basis for agreement?

You are exactly correct!  Therefore, there is no basis for reasonsed
communication when discussing the Biblical texts between us.

Mark

    Mark,
    
    Are differences are not based on which pieces of scripture each one of
    us chooses to rely on.  Are differences may be based on how up front
    each of us are in determining which pieces of scripture we rely on.
    
                                      Patricia

>    Can you understand the difference!
    
I can certainly understand the difference between calling a belief evil and
calling a person evil.  I'm glad we agree that some beliefs are to be
considered evil, and glad we agree that even some people are to be considered
evil.  I for one have *never* intended to put you, Patricia, in the second
category.  If you've believed that I've ever called *you* evil, rather than
addressing your position, then I apologize for the misunderstanding.  

But I'm not yet able to see the difference that you seem to see between your
saying something is evil and my saying something is evil.  You say Patriarchy
and Sexism are evil, based on your perception of reality.  I say that
idolatry [making our own image of God] is evil, based on the Bible's clear
teaching.  How are these different?

>    I was arguing on the basis of potential heresy against the holy spirit.
>    Since no one of you knows whether I am influenced by the holy spirit or
>    not, then to assume and claim that I am influenced by the Devil rather
>    than the Holy Spirit leaves you open to blasphemy against the holy
>    spirit.  A sin which you all believe is an unforgiveable sin.
 
This sounds good, but can you see that standing by it absolutely causes the
complete disintegration of truth?  It is not completely true that no one
knows whether you are influenced by the Holy Spirit, at least for particular
instances.  If the Bible is to be believed at all, then there are clear
teachings about what sorts of things the Holy Spirit might do, and clear
warnings about being taken in by deceptions.  Not that the Holy Spirit is
completely predictable or knowable, but that there are at least some amount
of known limits as to what sort of things the Holy Spirit would say.  Taking
an example I think we can all agree on, John Salvi might assert that he was
influenced by the Holy Spirit to gun down people at abortion clinics.  If we
can't say that he's just plain wrong in his belief that the Holy Spirit told
him to do that, and that the Holy Spirit would never say such a thing, then
we're in deep, deep trouble.  I'd feel very safe in asserting that if Satan
didn't directly have a hand in influencing Salvi to do that, then he looked
on in great approval.

We do need to be constantly on the alert for ways in which the Holy Spirit
might say things that *expand* upon the truth of Scripture, or show it in a
new light.  That's what the Pharisees utterly failed to do.  Jesus was
fulfilling the Law, and they were bound by nits.  So I very much understand
that just because something doesn't fit a narrow definition of what Scripture
says doesn't mean it's not true.

But when someone asserts something that completely contradicts the witness of
scripture and of Jesus, then we can safely assert that this is not from the
Holy Spirit, and it may in fact be necessary that we do so.  Since you have
framed this point in terms of yourself personally, asserting not just that we
can't presume to know whether another person is influenced by the Holy
Spirit, but that we can't presume to know whether you personally are
influenced by the Holy Spirit, I don't think it is a personal attack on you
to address your personal beliefs in this context. 

Taking a clear example from our prior discussions, your belief in universal
salvation is in complete contradiction to hundreds of passages in the Word,
including many direct quotes from Jesus.  If universal salvation is true,
then Jesus is at best misguided and at worst a liar and the Word is not to be
trusted at all.  I do not have the slightest hesitation in asserting that
this belief is not due to the influence of the Holy Spirit, and no worry that
by doing so I am blaspheming the Spirit.

You are correct that I cannot and should not then infer that since a belief
is not of the Holy Spirit that it is a direct result of demonic or satanic
influence.  And I apologize for the way that my quote to you last time (on a
different subject), which you have held on to, seemed to infer that.  I did
not intend to infer any direct influence, but I understand that my wording
really could not be interpreted by you in any other way, and that's my fault.

But while I have no basis for inferring any direct influence, neither will I
shrink from identifying a particular idea as being one which satan approves
of.  Again taking the belief in universal salvation, if the Bible is true at
all then I do know that this is a lie that satan is very fond of.  If he can
get people to believe that everyone is saved, then there's nothing bad to
avoid, and no need to find the *only* way to be saved.  So in that sense, the
belief could be called 'satanic.'

Paul

>    Are differences are not based on which pieces of scripture each one of
<    us chooses to rely on.  Are differences may be based on how up front
>    each of us are in determining which pieces of scripture we rely on.

You mean filters, I presume.

I disagree with you.  My basis for disagreement is the many people who
come here with their "filters" and doctrinal persuasion and wrangle
over interpretation of the whole of the Biblical texts.  None of these
ever imply that some of the texts are invalidated for whatever reason.

Your differences in each of your filters is a layer above the base,
which is whether or not the whole Word of God (the Bible) is inspired
and inerrant.

Mark

    RE: .25  Metcalfe
    
    >> I believe that the acceptance of the analogy
    >> means the acceptance of the unconditional power of the husband over the
    >> wife including the power to punish her anyway the husband wants if he
    >> does not feel she is living up to her half of the covenant.

    > Your belief is unfounded and a result of your filter.  Shed your filter
    > and you may be able to see clearly.
    
    The same could easily be said to you.
    
    Consider it done.

    How about this as a model:
    
    				GOD
    				Jesus
    				Women
    				Men
    
    Men do first grow from inside the bodies of women, so doesn't it make
    women closer to God than men could possibly be?
    
    Would many men object to being on the bottom rung of this particular
    model?  If so, I'll bet no one will admit that they just can't
    stomach the idea of men being considered to be BELOW women (when so
    much of our culture insists that men are HIGHER on the scale than
    women.)

    I'm so glad that I was born a woman.  
    I'm so glad that God created me in His image.
    I'm so glad that God created man to fit perfectly with a woman.
    I'm so glad that God created man to lead and be the head of a family.
    I'm so glad that I'm not intimidated by creation and its order.
    
    Nancy
    

    I'm so glad that I was born a man.  
    I'm so glad that God created me in His image.
    I'm so glad that God created woman to fit perfectly with a man.
    I'm so glad that God created woman to nurture and be the strength
								of a family.
    I'm so glad that I'm not intimidated by creation and its order.
    
    hazza :*]

	(with appropriate credits to Nancy ;')

Now that I've dumped some flies in the ointment,

	some further musings.

	God created the male first.

	God gave to said first created male responsibility.

	Someone had to be responsible. The same as in my household, I'm
responsible. Sometimes it's good. Othertimes, it's a real bummer. But the
responsibility is mine, whether I want it or not. I didn't ask for it, Lord
knows there are times when I have wanted to abrogate my responsibility. But the
end result is, the responsibility is mine. I didn;t take it, God gave it to me.

	Now, the woman. She was created from the male's rib. Not from his head
to be superiour to him, nor his feet to be walked upon (as, I admit, many men
_do_). But from his *side* - to walk side-by-side. Equals. But not the same.

	If a Christian husband (i.e. a 'man' [spelling it out]) loves his wife
(i.e. the woman) in the manner spelled out in the Bible (i.e. "as Christ loved
the Church"), then he won't resort to mistreating his wife - he will love her,
he will cherish her. He won't abuse physically or mentally, he won't divorce
her, he won't <many things>.

	When the wife sees this, she will trust her husband enough to be willing
to submit to his authority - because she KNOWS that he Loves her, and will do
(to the best of his ability) what he can to fulfil that trust.

	They will work as a partnership. Yes, the man has the responsibility,
and with that the authority. But his responsibility extends to loving his wife.
It's not a 'me boss, you not!' situation. If it comes to that 'power-struggle'
then the devil has won and has started to break-down that marriage.

	Now to some *really* controversial stuff.

	I admit to opening doors for women.

	I admit to giving up my seat on busses and trains for women.

	I admit to 'giving way' to women when I see them walking towards me and
we may 'collide'.

	I admit to deferring to women in many ways.

	Why?

	Respect.

	I respect women for what God has made them. Not because they are
superiour to me - they aren't. But, nor am *I* superiour to them.

	Some are offended - I'm sorry for that. It is not to offend that I do
this, it is to show respect for God's creation.

	I'm sure I've upset some (?many?) of our visitors, I guess that's one of
my differences ;')

	h :*]

>    Men do first grow from inside the bodies of women, so doesn't it make
>    women closer to God than men could possibly be?

I don't follow this reasoning.  Not that I see your point and disagree, or
agree even, but that I just don't get your point at all.  Why would the facts
of procreation make either sex closer to God?

>    Would many men object to being on the bottom rung of this particular
>    model?  If so, I'll bet no one will admit that they just can't
>    stomach the idea of men being considered to be BELOW women (when so
>    much of our culture insists that men are HIGHER on the scale than
>    women.)

You probably won't believe my response, or understand it even.  It seems that
you have the people in this file, men in particular, in the box of "people
who want power over women." But far from "can't stomach the idea of being
considered below women," the whole concept of power and authority, beyond a
focus on the power and authority of Jesus, is one which I concern myself with
as little as possible.  I simply want to follow Jesus as He leads, and to
concern myself only with what He gives me to concern myself with.  If that
means a position of 'authority,' then so be it.  If that means a position of
submission, then so be that too.

Besides, in Jesus's terms, position and authority don't mean at all what they
mean in worldly terms, or the terms in which it seems that you are thinking. 
If, as the Bible teaches, men are considered 'higher' on the scale of
authority than women, what would that mean for the men?  Jesus addresses that
directly:

  "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it
   over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.  Not so
   with you.  Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your
   servant, and whoever wants to be first must be a slave of all.  For even
   the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His
   life as a ransom for many."					Mark 10:42-44

Jesus washed His disciples feet at the Last Supper to emphasize that they
must always have an attitude of service toward each other.  If men have
greater authority, that means that they are to be 'a slave of all,' which is
not an authority that many of us desire.  I'll be the first to agree that
historically, and today, men have ignored what this true 'authority' means,
and have exercised worldly authority - power and control - over women instead
of Godly authority.  And in response (a response I understand, by the way), I
see women struggling to obtain that same power and control for themselves.

But that is only spreading the poison.  Jesus did not intend for *ANY* of us,
men or women, to exercise that type of worldly authority over each other. 
The temptation to use power and control over people was the third and last of
Satan's temptations to Jesus in the wilderness, which He renounced utterly.

But none of that means that another type of authority doesn't exist, and that
for reasons I don't fully understand, it is vested more fully in men.  I
don't really understand what it means that I as a man have greater authority
and responsibility in my marriage.  I don't know all of what it means that I
have spiritual leadership.  What I do know, and what I am living, is that it
is nothing remotely like a 'lord it over' authority or an 'exercise' of
power.  As some here know, I am living in leadership in my marriage by giving
up my life for my wife on a daily basis, not by ordering her around.

*THAT* is the kind of 'position' that Jesus gives to anyone who is called by
His name.  The call to serve, the call to care so deeply about other people
that they will do anything, including lay down their lives, for them.

Paul

P.S.  Thanks Nancy, for your note.  Beautiful, and far more succinct than I.
									:-)

    Suzanne,
    
    I just figured out why the Divine incarnating the Female Wisdom into
    the male Jesus and why Jesus choose Male disciples.
    
    Because it was Men who needed and still need the bulk of his message.
    
    Power is persuasive, not controlling.  James and John could not climb
    to the top of the hierarchical totem pole, because Jesus was doing away
    with the hierarchical totem pole, That unless men become like children
    and let go of their Male ego's and their Male need to "Lord" it over 
    others, then they are lost.  Jesus himself is a model of a man with
    a fully developed feminine nature.  Kind, gentle, subservient at times, 
    nurturing.  The Gospels are full of instances of Men just not
    understanding that one must serve not "Lord" it over others.  Full of
    instances of the men running away in times of trouble and the women
    sticking around to the end to be with and comfort the dying Jesus and
    to care for his body afterwards.
    
    Peter, positions for authority and then denies knowing Christ three times.
    The woman at Bethany annoints Jesus as the Messiah, showing an
    understanding that the Messiah must be crucified, even as the male
    disciples refuse to understand.
    
    At the Cross, the men have all run away, scared.
    
    There is much to the Gospel narrative that many Hierarchically oriented
    Christianced prefer to ignore.
    
    The women disciples are invisable and nameless.  Nonetheless, they are 
    there, serving, following, ministering, understanding.
    
    
                                 Patricia
    quote in Timothy that women should be subordinate to men

>    >> I believe that the acceptance of the analogy
>    >> means the acceptance of the unconditional power of the husband over the
>    >> wife including the power to punish her anyway the husband wants if he
>    >> does not feel she is living up to her half of the covenant.
>
>    > Your belief is unfounded and a result of your filter.  Shed your filter
>    > and you may be able to see clearly.
>    
>    The same could easily be said to you.
>    
>    Consider it done.

Easily said, but not easily supported.  Remember the premise of this
conference is an inerrant Bible.  Sorry, Sue.  No cigar.

MM

    Why do you appear to hate men so much, Patricia.  Every note you right 
    seems like you think men are out to get us all.  Its just not true, IMHO. 
    Yes, there are men who are ungodly.  But there are just as many women.  
    
    Seems to me like people have explained what the bible TRULY has to say
    about this, and you just ignore it to make your points.
    
    I'll be quiet. No flames meant or wanted.  Just seems like the same
    thing over and over.  
    
    
      

>But far from "can't stomach the idea of being considered below women,"

  Anyone considering the example and message of Jesus cannot see "male
  dominance" in Christianity.  To whit:

John 13:13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
 14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to
    wash one another's feet.
 15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.
 16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord;
    neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.
 17 If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.

  Jesus also said, to be the greatest among you, you have to be servant of all.

  Christianity isn't above or below people at all, and this is a common
  misperception of many special interest groups, feminism included (or
  especially).  The marriage hierarchy isn't about being above or below 
  spouses at all.  This is a common misperception, especially in feminism.

  They cannot understand it because they are still thinking of the 
  power and authority of the world when this is CLEARLY NOT what Jesus
  preached or lived by example.  They transfer their misconceptions of
  power and authority onto the Biblical model and no wonder it sounds
  "evil to its core."  But it isn't true power and authority.  Jesus
  told Pilate that he had no authority except what God granted.  He also
  said that Pilate had no idea what true power and authority were.  Neither
  does feminism... or chauvinism (two sides of the same bigotry coin).

Mark

.39
 >   Jesus himself is a model of a man with
 >   a fully developed feminine nature.  Kind, gentle, subservient at times, 
 >   nurturing.

Is Patricia Flanagan supporting the view that women should be subservient
at times?  And that this is a feminine nature?

    re .41
    
    There are certain stereotypes.
    
    Like Feminist hate men!  If I point out Androcentric nature in the
    Bible that I hate men. etc.  I don't hate men.  It doesn't bother me
    that those who distrust feminists will continue to level that charge
    against me.
    
    I read the Bible myself.  I don't need to have others explain to me
    what the bible TRULY says.  The whole point of the Protestant
    reformation was to encourage people to read and interpret the Bible 
    themselves.  I do accept that men and women are different from each
    other and that we read the text through our own filters.  In the last
    twenty years the field of Biblical Studies has been opened to women and
    women scholars are doing amazing work mainly because they are asking
    questions that men would not think of asking.  This does not discredit
    the work that men scholars have done or are doing, but it does show
    that men scholars have not asked the questions that are more uniquely
    relevent to women.  I remain suspicious of men who want to interpret
    the Bible to me.  If they are not compelled to accept my
    interpretations why should I be compelled to accept theirs?
    
    No flames her either.  Just an honest difference of perspective.
    
                                     shalom
    
    
                                     Patricia

    Gee Mark,
    
    you caught me at that one. 
    
    Should I edit the material.
    
    
                              Patricia

| <<< Note 708.41 by DPDMAI::HUDDLESTON "If it is to be, it's up to me" >>>

| Why do you appear to hate men so much, Patricia. Every note you write seems 
| like you think men are out to get us all.  

	I don't see this in Patricia's notes at all. I see her expressing that
certain men do feel they are above women, that according to Biblical text the
women are to serve the men, which puts men above the woman in authority. I do
not seeing Patricia saying all men are out to get women. There are some who
will, but I would venture to say that most who follow the Biblical text, aren't
really out to get anyone, but more that they are following what they believe is
right.

| Seems to me like people have explained what the bible TRULY has to say about 
| this, and you just ignore it to make your points.

	I guess if you could gather everyone up and have them give what they
think the Bible is saying, and have everyone agree with it, then the "TRULY"
part of your note would be valid. But what happens if some of these people who
agree with your beliefs of the Bible in this instance, disagree with them
somewhere else? Does that cancel everything? 

	I agree that yes, you believe, without a doubt, that your version of
what the Bible is saying on this subject is 100% correct. If you would realize
that Patricia too is in this same boat, it might make it easier for you to
understand what it is she is saying.



Glen

>    you caught me at that one. 

Which one?

Don't worry.  I won't be around much longer to cause you more suspicion
of how I interpret the Bible.  But unless you are well versed in Greek
or can accept a greek scholar without suspicions, your interpretation
(and mine) are in danger of error.  The Reformation made it possible
for the common person to read the Bible, but I daresay it was left to
the common man to interpret it at their imagination.  Rather, interpret
it truthfully, within context of the author's pen.

Mark

>	I agree that yes, you believe, without a doubt, that your version of
>what the Bible is saying on this subject is 100% correct. If you would realize
>that Patricia too is in this same boat, it might make it easier for you to
>understand what it is she is saying.

Here we go again.  Please read the premise of this conference.  It places
Patricia's interpretation in the wrong because we are NOT talking about
the same set of Scriptures.  There is *no basis* for understanding.

It is not the same boat by a long shot.

Mark

	Mark, I'm not saying you have to agree with her beliefs. But both sides
have their beliefs, they are in the same boat. 

>	Mark, I'm not saying you have to agree with her beliefs. But both sides
>have their beliefs, they are in the same boat. 

While both sides have "beliefs" they are NOT in the same boat.  The meter
for judging truth determines the boats that people are in.  In this conference,
the meter for Truth is the Bible; and not merely a subset of it constrewed
(or contorted) by fanciful imaginations of whoever wants to toy with it.

mark

The difference in the boats, Glen, is that for Mark, and myself, and others,
and not incidentally what is the basis for this conference, is to seek the
truth as revealed in the Bible.  The *whole* Bible.  So while we might
disagree about what it says at a particular point, we agree that it says
something worth hearing, that *all* of it is worth hearing, and *all* of it
must be taken into account to understand it.

As has been explained to you hundreds of times, this is profoundly different
than coming at it with the belief that it is just another bunch of words, and
that the 'true meaning' of a particular passage can be obtained while
ignoring whatever other parts of it you like.  This is what Patricia has
proclaimed is her position.

The boats are nothing like the same.

BTW, this would be a perfect example of 'provoking.'  The stated basis of
this conference is God's truth, as guided by the Bible.  The *whole* Bible. 
Yet you simply will *not* accept that basis, and repeatedly must attack it,
and have done so for years.

Paul

See also note 152.107.

    Men shouldn't be "lording over" women any more than women lording
    feminism over men.
    
    Mike

    RE: .37
    
    > Someone had to be responsible. The same as in my household, I'm
    > responsible. Sometimes it's good. Othertimes, it's a real bummer. 
    > But the responsibility is mine, whether I want it or not.
    
    So your wife is NOT responsible??  I'll bet that gives her a lot of
    free time.
    
    As for me, I AM RESPONSIBLE.
    
    Then again, I wasn't created from a man's rib.  I was created within
    the body of another woman (my mother) - and I know this because I've
    seen pictures of her pregnant with me.
    
    So I AM RESPONSIBLE (and I happen to like it.)
    
    > Now, the woman. She was created from the male's rib.
    
    Your wife (like me and like YOU) was created within the body of a woman.
    She's not a subhuman (created from some man's rib.)  She (and every
    woman on this planet) are full human beings who first grew within the
    bodies of WOMEN.
    
    > When the wife sees this, she will trust her husband enough to be willing
    > to submit to his authority - 
    
    A call for 'submission' is what this whole argument is about.  Women
    are asked to accept the status of a 'subhuman' (in keeping with the
    analogy of MEN being to WOMEN what GOD is to MEN.)  Some women accept
    it gladly, but other women are driven away from God (because of some
    people's insistance that one can only TRULY believe in God if one
    accepts that men are the authority to women as much as God is the
    authority to men.)
    
    > - because she KNOWS that he Loves her, and will do (to the best of his 
    > ability) what he can to fulfil that trust.
    
    A grown woman is an adult with responsibilities (and the capability to
    fulfill the trust that her loved ones place in her.)
    
    > They will work as a partnership. Yes, the man has the responsibility,
    > and with that the authority.
    
    It can only be a partnership if BOTH PEOPLE bear the responsibility.
    (You wouldn't go into a business arrangement with a partner who
    said, 'OK, we're partners, but YOU have all the responsibility, not
    me.')
    
    > Now to some *really* controversial stuff.
    > I admit to opening doors for women.
    > I admit to giving up my seat on busses and trains for women.
    > I admit to 'giving way' to women when I see them walking towards me and
    >     we may 'collide'.
    > I admit to deferring to women in many ways.

    It's not controversial.  I do the same things (to women and men, although
    I don't ride busses or trains so I haven't had the chance to give up
    my seat in many years.)  I would tend to give my seat to a person (of
    either sex) who is older than me.
    
    > Why?
    > Respect.
    
    It's also good in the name of good manners.
    
    As for respect, women can (and do) respect other women (and men), too.
    
    > I'm sure I've upset some (?many?) of our visitors, I guess that's one of
    > my differences ;')
    
    Actually, I think some of us have upset YOU.  But then, that's one of
    our differences.
    
    Suzanne

Hi Patricia,

.39 �    Power is persuasive, not controlling.
I can go along with quite a lot of .39!  But even so, I find even 
'persuasive' too strong a word for the influence that Jesus sought to 
exercise.  He actually wants obedience motivated from pure love.  
'Persuasion' is to do with the mind; it comes from reasoning that the logic 
is correct.  Now, Jesus' logic *is* correct, but someone who decides merely 
from human reasoning to follow Jesus' example has actually missed the 
point.  They may well even think that they are Christian, but they have 
missed the heart of the matter.

Jesus wants us to give Him control primarily because we love Him totally.  
He wants people motivated not from the head, but from the heart.  The head 
can only reach the position of beginining to understand the logic once the 
heart is instructed by the Holy Spirit.  This is the burden of 
1 Corinthians 2:10-16, which explains that the message is spiritually 
discerned.  Obviously, there results a conflict between people with 
different spirits, each claiming that their spirit gives them the correct 
interpretation.  However, there is only one Holy Spirit, and other spirits 
are liable to give rise to cult groups, each claiming to be the one and 
only true understanding...

Maybe I seem to be nit picking, but I didn't want that point to be missed.

�    The women disciples are invisable and nameless.  Nonetheless, they are 
�    there, serving, following, ministering, understanding.
Several women disciples are explicitly named, coming in at key times.  But 
I can agree that they habve a lower visibility than, say, the twelve, who 
were being specifically groomed to carry the message and doctrine of the
kingdom (including the as then very poorly grasped method of love) after
Jesus' completion of His task. 

The problem lies in interpreting the tree 

		God -> Jesus -> man -> woman 

from Ephesians 6:22-33 as a 'superiority' progression, rather than for 
function or role, and service.  Men and women are different physically, not 
just because one or the other is favoured, but because they are optimised 
for different roles in life.  For instance, the woman carries the child for 
its 9 months before birth.  The husband has a particular role in provision 
and protection while her body is in this special state.  In cases of, say, 
bereavement, where the husband is missing, a woman *can* fill in all her
outward needs, but this is not optimal, and puts her (and likely, to some
degree, the child) under the additional emotional stress of fulfilling
multiple roles, while the body has special demands on it. 

Each one has their specific fulfillment to reach.  To say that this must
include all qualities of both sexes is not to enhance, but to degrade the 
individual role.

So, in Ephesians 6, the function of the 
		man => wife
	representing 
		Christ => church

is in service, as represented in verse 25, where the fact is stressed that
'Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her' (NIV) - ie, died for 
her.

btw ... is 'patriarchy' intended to cover Biblical male / female roles? It 
could be, but I don't want to side track the discussion!

Hi Suzanne,
re .34, the model we generally consider here is on the basis of trying to 
understand the Biblical model and principles, as consistent with Biblical 
teaching in general.  I hope you understand that even we do not consider 
this a case of superiority! ;-}

�    Men do first grow from inside the bodies of women, so doesn't it make
�    women closer to God than men could possibly be?

This is referred to in 1 Corinthians 11, in considering the different 
worship roles of men and women, as :

  "...For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
   neither was man created for woman, but woman for man"
				(refering to the rib from Adam)
  ".... In the LORD, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man 
   independent of woman.  For as woman came from man, so also man is born 
   of woman.  But everything comes from God."

- ie the Bible, as God's Word, includes the recognition that all men rely 
on women for their very birth.

Do you offer your alternative model as one you see presented in the Bible 
(ie, which you feel has God's authority substantiating it), or is it just a 
personal idea?

Either way, it is liable to fall into the same superficial trap as the  
standard model, if the list is considered a hierarchy.  To say that 'woman 
is superior to man' must be as spiritually inconsistent as to say that 'man 
is superior to woman'.  It's more a matter of understanding what the 
positions really do signify.

I hope this is of assistance...

							Andrew

>    Your wife (like me and like YOU) was created within the body of a woman.
>    She's not a subhuman (created from some man's rib.)  She (and every
>    woman on this planet) are full human beings who first grew within the
>    bodies of WOMEN.

These same "incubators" diminish the contribution of the male to the 
equation.  The males are "merely" donors.

Another contortion is to say that being created from the rib is to be
rendered subhuman, without considering what it must be like to be created
from the dust of the earth, or without considering that God created both
male and female as equals (bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh).

>    A call for 'submission' is what this whole argument is about.  Women
>    are asked to accept the status of a 'subhuman' (in keeping with the
>    analogy of MEN being to WOMEN what GOD is to MEN.) 

A common misperception about submission and authority.  And despite 
repeating this over and over, it is those who refuse to accept the
Biblical definitions of submission and authority who do the most complaining
that submission is a patriarchal conspiracy of dominance.


Mark

That original 'from the rib' is very interesting.  It stresses that the 
first man and woman shared the same DNA; a complete gene pool.  That they 
were completely the same species; just different variants.  

The first bride and groom were a perfect match in every way ....  ;-)

								Andrew

 Suzanne, it is not necessary to yell in this conference.  I, for one, would
 appreciate it if you were to refrain from using caps in various places
 in your replies.



 Thank you.



 Jim

    RE: .38  Paul Weiss
    
    > You probably won't believe my response, or understand it even. 
    
    As a multiple college graduate and a Masters candidate in engineering,
    I assure you that I'm up to the task of comprehending your comments in
    any language I happen to speak.
    
    > Jesus washed His disciples feet at the Last Supper to emphasize that they
    > must always have an attitude of service toward each other.  If men have
    > greater authority, that means that they are to be 'a slave of all,' 
    > which is not an authority that many of us desire. 
    
    Servants do not have 'authority' over others.  They *serve* others.
    
    So some/many men have distorted the idea of living 'in service' to others
    to the point of believing they have *authority* over others instead.
    
    I think you will agree that the two concepts ('being a slave to all'
    versus 'having authority [which is more characteristic of being a
    *master*]') contradict each other.
    
    Thanks for confirming this distortion/contradiction.  I agree with you 
    about this much.

    RE: .59  Jim Henderson
    
    The caps are for *emphasis* (not yelling.)  If I could use italics 
    instead, I would.
    
    From now on, I shall surround emphasized words with asterisks instead
    of using caps (per your request.)

Suzanne,

The first man and woman weren't conceived by sexual activity, they were new 
creations.  It's only in sexual activity that you have incest etc.

You missed my point in the perfection of the match; the gene pool of each
was perfectly complete.  Not only 'the same as each other'.  This is not
the case of anyone now.  

�    > The first bride and groom were a perfect match in every way ....  ;-)
�    Just like brother and sister, or father and daughter.

No; they would have a different combination from each parent.  You might 
make a case for identical twins, but there again, their gene pools are now 
corrupted.

There's a lot of interesting leads from and into this, which would go 
considerably off topic, but I have a postscript diagram which illustrates 
it.  If anyone is interested, I can make it publicly available.

						Andrew

| <<< Note 708.51 by PAULKM::WEISS "For I am determined to know nothing, except..." >>>


| The difference in the boats, Glen, is that for Mark, and myself, and others,
| and not incidentally what is the basis for this conference, is to seek the
| truth as revealed in the Bible. The *whole* Bible. So while we might disagree 
| about what it says at a particular point, we agree that it says something 
| worth hearing, that *all* of it is worth hearing, and *all* of it must be 
| taken into account to understand it.

	Paul, what you said above is really what I was saying, and it is
something I think Patricia also believes (please correct me if I am wrong
Patricia). Remember, we are talking about Patricia's beliefs right now, not
mine. But the key point in what you said above is the acknowledging that you
might disagree, but that the book says something worth hearing. 

| As has been explained to you hundreds of times, this is profoundly different
| than coming at it with the belief that it is just another bunch of words, and
| that the 'true meaning' of a particular passage can be obtained while ignoring
| whatever other parts of it you like.  

	Ignoring? Having a DIFFERENT interpretation of what something means is
not ignoring it. Man, where do you come up with this stuff?

| This is what Patricia has proclaimed is her position.

	Can you provide a pointer Paul?

| BTW, this would be a perfect example of 'provoking.'  The stated basis of
| this conference is God's truth, as guided by the Bible.  The *whole* Bible.
| Yet you simply will *not* accept that basis, and repeatedly must attack it,
| and have done so for years.

	Give me a break Paul. I have not stated anywhere in this string that the
Bible is true or false. I have not excluded any part of the Bible. What this 
really seems to be is is another example of you seeing something that is not 
there at all. You're assuming once again. 



Glen

    RE: .57  Andrew
    
    > That original 'from the rib' is very interesting.  It stresses that the 
    > first man and woman shared the same DNA; a complete gene pool.  That they 
    > were completely the same species; just different variants.  

    Actually, there is a more accurate term to describe when closely related
    people mate.
    
    > The first bride and groom were a perfect match in every way ....  ;-)
    
    They were related much like siblings or parents and children.

    RE: .63  Andrew
    
    > The first man and woman weren't conceived by sexual activity, they were 
    > new creations.  It's only in sexual activity that you have...
    
    Didn't Adam and Eve have children, though?

The point was the perfection of the original pair.  Their children had 
vastly richer gene pools than ours of today.  The limitation came after the
flood, with the breakdown of the layer protecting us from the UV
radiations.  That's why it was only at Moses time that marriage to a close
relative was forbidden.  But, like I said, if you want to discuss that, it
needs another note, rather than side-track here. 

							Andrew

    RE: .66  Andrew
    
    > The point was the perfection of the original pair.  Their children had 
    > vastly richer gene pools than ours of today. 
    
    Rich or not, they were the *same* gene pools.
    
    So, the children of Adam and Eve married each other.
    
    > That's why it was only at Moses time that marriage to a close
    > relative was forbidden. 
      
    Before Moses, it was ok for close relatives to marry and bear children
    (even if they were parents and children, or brothers and sisters)?
    
    Interesting.

    >       -< So, the mating of close relatives was common a long time ago? >-
    
    Actually it's still common today, even in Arkansas.  The evidence of
    the inhabitants of the White House support this.

>    I think you will agree that the two concepts ('being a slave to all'
>    versus 'having authority [which is more characteristic of being a
>    *master*]') contradict each other.

No, I don't.  According to Jesus, they go hand in hand.

"Do you understand what I have done for you?  You call me 'Teacher' and
'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am.  Now that I, your Lord and
Teacher have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet."

							John 13:12-14

The fact that followers of Christ are called to manifest and exercise the
authority given them by serving others does not in any way negate that
authority.

Paul

Glen, I choose not to respond.

Paul

�    Before Moses, it was ok for close relatives to marry and bear children
�    (even if they were parents and children, or brothers and sisters)?
    
Siblings could.  Sexual relationships with close relatives (siblings, uncle
/ aunt etc) is only forbidden as part of the law in Leviticus 18:6-16. 
Some of the relationships forbidden there would seem rather obviously out
of line to us, but then this is a full statement of law, including, say, 
prohibition against lying, stealing etc in Leviticus 19:11.  

Sibling marriage was permitted before, as we have Adam and Eve's children
marrying (as you observed), and also other explicit examples.  Abraham
married his half sister, Sarah (Genesis 20:12) and Moses' father and mother
were related as nephew / aunt (Exodus 6:20, and Numbers 26:59). 


							Andrew 

�    Actually it's still common today, even in Arkansas.  The evidence of
�    the inhabitants of the White House support this.

But not legally, not by God's law, nor (I presume) by the laws of the land?

								Andrew

    Andrew, I was joking.

| <<< Note 708.70 by PAULKM::WEISS "For I am determined to know nothing, except..." >>>

| Glen, I choose not to respond.

	Paul, I had figured that one out. :-)  

                   <<< Note 708.64 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Give me a break Paul. I have not stated anywhere in this string that the
>Bible is true or false.                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    	Do we take that to mean that what you've said elsewhere is no
    	longer valid or worthy of consideration?

BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo"

Is this a declaration?

Seriously, I'm curious.  I assume you're not proclaiming an affiliation here.
But why are you doing that?

Paul

| <<< Note 708.75 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| Do we take that to mean that what you've said elsewhere is no longer valid or 
| worthy of consideration?

	What it means is that he made a point about something I stated in this
string, and it was a false statement. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want
to read more into it, that's not my problem.


Glen

| <<< Note 708.76 by PAULKM::WEISS "For I am determined to know nothing, except..." >>>

| BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo"

| Is this a declaration?

	Huh?

| Seriously, I'm curious. I assume you're not proclaiming an affiliation here.
| But why are you doing that?

	Paul, doing what? Diablo is my nickname by a bunch of my friends. 


Glen

re:'Diablo'

As Spanish for "Devil," it's not exactly a name I'd want for myself.

Paul

>Note 708.60  BSS::S_CONLON
>    > You probably won't believe my response, or understand it even.
>
>    As a multiple college graduate and a Masters candidate in engineering,
>    I assure you that I'm up to the task of comprehending your comments in
>    any language I happen to speak.

  It has much less to do with formal education than with spiritual
  quickening.

>    Servants do not have 'authority' over others.  They *serve* others.

  Here is where you show your lack of understanding.

Mark

>    RE: .59  Jim Henderson
    
>    The caps are for *emphasis* (not yelling.)  If I could use italics 
>    instead, I would.
    
>    From now on, I shall surround emphasized words with asterisks instead
>    of using caps (per your request.)



    Thank you.



 Jim

(Aside.)  What caps?  I missed 'em.

I, like Sue, will use caps for emphasis from time to time.  But I'll 
try to be careful about it for the next couple of days.  ;-)  8^o

>    > You probably won't believe my response, or understand it even.
>
>    As a multiple college graduate and a Masters candidate in engineering,
>    I assure you that I'm up to the task of comprehending your comments in
>    any language I happen to speak.

I didn't intend to be insulting, Suzanne.  No need to be quite so defensive
and one-uppish.  I mostly meant that my worldview and yours are sufficiently
different that true understanding, in either direction, is unlikely.

Paul

    RE: .80  Metcalfe
    
    >> Servants do not have 'authority' over others.  They *serve* others.

    > Here is where you show your lack of understanding.
    
    Here is where you show that you are not making sense.
    
    For example, if you had a butler at your house, he would have authority 
    over *you*, right?
    
    If you had a housekeeper, she would be your boss.  If you had a
    driver, s/he would let you know where you were allowed to go (as
    an authority over you.)
    
    If you had been alive during the time of Jesus and if you had owned 
    slaves, they would have told you what to do, right?

    By the way, who married Adam and Eve?  They were the only people
    around, so they must have born children outside of marriage.
    
    Who married their children to each other (and their grandchildren
    to each other?)  Unless Adam or Eve became priests at some point,
    or their children became priests at some point (while married to
    their own siblings,) they all mated and bore children outside of
    marriage.

>    Here is where you show that you are not making sense.

To quote Paul (Weiss):

"I mostly meant that my worldview and yours are sufficiently
different that true understanding, in either direction, is unlikely."

Jesus often spoke of paradoxes.  The widow who gave two cooper coins
gave more than anyone else because she gave of herself.  Yet, to the
onlooking world, it was foolish to think that she had given anything
of value or anything worth noting by the Rabbi.

God's economy does not make sense outside of God's perspective.

Mark

 Please provide the Biblical references for priests performing marriage
 ceremonies.





 Jim

>    By the way, who married Adam and Eve?  They were the only people
>    around, so they must have born children outside of marriage.

Matthew 19 
  3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is
    it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
  4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made
    them at the beginning made them male and female,
  5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall
    cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Your question seems to lookm for a ceremony.  Ceremonies were instituted
sometime after initial marriages.  Nevertheless, there was from the
beginning a cleaving.  It doesn't matter about the cermony, does it?
But a ceremony is very culturally important.  However, even though a
ceremony is not required, there is something about God's joining a man
and a woman that makes a marriage "one flesh."  Therefore, marriage is
not to be treated lightly, regardless of cultural norms or pressures.

  6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath
    joined together, let not man put asunder.

>    >> Servants do not have 'authority' over others.  They *serve* others.
>
>    > Here is where you show your lack of understanding.
>    
>    Here is where you show that you are not making sense.
>    
>    For example, if you had a butler at your house, he would have authority 
>    over *you*, right?
>    
>    If you had a housekeeper, she would be your boss.  If you had a
>    driver, s/he would let you know where you were allowed to go (as
>    an authority over you.)
    
You've got it backwards.  It's not that servants have authority, but that
those in authority are called by Christ to serve.  So taking your butler
analogy (though it doesn't fully fit), if I were to hire a butler, that would
not mean that the butler would tell me what to do.  What it would mean is
that I am called to serve the butler, to make sure that his needs are met, to
think of what is important and necessary for him, and ensure that those
things are provided for him.

Paul

    Bondservants in Jesus' day were treated the same as any other family
    member.  The Gospel of Mark always presents Christ as the Suffering
    Servant.  He came to serve mankind.  Washing the disciples' feet at the
    Last Supper is just one of many examples.
    
    Mike

	Paul, really? I'll have to go back and ask them why they said that
then. 


Glen

 Really.

    RE: Adam & Chava (Eve)

    How people became married to each other has obviously changed over
    time, and is different or has been different for different societies
    and cultures.  Recorded history shows, and certainly we can expect
    that things did not remain static prior to the earliest records.

    Although the Bible gives some information about our beginnings, it is
    not an exhaustive history nor complete catalogue of the way in which 
    human beings have conducted themselves over the centuries and centuries 
    since Adam & Chava so it doesn't give a lot of detail on questions like
    this.

    What exactly is marriage?  I think it is a commitment between a man 
    and a woman to be partners in life with each other, sharing their
    resources and possessions with one another, and cooperating in the areas
    of making a home, earning a living, raising a family, and every other
    endeavor in life.  

    Today marriage includes having the union ratified by a legal document 
    filed with the civil government, and usually some type of public joining 
    ceremony.  

    Back to Adam & Chava - it was God who united them together as wife and 
    husband.  After that it may have been for awhile that what began a 
    marriage was simply the man and woman leaving their parents to cleave to 
    each other - marked or sealed by having sexual intercourse with each other.
    I don't think that it implies any illegitimacy to their union or their 
    children though.

    When it began to be the custom to mark or begin a marriage by some sort
    of public ceremony, and/or by a marriage contract between the two in-
    dividuals and/or their families, and later by some sort of legal document
    given out by the civil government, I don't know, but it seems to have
    come at some later date.

    With lots of couples living together without that document from the 
    civil government, and some successfully suing for "palimony" when they
    disolve their union, perhaps we're headed back to defining marriage
    simply by moving in together and living the way a married couple would.
    Of course in a society as complex and large as ours, that leaves open the 
    question of legal rights and obligations on the part of each individual 
    which seems to usually only become an issue when one of them dies, or one 
    of them abandons the marriage, or they agree to split up (divorce).  If
    the world were still the way it was when Adam & Chava were in the garden
    before sin made its abode in the hearts of humanity, legal issues would
    not even come up.

    Leslie

    
    An interesting note about bondservants, hopefully.  Bondservants were
    those who had earned their freedom but willfully chose to continue in
    the service of their Master.  They would have a piece of their ear cut
    off (knotched) as a symbol of this chosen allegiance.
    
    Jill

	I now know why they call me Diablo. It's because the softball team I
coach is called the Flames. 



Glen

Hi Suzanne .... 

� By the way, who married Adam and Eve?  
frankly, it came over as so insincere, I was tempted to reply :
	"no-one else - they married each other" ;-) 

You must be aware that .85 presumes a rather naively, culture-bound,
perspective of marriage formalisation - though others have answered 
this aspect, and it has been discussed in the past. 

I was a bit puzzled by your reference to priests as well, until I realised
that as a non-Christian you may be tied into another cultural backwater,
which associates the title with a position in the formal state church
organisation, rather than with the function Jesus fulfils for those who
receive salvation.  It has nothing to do with performing marriage
ceremonies.  That is a state function, which may be delegated to any it
cares to license.  In the church of England, and the Roman Catholic church,
I believe this is usually someone they would call a 'priest', but that is
very different from the Biblical role. 

The idea of someone establishing a registry office and formal marriage 
ceremony in order to embarrass everyone who lived beforehand who hadn't had 
to suffer the administration is really ludicrous.

However, the idea of God giving Adam and Eve to each other in marriage as
the perfect match is a great start...

Tell me, do you honestly feel that .85 represents a situation of personal 
concern?  I'm not trying to be offensive to you, but if it is the case, I 
need to understand this mindset.

							Andrew

    RE: .96  Andrew
    
    > I was a bit puzzled by your reference to priests as well, until I 
    > realised that as a non-Christian...
    
    My reference to 'priests' should have clued you in to the fact that
    I'm a Roman Catholic.  (Or is everyone who doesn't hold the precise
    identical beliefs espoused in this file labeled a *non*-Christian
    by default?)
    
    > Tell me, do you honestly feel that .85 represents a situation of personal 
    > concern?  I'm not trying to be offensive to you, but if it is the case, I 
    > need to understand this mindset.
    
    It *is* a personal concern of mine because the story of Adam and Eve is
    being used to defend the notion that women are born of men's bodies
    (which goes *way* beyond ludicrous) and are therefore subject to men's 
    authority.
    
    If we get this notion (of women being necessarily subordinate to men
    due to the concept that men gave birth to women,) then I think we
    need to look at everything else we could get by taking the story of
    Adam and Eve absolutely literally.  
    
    One of the matters of great concern is the idea that closely related 
    people mated (as did their children and grandchildren.)  Even if we 
    allow that this identical DNA wouldn't be a problem for their progeny, 
    what about the moral aspects of closely related people mating?  Is the
    'gene pool' the only concern when it comes to incest?  Was this practice
    accepted as moral until the 'gene pool' gave out?  Is it moral *now* as
    long as the people involved are adults and make sure not to mix their
    genes by creating an offspring?  These are concerns if the only way to
    take the story of Adam and Eve is as an absolutely factual piece of
    history.
    
    This topic is about patriarchy.  The current discussion is about a 
    Garden of Eden which was lost due to a woman (who was *not* created as 
    the human species, but was 'made from a rib' of the first human so that
    he would have a mate.)  So, right off the bat, women are not on this
    Earth for our own sakes (such as our *own* search for salvation and
    service to God), but rather women were brought here for men.
    
    This woman (Eve) supposedly worked in cahoots with the devil to tempt 
    the man to go away from God.  This is the patriarchal notion that
    when women are *not* subordinate to men, the devil gets a foothold in
    their lives.
    
    Now, obviously, you believe this notion.  However, this is what people
    are talking about when they describe a patriarchal culture.  Since this
    is the topic under discussion, after all, it is worth mentioning.

>    My reference to 'priests' should have clued you in to the fact that
>    I'm a Roman Catholic.  (Or is everyone who doesn't hold the precise
>    identical beliefs espoused in this file labeled a *non*-Christian
>    by default?)

Roman Catholics are not exempt from Christianity.  Unquickened individuals
are.

>    being used to defend the notion that women are born of men's bodies
>    (which goes *way* beyond ludicrous) and are therefore subject to men's 

Yep.  A lot of ludicrous notions about Christianity such as healing the
blind and lame, and multiplying loaves and fishes.  It just doesn't make
sense.

>    This topic is about patriarchy.  The current discussion is about a 
>    Garden of Eden which was lost due to a woman (who was *not* created as 
>    the human species, but was 'made from a rib' of the first human so that
>    he would have a mate.)  So, right off the bat, women are not on this
>    Earth for our own sakes (such as our *own* search for salvation and
>    service to God), but rather women were brought here for men.

A closer read of the Scripture is warranted.  "Male and female create He them."
God created them both.  "Made from rib" or "formed from the dust"... does
this mean that man is subordinate to dust?  That's the logic you employ.

"It is not good that man should be alone" is not a comment on superiority
or subordinate roles.  It's a comment on the incompleteness of man and
his need for a mate, a complement to complete the whole.

Why is this so difficult a concept to accept?

>    This woman (Eve) supposedly worked in cahoots with the devil to tempt 
>    the man to go away from God.  This is the patriarchal notion that
>    when women are *not* subordinate to men, the devil gets a foothold in
>    their lives.
    
A closer read... (oh, said that) shows that Adam was there the whole time.
There was no woman/serpent conspiracy.

Genesis 3
  6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was
    pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took
    of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with
    her; and he did eat.

Her husband was *WITH* her at the time.  He did nothing to change the 
conversation.  He is as guilty as she.

I suspect that you have a lot of preconceived notions about the Bible 
(and true Christianity) to shed.  I hope that you will search the Scriptures
to discover the truth it has to offer.  Climb over any doctrine for truth.

Mark

    yes, it's time we forgot about traditions and myths and got back to
    God's Word.  Traditions are fallible and often uninspired.  God's Word
    is infallible and directly inspired.
    
    Mike

�    My reference to 'priests' should have clued you in to the fact that
�    I'm a Roman Catholic.

Ah!  Sorry, Suzanne!  I honestly didn't realise.  I guess I hadn't picked
that up elsewhere, because I would have expected more alignment to
scripture (eg in .34).  No offense intended.  Certainly Roman Catholics
have been a part of the fellowship here in the past, and been very welcome!

In fact, in this case I feel more comfortable in using the Bible as a
mutually acceptable base line, rather than trying to present it as a
conference basis which you might not hold as a personal authority.  Outside
the Bible, any ideas we present are mereely personal opinion.  They may be
right, they may be wrong.  We can't substantiate them without authority,
and here, we take the Bible as authority.  That's the grounds of the
conference and unity here.

So, on to your observations...

[ 1.]

� It *is* a personal concern of mine because the story of Adam and Eve is
� being used to defend the notion that women are born of men's bodies
� (which goes *way* beyond ludicrous) and are therefore subject to men's 
� authority.

I'm not sure where you're geting this one from.  I don't think anyone here 
has expressed any such idea, unless you're taking that from the quote of 1 
Corinthians 11:12 'For as woman came from man, so also man is born of 
woman'.  Now that verse is merely a part of Paul's argument that neither
sex is independent of the other; neither can take pride over the other,
both have their roles and functions, and men and women require each other.
No question of authority in that sense.  However, it does stress the 
literal truth of the creation record.

[ 2.]

Now I'll summarise, that you seem concerned about the marriage of Adam and 
Eve's offspring, which you would see as incest.  My dictionary defines 
incest as 'sexual union between people too closely related to marry'.  Just 
because a certain relationship is too close for marriage now, it does not 
imply that it was so in the beginning.  Certainly, some relationships are 
offensive because they cross other moral boundaries, for instance, where a 
marital relationship already exists elsewhere.  I am not suggesting that it 
was ever acceptable to transgress these.  What I am saying is that it 
appears that in the beginning, people were able to marry siblings.  It may 
seem offensive to us now, because we have never experienced the perfection 
of creation.  However, the fall was practical and progressive in its 
effect, and after a certain time, it was right for God to prohibit these
close relationships.  I believe that this prohibition had a practical basis 
as well as a moral application in an expanding population.  This moral
application has now become second nature to teh majority of today's
population.  If this is what God's Word informs us, we need a very good
foundation to reinterpret it, even if it seems strange to our culture. 

It wasn't just a matter of the gene pool giving out, nor a matter of 
procreation, but of divinely revealed and permitted morality.

[ 3.]

Now, here you introduce another idea which we have not discussed in this
note, bringing in the respective roles and purposes of men and women.  Your
specific argument appears to reject a literal understanding of scripture,
because you see it as presenting an unacceptable social order [is that an
option for Roman Catholics?  I had thought that scripture was held holy by
them, generally?] 

Do you have a problem with men and women serving complementary and 
specialist roles?  I understand scripture to indicate this.  If we are to 
examine references and implications, it is a large subject and merits its 
own note.  If you can accept it, we can take it as assumed.

[ 4.]

The creation from the rib (and is that worse than being created from 
dust?) emphasises that the human race is one species, and not two.  I 
understand that this is born out by genetic proof, which traces our race 
back to one original pair, and can even deduce a filtering reduction 
corresponding to the population lost in the flood.  I can't substantiate 
that as it's not my field.  I can only throw it in for you to take or 
leave.  I'm sure there's others here who know more about it.

[ 5.]

Your concern about our role here :
� So, right off the bat, women are not on this Earth for our own sakes
- is not at all what I understand the New Testament to teach (the New, 
  because there it's clearest), for instance, in Galatians 3:28 :
    "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for 
     you are all one in Christ Jesus.  If you belong to Christ then you are 
     Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Now, obviously in this life there *are* all these categories as far as 
people go.  The message is that before God our responsibility is 
individual and personal.  No one has ultimate responsibility for anyone 
else's soul; neither can anyone at the judgement day claim that their 
rejection of God's righteousness is the fault of another.  We each, 
regardless of sex, exist for the glory of God, to fulfil earthly functions 
(Ephesians 1:11) and for our individual response to salvation.

Two examples - 
First, the Sadduccees test question about the woman who married 
each of 7 brothers who deceased, in Matthew 22:23-32 underlines that the 
woman's eternity is entirely independent of the men she was married to, as 
far as her eternal independence goes.

Second, 1 Corinthians 7:13 concerns the situation of a woman who becomes a 
believer, but has an unconverted spouse.  The significant point there is 
that her conversion is not at all the less because of his unconversion.  I 
know quite a few marriages where the wife is a Christian but the husband 
is not.  Both those wives, and those with Christian husbands are on 
individual paths to holiness before the LORD.  Philippians 1:6 applies to
both : 
    "...being confident of this, that He who began a good work in you will 
     carry it on to completion until the day of Jesus Christ."

Now the converted husband and wife team have a particular advantage in 
combining their spiritual walk which is denied to the man or woman who has 
an unconverted spouse, but they are still ultimately individually
responsible before the LORD. 

So the two examples show that everyon, even married women, are independent
of evryone else in both their eternal destination and their eternal 
condition.

[ 6.]
� This woman (Eve) supposedly worked in cahoots with the devil to tempt 
� the man to go away from God.
The New Testament clearly states that Eve was *deceived* by the devil.  She 
wasn't working in cahoots.  This is in 2 Corinthians 11:3, and 1 Timothy 
2:14.  Careful consideration shows that Adam's fall was even more culpable, 
in that he had the visible warning in front of him, and yet chose to fall.

[ 7.]
� This is the patriarchal notion that when women are *not* subordinate to
� men, the devil gets a foothold in their lives.
Can you give a reference for this one?  I think you are possibly taking a
specific case, and seeing it as inappropriate for general application.


A tricky subject, but all the more important to get to grips with!  I hope
this helps us to progress, after my earlier faux pas! 

I'm rather badly over length for reply.  I crave indulgence there...

						God bless
							Andrew

        <<< Note 708.97 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>

>    My reference to 'priests' should have clued you in to the fact that
>    I'm a Roman Catholic.  (Or is everyone who doesn't hold the precise
>    identical beliefs espoused in this file labeled a *non*-Christian
>    by default?)
    
    	Roman Catholic merely by birth?  Or Roman Catholic by practice,
    	by faith, by worship?
    
    	You do more than reject the PRECICE identical beliefs espoused
    	in this file.  You reject even what is RELATED to those beliefs,
    	and argue vehemently against them.  Furthermore you have rejected
    	(elsewhere) many of those things that specifically make Catholicism 
    	distinct from other Christian faith expressions.
    
    	Let me ask you, Suzanne -- why here?  What is your purrpose for
    	your participation here?  Wouldn't your point of view be more
    	appropriate in a forum like womannotes?  Do you hope to sway
    	a few believing Christians from their faith?  Or do you seek to
    	justify to believing Christians your beliefs?  What purpose 
    	would such justification serve (if you ever managed to do it)?
    	Would it make you feel better?  More acceptable among those
    	who view your arguments negatively?
    
    	You've expressed your position well and clearly.  I'm not sure
    	what more you could be seeking at this point...

<------ why ask why? 

Joe ... 

...think we could give the benefit of the doubt, and take the questions at
face value?  I don't frequent other non-work conferences, so am privileged 
to be free of preconceived ideas ;-}

It's natural for Suzanne to ask here the questions that trouble her about
the Christianity she reads of here.  In fact, I guess I invited her really... 
It's no good asking these questions in womannotes unless they have the answers.

							;-)
								Andrew

    Andrew,
    
    Your a gentleman!  Something that even this feminist can respect.
    
                                     Patricia

Thanks Patricia.  An embarrassed one too ... ;-)

							Andrew

He's British... he *has* to be a gentleman.  ;-)

Us'n Americans wipe our noses on our sleeves.  &^6

    RE: .98  Metcalfe
    
    >> My reference to 'priests' should have clued you in to the fact that
    >> I'm a Roman Catholic.  (Or is everyone who doesn't hold the precise
    >> identical beliefs espoused in this file labeled a *non*-Christian
    >> by default?)
    
    > Roman Catholics are not exempt from Christianity.  Unquickened 
    > individuals are.
    
    Who decides if a person is quickened or not - you?  If someone comes
    along to talk the way you talk and write the way you write, do you
    judge them as 'quickened'?  Or do you leave it up to God to judge?
    
    >> being used to defend the notion that women are born of men's bodies
    >> (which goes *way* beyond ludicrous) and are therefore subject to men's 

    > Yep.  A lot of ludicrous notions about Christianity such as healing the
    > blind and lame, and multiplying loaves and fishes.  It just doesn't make
    > sense.
    
    Miracles are in their own class.
    
    When it comes to looking at our species and seeing that women give
    birth to men, it's pretty ludicrous to say that actually it is *men*
    who give birth to *women* (and if you don't think people actually
    say this, allow me to point you to a poster slogan that talks about
    women coming a man's rib, not from his head or his feet, etc.)
    
    Looking at a species where the females bear the young and suggesting
    that a man actually gave birth (in a way) to the first woman sounds
    a bit like 'womb-envy' (it really does.)
    
    > "Made from rib" or "formed from the dust"... does this mean that man is 
    > subordinate to dust?  That's the logic you employ.
                        
    'Dust' is an inanimate substance.  Being formed from the body part of
    a member of a living species does imply that this new being is a sub-
    species of the first species, though.
    
    You don't *deny* that women are supposed to be suborinate to men, do
    you?  What about that model:   God
    				  Jesus
    				   Men
    				  Women
    
    	This puts women on a lower scale than men.  I'm just trying to
    	show how the 'Adam and Eve' story fits into this model.

        <<< Note 708.108 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>

>    >> being used to defend the notion that women are born of men's bodies
>    >> (which goes *way* beyond ludicrous) and are therefore subject to men's 
>
>    > Yep.  A lot of ludicrous notions about Christianity such as healing the
>    > blind and lame, and multiplying loaves and fishes.  It just doesn't make
>    > sense.
>    
>    Miracles are in their own class.
    
    	Was the formation of Eve not a miracle?
    
>    say this, allow me to point you to a poster slogan that talks about
>    women coming a man's rib, not from his head or his feet, etc.)
    
    	The rib -- the bone closest to the man's heart!  How appropriate!
    	How wonderful!  How symbolic!

    RE: .101  Andrew
    
    Thanks for your note.  Patricia is right about you being a gentleman.
    
    > Do you have a problem with men and women serving complementary and 
    > specialist roles? 
    
    You bet I do, unless women get to pick which roles we want reserved
    for us.  (If so, I say we get to pick the jobs which pay the most,
    like CEOs, for starters.)  :/
    
    If you're talking about our roles in personal relationships (and not
    in the world at large,) then I don't think the idea of 'complementary
    and specialist roles' makes a lot of sense.  Does only *one* partner
    in the couple get to 'love'?  Does only *one* partner in the couple
    get to nourish their children?  Does only *one* partner in the couple
    strive to protect the children, the home and the family as much as
    s/he can?  Does only *one* partner in the couple strive to be faithful
    to the other?
    
    > I understand that this is born out by genetic proof, which traces our 
    > race back to one original pair, and can even deduce a filtering reduction 
    > corresponding to the population lost in the flood. 
    
    What do you mean by 'race' - the human race or 'our race' (one of several)
    as human beings?
    
    If you believe you have scientific PROOF (in genetics) which bears
    out the idea that our entire species began from a single pair, I would
    love to see it.

    I think the Biblical model is:
    
                           Triunity of God
                                / \
                               /   \
                              /     \
                             /       \
                            /         \
                          Man ------ Woman

>    Who decides if a person is quickened or not - you?  If someone comes
>    along to talk the way you talk and write the way you write, do you
>    judge them as 'quickened'?  Or do you leave it up to God to judge?

The Holy Spirit quickens.  And other than that, people are known by
their fruit.  Test the spirits, as the Bible says.

>    Miracles are in their own class.

What would you call creation?  What would you call forming man from
the dust of the earth?  What would you call creating woman from a rib?
(Sorry.  You already answered that: you called it ludicrous.)

>    Looking at a species where the females bear the young and suggesting
>    that a man actually gave birth (in a way) to the first woman sounds
>    a bit like 'womb-envy' (it really does.)

Then you haven't heard it properly.  Man didn't CREATE woman, nor does 
woman CREATE man through birth.  God created man and woman.  Adam had
nothing to do with it.  As far as birthing goes, a woman CANNOT give
birth without a man.  The product of their union is NOT creation on
the part of the man and the woman; it is the product of their union
and the laws of nature that God CREATED.

>    'Dust' is an inanimate substance.  Being formed from the body part of
>    a member of a living species does imply that this new being is a sub-
>    species of the first species, though.

Does it?  That's counter to the evolution message by which species
improve.  I think you're logic is flawed.  Again:

(1) God created man
(2) God created woman
(3) God created and therefore placed value in each
(4) God did not place one as subhuman and the other as human but both as human
(5) Being created from a body part has significance but not in the
     way you want to have it implied (woman as inferior).  the Bible doesn't
     imply it; we don't imply it; yet you seem bent on making the implication.
     The significance is that man and woman are one flesh.

>    You don't *deny* that women are supposed to be suborinate to men, do
>    you?  What about that model:   God->man->woman

You don't demonstrate an understanding of true authority, the biblical model
for marriage and the picture it represents between God and man, or the 
reasons God made women in the first place.  Therefore, I won't play into
this by speaking things you would find senseless.

>    	This puts women on a lower scale than men.  I'm just trying to
>    	show how the 'Adam and Eve' story fits into this model.

World view versus God's perspective.

mark

>    > Do you have a problem with men and women serving complementary and 
>    > specialist roles? 
>    
>    You bet I do, unless women get to pick which roles we want reserved
>    for us.  (If so, I say we get to pick the jobs which pay the most,
>    like CEOs, for starters.)  :/

Recognizing the :/, I have two observations nonethless:

(1) this shows a hunger for worldly power and authority
(2) what stops you? the "old boy network?"  Why play by their game?
     Invent your own rules.  Pay yourselves well.  Some women have
     done just that.  Power exists in the hands of those who can wield
     it (worldly or otherwise).  Just remember what Jesus had to say about it.

>    If you're talking about our roles in personal relationships (and not
>    in the world at large,) then I don't think the idea of 'complementary
>    and specialist roles' makes a lot of sense.  Does only *one* partner
>    in the couple get to 'love'?  Does only *one* partner in the couple
>    get to nourish their children?  Does only *one* partner in the couple
>    strive to protect the children, the home and the family as much as
>    s/he can?  Does only *one* partner in the couple strive to be faithful
>    to the other?

Using the same logic:  should both partners have their hand on the gas pump?
Should both partners feed the child at the same time?

Partnership isn't about doing 50.0000% of everything; it is about
doing 100% of everything in concert.  Does only one member of a
symphony play at a time?

Mark

| <<< Note 708.107 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>


| Us'n Americans wipe our noses on our sleeves.  &^6

	Looks like this was a bad day to wear short sleeves.... :-)

    RE: .109  Joe Oppelt
    
    >> Miracles are in their own class.
    
    > Was the formation of Eve not a miracle?
    
    Not for an infinite Supreme Being, it wasn't.  Forming the billions
    and billions of stars, planets, asteroids, and other space stuff would
    have been a tad trickier to do, but even all that isn't a miracle for
    an infinite Being.
    
    > The rib -- the bone closest to the man's heart!  How appropriate!
    > How wonderful!  How symbolic!
    
    Men (and women) start to grow in the bodies of women at a place close to 
    *women's* hearts.  (And this is far, far more than symbolic.)

        <<< Note 708.116 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>

>    >> Miracles are in their own class.
>    
>    > Was the formation of Eve not a miracle?
>    
>    Not for an infinite Supreme Being, it wasn't.  
    
    	Then neither would be the healings and all that you said were
    	in their own class...
    
>    > The rib -- the bone closest to the man's heart!  How appropriate!
>    > How wonderful!  How symbolic!
>    
>    Men (and women) start to grow in the bodies of women at a place close to 
>    *women's* hearts.  (And this is far, far more than symbolic.)
    
    	Who is trying to take away the beauty and truth and significance
    	of the womb?  If anything, I see it coming from feminism when it
    	tries to deny the unique place of women in creation's ongoing
    	scheme!

    

    RE: .113  Metcalfe
    
    >>> Do you have a problem with men and women serving complementary and 
    >>> specialist roles? 
    >>    
    >> You bet I do, unless women get to pick which roles we want reserved
    >> for us.  (If so, I say we get to pick the jobs which pay the most,
    >> like CEOs, for starters.)  :/

    > Recognizing the :/, I have two observations nonethless:

    > (1) this shows a hunger for worldly power and authority
    
    No - it shows how much *some folks* would resist the idea of
    'complementary and specialist roles' if *women* had the first pick
    of roles (and happened to take the ones offering power and authority.)
    
    > (2) what stops you? the "old boy network?"  Why play by their game?
    > Invent your own rules.  Pay yourselves well.  Some women have
    > done just that.  Power exists in the hands of those who can wield
    > it (worldly or otherwise).  Just remember what Jesus had to say about it.
    
    No thanks - I make a fine (breadwinner class) living based on my
    education, work experience and talent.  When I finish my Masters
    degree in engineering, my prospects are likely to get even better,
    in fact.  Most importantly, I'm having *the time of my life* in the
    work I do (and in my studies.)  I'm also very happily married.
    
    As mentioned above, it's one thing to say 'Gee, do you have a problem
    with complementary and specialist roles for men and women' - but it
    doesn't sound so attractive (all of a sudden) if people of the other
    sex got first pick of the 'roles' that were distinct to each sex.

>    >> Miracles are in their own class.
>    
>    > Was the formation of Eve not a miracle?
>    
>    Not for an infinite Supreme Being, it wasn't. 

Neither was the feeding of the five thousand or healing the woman of
her issue a miracle...to the Supreme Being.

As for incubators, science is rapidly diminishing the need for them.
Aldus Huxley's brave new world is not nearly as far fetched as it once
was.  Babies being able to survive outside the womb are getting younger
and younger.

Don't get me wrong.  I think it is a wonderful and beautiful function
of women.  Joy and I had four children this way and enjoyed each one.
However, the fact that woman was build to incubate is not less miraculous
than the man's ability to fertilize.  That's the differentiation of gender
in the species.

Mark

>    As mentioned above, it's one thing to say 'Gee, do you have a problem
>    with complementary and specialist roles for men and women' - but it
>    doesn't sound so attractive (all of a sudden) if people of the other
>    sex got first pick of the 'roles' that were distinct to each sex.

That's an assumption on your part.  John Lennon was a house mom.
(And getting shot had no relation to it.)

And you make it sound as if men got first pick.  Now that's ludicrous.

Who defines right and wrong?  Who defines contrast and complement?
Who defines male and female?  Who defines?

Not you.  Not me.  Not men.  Not women.  When we get off the "they
pick" and "they pick" wagon, and realize what choices we *have* been
given as creatures of God, then we may begin to see things from God's
perspective.

Mark

        <<< Note 708.119 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>

>    with complementary and specialist roles for men and women' - but it
>    doesn't sound so attractive (all of a sudden) if people of the other
>    sex got first pick of the 'roles' that were distinct to each sex.

    	So you *ARE* trying to diminish the value and significance of
    	the womb...  Why do feminists hate their own bodies so?  Do
    	they think that Ephesians 5:29 applies only to men?  ("No man
    	hates his own body...")

    >it's pretty ludicrous to say that actually it is *men*
    >    who give birth to *women* 
    
    I absolutely 100% agree!  Especially since God never says man gave
    birth to women either.  He says that he *created* woman from man so
    that they would fit together perfectly.
    
    And *this* is the most challenged concept of the 90's.
    
    I'm not sure this forum or the wonderful minds that enjoy it can change
    the minds of a world that denies the Deity and Authority of Jehovah.
    
    Nancy

    RE: .120  Metcalfe
    
    > And you make it sound as if men got first pick.  Now that's ludicrous.
    
    Let's just say it turned out awfully convenient for men to be the ones
    who (for many centuries) were the only ones allowed to own property
    or to vote.  (Then again, what good would a patriarchy be if it didn't
    reserve these things for men, right?)  :/

    RE: .121  Joe
    
    >> with complementary and specialist roles for men and women' - but it
    >> doesn't sound so attractive (all of a sudden) if people of the other
    >> sex got first pick of the 'roles' that were distinct to each sex.

    > So you *ARE* trying to diminish the value and significance of
    > the womb...  
    
    Why would you presume that I would *not* choose for women to be the
    ones to bear young?????  
    
    I simply don't see why women can't bear our species' young ***and***
    be the CEOs (if we happened to get first pick of this particular role.)
    
    This scenario didn't occur to you, though, did it?  :/
    
    > Why do feminists hate their own bodies so?  Do
    > they think that Ephesians 5:29 applies only to men?  ("No man
    > hates his own body...")
    
    You just flew off to the moon with this one.  Drop me a card when
    you return.

    re .122
    
    BCV please!
    
    (now that I understand the lingo)

>    I'm not sure this forum or the wonderful minds that enjoy it can change
>    the minds of a world that denies the Deity and Authority of Jehovah.

Amen, Nancy.

BTW, if I personally had first pick, you can have all the CEO jobs and the
power jobs and the authority jobs.  I do not have, nor have I ever had, any
interest in them.  My performance reviews consistently point out that I
should be more career oriented, but I have no intention of becoming so.  I
would, and have, pick nurturing my family over anything 'power' has to offer.

Paul

        <<< Note 708.124 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>

>    >> doesn't sound so attractive (all of a sudden) if people of the other
>    >> sex got first pick of the 'roles' that were distinct to each sex.
>
>    > So you *ARE* trying to diminish the value and significance of
>    > the womb...  
>    
>    Why would you presume that I would *not* choose for women to be the
>    ones to bear young?????  
    
    	That is one of the few roles I can see as being distince to
    	womanhood.
    
>    I simply don't see why women can't bear our species' young ***and***
>    be the CEOs (if we happened to get first pick of this particular role.)
    
    	Being a CEO is not distinctly male.
    
>    This scenario didn't occur to you, though, did it?  :/
    
    	Not from what you've written.

    RE: .127  Joe Oppelt
    
    >> Why would you presume that I would *not* choose for women to be the
    >> ones to bear young?????  
    
    > That is one of the few roles I can see as being distinct[?] to
    > womanhood.
    
    If men bore the young and women had most or all the other good 
    opportunities in life, then men would be women (and women would 
    be men.)  This isn't at all what I am suggesting.
    
    >> I simply don't see why women can't bear our species' young ***and***
    >> be the CEOs (if we happened to get first pick of this particular role.)
    
    > Being a CEO is not distinctly male.
    
    Bingo!  We agree on something.
    
    So if women (with all our biological specifics) could have first pick 
    of the roles that are *not* strictly biological, then how about if
    we picked the roles that offer the most money, power and authority?
    Would some others *then* be saying, 'Gee, do you have a problem with
    complementary and specialist roles for men and women?'
    
    >> This scenario didn't occur to you, though, did it?  :/
    
    > Not from what you've written.
    
    Believe me, if I'd have meant for men to have the babies instead of
    women, I'd have said so outright.  It was one heck of a thing for
    you to presume.

    	I can only see the biological roles of fathering (fertilizing)
    	and mothering (birthing) as being distinct to gender.  Sorry
    	if I misapplied that to what you said.

      Hi Ms Conlon,
    
        Hope I got the spelling right!  ;-)
    
        And if you mentioned your first name, I missed it and thats
        why I didn't address you by first name.  I like to be more
        personal than the above.
    
        I don't want to downplay the importance of women (and all
        people) being treated with utmost dignity and respect, although
        it is possible that we may differ on just what constitutes
        such treatment.
    
        I just want to say that the main perception I have picked up
        is your multiple references to 'getting to pick first.'
    
        Think on that notion and read Phillipians 2:3-8.
    
        Jesus comes along and chooses a path of _condescension_.  He
        doesn't exclaim, "Me first!" rather He says, "I'll be last."
    
        He esteems ALL others with more regard than Himself.  His whole
        life just reeks of wanting to somehow make things better for the
        other person.  And he has nowhere to lay His head...no home and
        not even anywhere to lay it in death.
    
        I'm not saying there aren't important societal issues.  I'm not
        saying women don't get shafted in ways that are a real drag.
        All I am saying is, "In your heart of hearts, WHAT DRIVES YOU?"
    
        And I really hope that for me and you and the rest of us, we will
        be more concerned with washing other's feet rather than getting
        our own feet washed.  (That would be yesterday's cultural
        equivalent to real submission - something only for a slave, yet
        your Creator stoops to wash YOUR feet!)
    
        How does that jive with your 'me first' agenda?
    
        I'm not trying to downplay your zeal to help women.  I'm just 
        trying to challenge you to maybe communicate a little more 
        visibly the message of the cross "for the message of the cross
        is the power of God unto salvation."
    
        And believe me, this is a challenge to me!  How I fall short of
        this.
    
        Somehow, in some ways, the chiefest office is the one where our
        heart says, "Me last."
    
    							Tony
                 

        It should be no surprise that, as men put their focus outside the
        home, on careers, "ministries", sports, hobbies, etc, that the
        women should not want to be left trying to manage the home, the
        children, the schooling, by themselves.  The women have left the
        home, too.  The big losers in all this are the kids. The future.

        This battle between the sexes is deplorable.  The children and
        their grandparents are caught in the crossfire.  My heart is broken
        for the bitterness and anger I have felt from some of the replies
        in this thread.  The wreckage of a whole generation steeped in this
        poison is strewn across this land.  The hearts of men and women
        have been hardened alike.

        "And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the
        heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the
        earth with a curse."
	  	Malachi 4:6  

        "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge,
        giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as
        being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not
        hindered."
		1st Peter 3:7

        P.S. "as unto the weaker vessel" does not infer that women are
        inferior, but that men should treat their wives with care and
        respect, as they would a delicate vase.  I don't believe that
        wife-beating, abandonment, or seeking after the glories of careers
        and sports while neglecting the home fit well with or can be
        excused by this verse.
	

    .128
    
    !So if women (with all our biological specifics) could have first pick 
    !of the roles that are *not* strictly biological, then how about if
    !we picked the roles that offer the most money, power and authority?
    !Would some others *then* be saying, 'Gee, do you have a problem with
    !complementary and specialist roles for men and women?'
    
    Complementary and specialized roles <> roles that offer money, power
    and authority.  You have a "worldly" sense of logic in regards to 
    the "spiritual" nature of roles for men and women.  In the vernacular,
    it does not compute.
    
    Apples and oranges.  Oh, they're both talking about power and
    authority all right.  But just as Nicodemus was confused by Jesus
    and asked "how can a grown man reenter his mother's womb?", this 
    demonstrates a confusion as to the spiritual roles in contrast to the
    worldly way of things.
    
    Mark

    > BCV please!
    
    >(now that I understand the lingo)
    > End of note
    
    :-) :-) :-) x 1million I have no clue what this means.

    RE: .130  Tony         
    
    > I just want to say that the main perception I have picked up
    > is your multiple references to 'getting to pick first.'
    
    Don't focus too much on this because the phrase was only used as
    an instrument of explanation.  Obviously, our species has been
    here far too long for women (or anyone) to get a chance to 'pick
    [gender roles] first' today.
    
    As I've explained several times now, when someone says, 'Gee, do
    you have a problem with complementary and specialized roles for
    men and women,' I have to say 'You bet I do' in the context of
    a discussion about patriarchy (a system which originally prevented
    women from being allowed to own property and/or to vote, among
    many injustices.)
    
    The idea of 'picking first' is not that I want women (or me in
    particular) to be allowed to do this - hey, it's eons too late
    for anyone to get a 'first pick' of cultural roles.  What I am
    saying is that some men wouldn't appreciate the idea of 'complentary
    and specialized roles' if it meant they couldn't do what they would
    *like most* to do (like being a software engineer, or a CEO, or
    whatever it is a person might choose to do) because such endeavers
    were considered to belong to women only (as women's 'specialty'.)
    
    When it comes to biological activities, obviously we do have
    specific physical actions/activities that are unique to each
    sex.  Everything else (in social, education, professional, etc.,
    situations) is most appropriate when *shared* between the sexes,
    as opposed to being divided up in a 'complementary and specialized'
    way.
    
    Do you see what I'm trying to say now?
    
    Suzanne

    RE: .131  
    
    > It should be no surprise that, as men put their focus outside the
    > home, on careers, "ministries", sports, hobbies, etc, that the
    > women should not want to be left trying to manage the home, the
    > children, the schooling, by themselves.  The women have left the
    > home, too.  The big losers in all this are the kids. The future.
    
    When people talk about Welfare families, quite a few folks say that
    the kids are the 'losers' because their mothers *do not* leave the
    home to work.  
    
    Children aren't ruined nor is the future 'saved' on the basis of
    whether or not mothers (or fathers) work.  Charles Dickens had
    a father who went to debtors prison (and Charles himself was forced
    to work - as a *child* - in a horrid place where poor children worked
    long days for little money in virtual slavery.)  He used his horrid
    childhood experiences in poverty as the basis for many of his works
    that remain classics to this day.
    
    > This battle between the sexes is deplorable.  The children and
    > their grandparents are caught in the crossfire.  
    
    This is not a new argument.  From 1848 until 1920, women fought for
    the right to vote (for 72 long years.)  Many, many, many women worked
    in factories during the industrial revolution up through the 20th
    century.  In the 1920s, women were more commonly found in American
    offices (the name 'flappers' was a description of the rain boots that
    many office women wore - they had straps which were often left
    unfastened and made a 'flapping' noise as they walked in American
    cities across this country.)
    
    Both of my grandmothers worked outside the home (my mother's mother
    worked outside the home during her entire life until retirement.)
    They were both born in the 19th century (and they both gave birth
    to my respective parents late in life.)
    
    > My heart is broken for the bitterness and anger I have felt from some 
    > of the replies in this thread.  The wreckage of a whole generation 
    > steeped in this poison is strewn across this land.  The hearts of men 
    > and women have been hardened alike.
                   
    This argument didn't ruin the 19th century (nor did it ruin the late
    18th century in Europe when the women's movement began there.)
    
    If some convince themselves that women's rights is the ruination of
    everything they hold dear, the fight will go on for another few
    hundred years.  If women could fight for 72 years to get the right
    to vote, it shows women have great patience and determination to
    attain justice (and they won't be stopped by someone attempting
    to get women - or men - to feel guilty about it.)

    RE: .132  Mark    
    
    > Complementary and specialized roles <> roles that offer money, power
    > and authority.  You have a "worldly" sense of logic in regards to 
    > the "spiritual" nature of roles for men and women.  In the vernacular,
    > it does not compute.
    
    If you say that men have authority over women in the home and in
    spiritual matters, it will carry over to every other aspect of
    life in our society (as it has done for thousands of years.)
    
    We can't completely separate family/spiritual/worldly matters.

    RE: .129  Joe Oppelt
    
    > I can only see the biological roles of fathering (fertilizing)
    > and mothering (birthing) as being distinct to gender.  
    
    We agree on something twice in one day.  (This is getting kinda
    frightening!)  :-)
    
    > Sorry if I misapplied that to what you said.
    
    Thanks for your note.

    Brothers and sisters in Jesus, In this troubbled world, where there is
    so much work for the Lord to be done, I am appalled to read comments on
    the supremacy of men. To start I wish to add that I know of no man
    alive today that did not originate from women.
    
    Why did God make man first? ...I don't know, but He had to start
    somewhere...you could say He was dissappointed with what He had created
    and improved on it (just a joke).
    
    Why did He make women from Man?... Unlike many I really believe in this
    "stuff". It was revealed to me that God is a perfect head of the
    family. He does not act without the participation/agreement of His
    family members. This knowledge explained many things for me: not only
    why He made women from man (with the help of Adam), why His children to
    be created needs two parents (members of His family) but also why it is
    necessary for us to be part of the healing of His creation that we as
    "humans" have continually distroyed. 
    Why God allows inhuman acts is because His family allows them to continue
    and do not ask His help to put an end to them.
    God is waiting for you to act now to put and end to injustices, with
    your agreement and assistence He will end all of them. Please don't
    waste time talking of supremacy or inferiority there aint much time
    left to put all the things right we have distroyed in Gods creation.

.134 Sue
>    a discussion about patriarchy (a system which originally prevented
>    women from being allowed to own property and/or to vote, among
>    many injustices.)

Well, we all do not like this system.  And it is a valid social (cultural)
comment.  However, it has little resemblance to the Biblical systems.

In the Bible, Jewish (and some other) women owned property.  I don't know
about democracy and I certainly don't know about non-descriptive "injustices."

Mark

>    > Complementary and specialized roles <> roles that offer money, power
>    > and authority.  You have a "worldly" sense of logic in regards to 
>    > the "spiritual" nature of roles for men and women.  In the vernacular,
>    > it does not compute.
>    
>    If you say that men have authority over women in the home and in
>    spiritual matters, it will carry over to every other aspect of
>    life in our society (as it has done for thousands of years.)
>    
>    We can't completely separate family/spiritual/worldly matters.

I hesitate to even respond to this because we are coming from totally
difference bases.  My wife (and I am *her* husband) is no airheaded,
subservient don't-make-a-move-unless-I-tell-her dainty upon my arm.
She is an unique individual created by God with a wonderful brain
and attributes that I find physically appealing, too.

You don;t understand spiritual authority, so you cannot understand
how it impacts every other aspect of life in our society.  You cannot
equate spiritual authority with worldly authority.  They are comepletely
different.  You cannot assume that spiritual authority means leacturing
a woman on what is good and bad, or right and wrong.  That's worldly
authority applied to spiritual matters (and I suspect many Christians
get this wrong, too).

My woman, (yes *mine* - and I am *hers*), has every right I do.  Yet there
is a spiritual reality that we both understand and share that is senseless
to the world's point of view (as Nicodemus, as Peter on the Mount of 
transfiguration, as many others).

I hope that someday you will be able to see God's economy and understand that
we may be speaking the same language, but the meanings are most certainly
very different.

Mark

.138 Williams

>    God is a perfect head of the
>    family. He does not act without the participation/agreement of His
>    family members

There are two spiritual truths to be seen here:  

(1) God's authority
(2) Prayer's affect on God.

On the first part, God does act without the participation or agreement of
His family members.  He never once asked Israel to agree to following the
pillar of cloud or pillar of fire.  God commands his children.  We are His
children.  Now, a good father *does* care for his children and is not a
dominating ogre.  We see this played out in God's interaction with Abraham,
Moses, and others.  But God's revelation of His nature and will to men and
women is not about getting their agreement for God to act.

On the second part, "prayer does move the hand of God."  This also is not
an agreement of family members necessarily to pray for God's will as if by
the praying we get what we want.  When we pray, we must ask *according to His
will* and it shall be done.  Jesus said, "you have not because you ask not,
and what you ask you ask wrongly."  (What an indictment on our prayer lives,
folks!)  We need to examine ourselves in (a) whether or not we're asking and
(b) whether or not we're asking according to God's will.  Prayer is not
a magic incantation like the rubbing of the lamp for the Genie to grant 
out wish.

Prayer moves the hand of God to glorify Him.  The chief end of man is to
glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.  (In a word: relationship.)  So
all things, prayer included, are to be God-glorifying.

You are correct to show that God is a loving head of the family and 
He is both loving and has authority.  He will do as He pleases but is
always governed by His nature which is Love.

Mark

>    If some convince themselves that women's rights is the ruination of
>    everything they hold dear, the fight will go on for another few

        Where did I say that?

        Why is it that whenever one decries the destruction of the family,
        the feminist line is to distort it as an attack on women's rights,
        or to patronize (excuse the term) men by saying they should not be
        made to feel guilty for setting their hearts on things outside the
        home?  Surely you understand that regardless of with whom the
        responsibility for this debacle lies, it must be addressed and
        corrected.

        The kids still lose.  So do the grandparents. Do you believe that
        that Charles Dickens didn't miss his daddy in the debtor's prison? 
        Are you implying that it is of no adverse consequence or even
        desireable that children and their parents be separated for
        extended periods?  Do you believe that divorce does not adversely
	affect children?

        Irrespective of the perception of how unsophisticated, patriarchal,
        demeaning, and oppressive the Bible and its adherents are, they are
        praying for you.  I doubt that any wish to disparage or denigrate
        you, though it may seem that way.  We can tend to appear hostile to
        those we perceive as hermeneutically challenged.  But Jesus was not
        all hearts and flowers either. %^)  

	Regards,
		Tony

        "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this
        day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served
        that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the
        Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we
        will serve the LORD."
		Joshua 24:15

        "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have
        set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore
        choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live"
		Deuteronomy 30:19  
	

Two of my favorite verses, Tony.  But then I have many!  :-)

My, this one has progressed some since I went home yesterday....

There's a couple of Suzanne's I wanted to respond to.  .110 and .123...

.110� > ..problem with men and women serving complementary and specialist roles?

.110� You bet I do, unless women get to pick which roles we want reserved
.110� for us.  (If so, I say we get to pick the jobs which pay the most,
.110� like CEOs, for starters.)  :/

;-)  I believe that our design generally orientates us towards certain 
preferences.  These won't be exactly the same for all couples (in the 
marriage relationship example).  Just as everyone is different in the 
business world.  I'm not actually so concerned with business in this 
discussion, because to a degree it has to follow society.  The personal 
preferences of character and role are more founded in the home than in 
employment and career, though they will develop there.

Although the salary / CEO reference was in humour, it does significantly
reflect the false standards of our society.  Salary, status, ownership,
profitability political power etc (yes - typical male failings!) are seen
as of higher priority than character, and spiritual development.  I find
this utterly astounding in a world which is passing away - where if we know
anything, it is that each of our lives will terminate, leaving all our
material 'credits' behind. 

Men, whose historic role has typically been in the interface outside the
home, have apparently presented this as having an importance out of 
proportion with reality.  The physical provision for the here and now is a 
valid occupation, but it cannot compare with the significance of the next 
generation, its spiritual development, as well as its moral and physical 
development.  Deuteronomy has many reminders that Israel's continuing place
before the LORD relies on the next generation being brought up to know Him.

I'm not trying to justify any particular apportioning of role here; I'm 
trying to express two things only :

   1.	The 'next' generation is of immense importance.  In head knowledge, 
	ok, but even more, in moral and spiritual understanding.  Otherwise 
	not only they, but the nation is doomed.

   2.	The western world's cultural perspective of 'what is important' at 
	an individual level, as well as at a national and international level 
	is pitifully distorted, and negatively impacts every member of 
	society.

These two are inevitable where you have a society which is based on a 
rejection of God.  Not only has it to reject any idea of God's design; it 
has to attempt to fault it, and substitute an alternative.  That 
alternative is going to be an uncomfortable force-fit at best...

I say society 'has' to reject the idea of design, because the design of 
creation (apart from the heart of man) is so pure, that it reveals our 
hearts as guilty before God.  Acknowledgement of sin and guilt is 
unacceptable to the society which wants to make its own laws, so the first 
law has to outlaw God...

.110� If you're talking about our roles in personal relationships (and not
.110� in the world at large,) then I don't think the idea of 'complementary
.110� and specialist roles' makes a lot of sense.  

I don't have the expertise to do all the jobs round the home, nor the time 
to be efficient in them all.  I 'specialise' in, say maintenance, while my 
wife does other tasks.  We *could* switch roles if we so desired - when one 
or the other is indisposed for one reason or another, we have stepped in 
without the other feeling threatened in any way!  But it is simpler, more 
convenient and more practical for us to occupy the roles we take.  I have 
cooked (and even knitted) in the past, but to do these effectively, I would 
need to explore and understand the scope of balanced diet etc to a much 
greater extent.  My wife makes a hobby of exploring cookery books.  If I 
were specially keen, I could do so as well, but then our kitchen 
arrangements would become rather more complex, in terms of what we kept 
in stock etc.  It would be a little like sharing a desk at DEC, as I can't 
see us managing to keep two kitchens ;-).  Maybe we'd manage better than 
that, but you'll get the idea.

.110� Does only *one* partner in the couple get to 'love'?  Does only *one*
.110� partner in the couple get to nourish their children?  Does only *one*
.110� partner in the couple strive to protect the children, the home and the
.110� family as much as s/he can?  Does only *one* partner in the couple strive
.110� to be faithful to the other? 
I do not at all see these as places where a complementary role implies that 
only one is active.  In fact each of these has a sense in which both 
partners should put in 100%.  But each one has a different way of 
contributing their 100% which will be unique and valuable.

.110� Does only *one* partner in the couple get to nourish their children?  
Reminds me of the time when we had a number of visitors, and one of our
children was acute (?) enough to alternate which of us he asked when he 
wanted another meringue.  We each thought he had had only his one extra, 
only to meet with some barely suppressed tension in the others, whose 
attention had not been primarily focussed on the adult world.  In that 
case, it would have been better if only one of us had nourished him...
Typical ma.. uh whoops!!! ;-)

.110� > I understand that this is born out by genetic proof, which traces our 
.110� > race back to one original pair, and can even deduce a filtering 
.110� > reduction corresponding to the population lost in the flood. 
    
.110� What do you mean by 'race' - the human race or 'our race' (one of several)
.110� as human beings?

The human race.  I don't have the proof - I have heard it referred to, so 
I can't cite it as positive evidence without tracking down the source.  I
just mentioned it as a related point of interest, and because maybe someone
else reading here may have more information - which I too would like. 

.123� > And you make it sound as if men got first pick.  Now that's ludicrous.

.123� Let's just say it turned out awfully convenient for men to be the ones
.123� who (for many centuries) were the only ones allowed to own property
.123� or to vote.  (Then again, what good would a patriarchy be if it didn't
.123� reserve these things for men, right?)  :/

If men had fulfilled their responsibilities correctly, their administration 
of property and law would have placed the good of others before that of 
self.  In that sense, women would have benefitted from the arrangement�, and 
administration would have been little more than just that.  It's only when 
administration is misapplied for the material benefit of the administrator 
that it becomes oppression.

I would claim that there is at least an argument for the position that had
men done their job properly, administration would not be perceived as a
tool for either power or defense, any more than cooking is used to
manipulate the performance of our physical bodies (as it could be to our
detriment, as well as to our benefit).   It's not a matter of 'first pick', 
as all the jobs needed to be done all the time; rather a matter of agreeing 
and sharing out preferences (which I think would have been more simply and 
readily accepted 'in the beginning').

� I'm not saying that women sit back and cream off the luxury in boredom; 
rather than admin (which does not suit me personally) is no higher a task 
or calling than the many other activities of our species.  As such, I 
reckon it helps where we don't all have to be experts in every area.

re : not liking admin - maybe I would like it more if it wasn't so
     authoritative in interpretation.

Ugh!  Another long one.  I'm going to get a mod+ rap if this carries on. But
it's a sensitive area that needs a lot of words to try to clarify, and mine
seem woefully inadequate here.  Perhaps I should use one of Mark's pictures ;-)
And because I've been busy, the start of this reply has been sitting in a
window icon most of my day... 

					God bless
							Andrew

  Hi Suzanne,

    I get from your explanation to me that you meant the phrase
    'getting to pick first' in a way that is not inconsistent 
    with bearing Christ's cross.

    AMEN!

    I just want to say a couple things.

    First, the Bible does depict husband as being the 'leader' 
    of the house.  I used to wonder about that, but then two things
    occured to me.  One, to be leader does not imply being superior.
    That is a ludicrous correlation.  One has nothing to do with the
    other.  Two, the basis for this role gets into things that I freely
    acknowledge lacking the know-how to understand.  Only the Master
    Designer knows how we tick.  I believe that God designed us in 
    a certain way and roles He gives reflect best conformance to that
    design.

    On a sidenote, I recently saw a news show where the purpose was
    to show that males and females (surprise!) are different.  The
    differences were amazing.  And Gloria Steinem refused to acknowledge
    that some bahavorial differences are nature based.  In light of the
    evidence, I found this to be amazing.

    The whole question of nature verses nurture is so complex, I could
    never comprehend the intricacies of HOW it is men and women are better 
    suited for different things.  (I'm sticking to just where the Bible
    characterizes gender-based roles.)

    Second, I just hope the main point of my reply wasn't missed.  The
    gospel is the important thing.  Paul, in his letters, addressed local
    concerns.  But, they took a back seat to the force of his messages.
    Romans is the best example as Paul had not yet been in Rome before
    he wrote the epistle.  Eight chapters (at least) are devoted to laying
    out the plan of redemption.  He does discuss societal concerns, but
    in terms of emphasis, they take quite the back seat to the gospel.

    To cite an analogy, consider the outside of a cup to be the outward
    acts.  We do need to discuss these things, BUT, the inside still has
    to be cleaned first.  And its gonna take the gospel to do that.

    I just hope that with whatever zeal you have to preach about woman's
    issues, you have a 50-fold zeal to preach Christ and Him crucified for
    as Paul said, "I am come to know NOTHING among you save Christ and Him
    crucified."

    I'm kind of wondering what your balance is.  Of what extent is your
    message to others the cross relative to woman's issues?  And again, I
    freely acknowledge that I fall far short of the ideal.

    I just want to finish with an analogy.  Suppose you are a person living
    in Nazi Germany and up to now you have been very quiet.  You know that
    a whole race of people are getting destroyed.  Lets suppose you know that
    you can save a lot of them, but if you do, you WILL be destroyed.

    What are you going to do?

    Keep in mind that your heart has not changed.  Circumstances have changed
    and those changes in circumstances just may tell you something about
    your heart.

    I'll bet most people would be all for certain women's issues if precious
    self is preserved.  But, if a situation kind of like the above were to 
    take place, EVERYBODY would take a back seat to SELF.  Be it men, or
    women, or Greeks, or Jews.

    All I'm saying is the way to get the right changes on the outside of the
    cup is to clean the inside.  Educating regarding right behaviors is nothing
    compared to converting hearts.  

    In fact...the cleaner the inside of the cup, the more it will discern 
    what constitutes the outside of the cup being clean!  What just constitutes
    right behaviors.

    Bottom line summary based in part on the above...

    For every 1 time you preach about women's issues, preach the cross 50
    times.  If not, something is wrong.

    And again, I am in need of the same counsel!

							God Bless,

							Tony

    What people are really missing is that there is a big difference when
    someone from the dominant group makes a decision to act in a
    subordinate role as opposed to the dominant group forcing someone else
    to act in a subordinate role.  One does it by choice, the other by
    force.
    
    Jesus did say, the first shall be last and the last shall be first.
    
    It is much different for someone who because of gender, social class,
    education, network, and status is on the CEO track and decides that it
    is not what is really important in life than it is to tell someone who
    could never dream of being on the CEO class, that Money, and Power and
    Human authority isn't what that person wanted anyway.
    
    And not only that, but help mate and equal partner is not the same.
    
    A partner is a partner and a subordinate is a subordinate.
    
                                 Patricia

>    What people are really missing is that there is a big difference when
>    someone from the dominant group makes a decision to act in a
>    subordinate role as opposed to the dominant group forcing someone else
>    to act in a subordinate role.  One does it by choice, the other by
>    force.
 
Then you've missed what people have said all along.
There are two kinds of submission: forced and yielded.
Christianity is about yielded submission.
Humanity is about forced submission (and dominance).

   
>    And not only that, but help mate and equal partner is not the same.    
>    A partner is a partner and a subordinate is a subordinate.

That is a perspective and definition that is simply not shared by Christians.

Mark

>    And not only that, but help mate and equal partner is not the same.    
>    A partner is a partner and a subordinate is a subordinate.
    
    Patricia, you should read Leslie's last reply in the "Women in the 
    Bible" topic where she provides the Hebrew definition.
    
    Mike

RE:        <<< Note 708.146 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

        Sigh.  dominant group - subordinate role - choice - force - gender
        - social class - blah blah blah

        More empty socialist egalitarian rhetoric.  I grew up in the 60's. 
        I was saturated with this junk, and I actually believed it.  It all
        sounds so banal and vain to me now.  Please don't continue to
        confuse worldly, manipulative authoritarianism with scriptural
        authority.  I am a bondservant of my master Yeshua Meshiach, not a
        particularly good or obedient one, but at least I have my "role"
        straight.  Everything else is a side-effect of that.

        By the way, the term in Genesis is not help mate, it is help meet.
        The difference is that in "help mate", "help" is the adjective and
        "mate" is the noun.  In "help meet", "help" is the noun and "meet"
        is the adjective.  This changes the meaning from one suggesting
        inequality to one expressing equality.  Of course, the Marxist
        understanding of the noun "help" is someone in a subservient,
        oppressed class relegated to menial, lapdog tasks, rather than a
        partner.  We are using different dictionaries.  I don't expect a
	lot of mutual understanding.
	Sigh.

	TonyC
	

    I've been pondering for a while what to say in this string, and
    have been somewhat reluctant to enter into the "fray" :-}.  I've
    been reluctant partly because I know it will take a great deal of
    energy to note in this string, and partly because I think I may
    say things that are not agreeable to people on both sides of the
    debate.  As a woman who has experienced many of the sexual put-downs
    women have received for centuries, I understand what Suzanne & Patricia
    are saying, and indeed know the some of the same feelings and thoughts
    first hand because they are my experiences and thoughts as well.  On
    the other hand, as a person who identifies themselves with those
    who stake their lives on the claim that God is, Yeshua is our Messiah
    and Lord, and that the Bible is God's revealed truth for us, I agree
    with much of what others have written and have misgivings about some of
    the things Patricia and Suzanne have said.

    I think that God's Word contains some wonderful affirmations on the 
    value of both men and women.  It also carries some heavy indictments
    against humans of both genders.  I also think there are things in it 
    which have been used to wrongly put down and subordinate women for a 
    long time, and some of that comes from traditional ways of translating 
    and interpreting which reflect a cultural bias that puts woman into a 
    secondary citizen class.  I would like to see these wrongs put right, 
    but in a way that is done with care for the value of men as well as 
    women, and in a way that does not further damage the relationship or 
    roles of the two genders.

    I perceive there are differences between men and woman, lots of physical 
    differences, clearly visible - such as muscle mass, voice characteristics,
    hair patterns, and reproductive capabilities, as well as other differences
    that are harder to quantify or qualify.  These differences do not make one
    gender better than the other, just different.

    Unfortunately, perhaps because men typically have more muscle massive
    and are therefore stronger, or maybe for other reasons as well, women
    have often been subordinated or devalued by society and by men in
    particular.  (I'm not saying everybody does this, okay?)  In fact, it 
    seems that often the special characteristics of women have been looked 
    down on.  There was a Saturday Night Live skit that some friends used 
    to joke around with where a couple of guys would call each other "girly" 
    man.  Now I never saw the original skit because I don't watch Saturday 
    Night Live, but their spoofing around with it bothered me tremendously 
    because I felt it was a put-down of feminine characteristics.  (After 
    speaking to them a few times, they finally did stop doing it)  I felt 
    the same type of thing years ago when I was told in part teasing and part 
    derision that I threw a softball like a "girl".  Well what's wrong with 
    being a girl, moving like a girl, acting like a girl, and growing into 
    a woman?  Unless you're on the receiving end of that type of teasing or 
    mocking, you may be unaware of the "killing" nature this type of "joking" 
    can have.

    Now if the qualities of being feminine are not valued, and are mocked or
    looked on as being lesser or even detrimental to being able to do things
    that have been deemed important, desirable, better, then it is no surprise
    that women themselves would also begin to devalue their feminine charac-
    teristics, and seek to erase these traits so that they too have the same 
    opportunities for personal achievement and self-fulfilment that is avail-
    able to men.

    There are several things that I think need to be done.  Society as a whole
    needs to recognize the value of feminine characteristics and testify to
    it by actions, not just through some kind of lip service while 
    treating women as a useful commodity but with no rights or intrinsic
    value.  We need to understand the Bible truthfully rather than in the 
    context of our desires and/or cultural bias.  We all need an extra good 
    dose of humility and love for God and his Creation.  We need to see others 
    as human beings first and not as gender identified adversaries.

    Unfortunately, the mistakes I see being made by what many think of as
    radical feminists today (I use this term because I can't think of a 
    better one to use, and I know all who wear this badge are not alike
    or do these things I'm about to describe) are that they also devalue 
    feminine characteristics to the point of denying that there is any such 
    thing, they attempt to write all of history in terms of male domination,
    and they attempt to reclaim their own dignity and worth by putting down
    men just as badly as men have devalued women.  Its no wonder many men,
    and some woman are put off by their efforts to right what they see as
    wrong.  If one group attempts to bolster its position by de-humanizing
    another group, everyone looses.

    More later.

    Leslie

    Suzanne, (I hope I got this name right)
    
    RE:  .128
    
    > So if women (with all our biological specifics) could have first
    > pick of the roles that are *not* strictly biological, then how
    > about if we picked the roles that offer the most money, power and
    > authority?  Would some others *then* be saying, 'Gee, do you have a
    > problem with complementary and specialist roles for men and women?'
    
    Are your hands tied behind your back or something?  Mine don't seem to
    be.  In this day and age, I believe we each have the right to choose
    for ourselves what we want out of life.  If you desire to be a CEO, go
    for it.  Get your schooling at an Ivy League school, get a good job,
    network, work your way up, make the corporation your life and one day
    maybe you'll make CEO.  Or start your own company and make yourself the
    CEO.  That's what Uncle Ken did.  And that's fine if that's what YOU
    want.  I don't. I don't see why you need some broad sweeping statement
    saying that women have this power.  We have the opportunity, just do
    it.
    
    RE: .136
    
    I see victim written all over this.  I have a God-given choice of
    whether or not I submit to any leader, husband or otherwise.  However,
    like with any choice there are good and bad consequences depending how
    I choose. You make the choice, then deal with it.
    
    Jill

I've been struggling some to see quite where we're not connecting on this
one, paricularly over 'first pick of the roles', and last night something
of it dawned on me.  I think.  I hope ... ;-) 

The Christian view of male-female characteristics is not an external
superimposition of roles, but a full expression of our creational design 
characteristics.  Like, the freedom to be what you are.  Letting the
reality happen. 

Now this is usually understood to some degree as represented in the Bible, 
but as man is fallen, the representation and understanding of both roles 
has become so distorted as to be oppressive.  That again can be seen as a 
result of the fall, in Genesis 3:17-19, where 'work' is cursed, to become 
toil instead of fulfillment.  However, we still need work to fulfil 
(satisfy) our humanity.

I believe that because of this curse in the fall, it is only through
maturity in our walk with the LORD that we can reach true fulfillment in
any walk of life, whether it is in business or in pleasure, marriage,
sexuality, fellowship, even in hobbies, etc. 

Some may feel that one or another area of life offers them an ultimate
fulfillment without God, but in so doing it is likely to [have] become a
god in their own hearts.  It is trying to fill the eternal void which only
God can satisfy, and eventually they will find it wanting, and unable to
justify their existance.  Anything can give pleasure when it is subordinate
to God, and pointing to Him in obedience.  Anything can become a cruel
taskmaster when it takes the place of God and points only to itself.  This
applies in the marriage relationship possibly more than anywhere else. 

The very expression of 'subordinate' smacks of the perspective of the curse. 
It is bound to be oppressive unless we can see past it as all being
responsible to the LORD, both the employee, in what he does for the company,
and the employer, as responsible to the LORD for care of the employee.  The
'responsibility' in both cases being a privilege.  I use that analogy rather
than the domestic one, because 'subordinate' fits more accurately and less
offensively! 

Coming back to the Christian view as being a full expression of our creational
design characteristics, this implies that the role you should occupy is the
one which is most satisfying and fulfilling to you. Where people are unhappy
with what they understand of the Biblical model, I would interpret as a
failing in one of the areas of 

      � Understanding that our primary function and purpose on earth is
	the development of a spiritual, eternal soul,
	 ie; the physical is the husk to contain the developing spiritual.

      � Understanding of what the design model is, for living on earth;
	how the secondary aspect - our physical lives here - are meant to 
	reflect and enable our spiritual growth

      � Understanding how the fallen application has departed from (and 
	corrupted our perception of) reality, so that the distorted world 
	view is allowed to shape people's perception of what they need to be.
	ie - letting the fall and the curse rule instead of the LORD.

If God *is* God, I expect His design to be perfect in every detail.  As 
demonstrated in a leaf.  I know it's totally corrupted in our application, but
if the Bible is His instruction to us, the principles it contains have to be
founded on fact, and not just on options.  My experience of the Word, and of
the LORD teaching my heart in accordance with what it contains, scores 100% 
every time.  Sometimes I have to wait for an answer.  Some areas I haven't 
reached qualifying in yet.  But I am so sure of the foundation, that settling 
for - fighting for - a second best alternative is to substitute mans wisdom 
for God's, guarantees failure, and has only hell as its end.

I'm just trying to say that waiting on the LORD for how to understand the
Bible, ultimately is the only way to the only genuine answer. 

						God bless
								Andrew

    Leslie,
    
    I really appreciate your .150.  Spoken that way I almost totally agree
    with what you have written.  The exception is the perception of what it
    means to be a radical feminist but your are accurately describing the
    distrust of that term by group that form your community.
    
    In the Christian Perspective conference there was a communication based
    on a fundementalist minister proposing that Clint Eastwood was a viable
    role model for our boys.  I answered that I thought he would suggest
    someone a whole lot more like Jesus of Nazareth.  The conversation
    immediately went into who says that Jesus of Nazareth is Effeminate and
    that all the pictures of Jesus show an effeminate looking man.
    
    I don't know if the men in that conversation or hearing that
    conversation could have the slighted idea what that conversation does
    to me as a woman.
    
    Jesus of Nazareth is my role model.  It is admirable if he or any man
    has a strong feminine side as well as a strong masculine side.  By
    having a strong feminine and masculine side, he sends me the message
    that each one of us needs to develop all of our gifts in the service of
    the Divine

      I think there's a lot of room for mutual agreement if we agree
      with Leslie's reply (which I do 100%).
    
      Except I think its better to throw a baseball like a 'boy'!!
    
      ;-)

Aaaarghh!!  You blew it with that baseball, Tony!!!!  ;-) ;-) ;-)

btw ... I smell a bit of racial discrimination there too ... ;-)

But I really wanted to point out ... that I appreciated Leslie's entry 
too.  Thank you Leslie!

							Andrew

    re: .153
    
    I'm confused about this feminine/masculine side of people.
    
    What does the feminine side encompass?  The masculine side?
    
    I think that maybe a definition of sorts would be  helpful to
    understand what you are saying.
    
    Thanks,
    -steve

>    My reference to 'priests' should have clued you in to the fact that
>    I'm a Roman Catholic.

Your reference to Adam and Eve needing a priest clued us in to the fact
that you like to use red herrings in your arguments.

As a Roman Catholic you should know that a husband and wife marry each
other; the priest is a witness.  "In the Latin Church, it is ordinarily
understood that the spouses, as ministers of Christ's grace, mutually
confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their
consent before the Church". (Catechism para. 1623)

Marriage is a public declaration before God and Everyone that two people
intend to form the basic social unit.  Certainly Adam and Eve invited God
and Everyone to their wedding.

/john

    Well I managed to do a little work on the Corinthian's passages
    concerning men & women & roles, etc. but, do not have it all 
    done yet, so will wait to enter anything about that until I'm
    actually ready.
                             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
    Steve, its when people start to identify and compare feminine/
    masculine characteristics that things really get hot & excited
    in discussions.  Maybe its better to leave it all a little vague.

    Leslie

    re: .158
    
    I promise not to get excited.  8^)
    
    If we are going to discuss the feminine/masculine traits, I think it
    best if we have a common definition.
    
    Obviously, on the purely physical side of things, we have defining
    traits that are unique to male/female.  What I question is the
    psychobabble we've been hearing for the past few decades that men have
    a feminine side and woman have a masculine side- outside the physical
    aspects of the person.  Such a statement is not provable nor is it
    properly definable in a concrete way.
    
    
    -steve

    STeve,
    
    If you have already made up your mind that the whole thing is 
    "Psycho Bable" it does not sound like it would be a productive 
    discussion.  If someone else wants to engage you in the discussion, I 
    welcome them.
                              Patricia

    Patricia,
    
    My opinion of it is that it is psychobabble because it is undefined. 
    It seems to be some touchy-feelyism created by psychologists to explain
    (even explain away) various aspects of our nature.
    
    If you have a good definition of what is what regarding this issue, I
    would most welcome hearing it.  Maybe my perception is incomplete.
    
    
    -steve

      Hi Steve,
    
        I had a couple thoughts as to what I think you meant.
        To call something feminine or masculine might actually
        mean something different depending on our terminologies
        and what we mean by them.
    
        For example, being nurturing to children could be considered
        a feminine quality and one might say that if a man were to
        do so, he is exhibiting his 'feminine' side.
    
        To me, its really a matter of the meaning behind the terms
        that counts.
    
        I don't think the above quality is feminine, I just think its
        a quality that women tend to manifest more often and with greater
        magnitude.  Aggression might be called a masculine quality, but
        I just think its a quality that men tend to manifest more often
        and with more magnitude.
    
        Maybe its all a huge terminology disconnect, but the way I see
        it, no quality is really feminine or masculine, men and women
        just have tendencies to exhibit some characteristics at differing
        frequencies and magnitudes.
    
        I suppose we could take a characteristic that women manifest more
        often and call it a feminine quality and thus if a man exhibits
        it, the man may be described as exhibiting his 'female' side or
        whatever.  But, thats just attaching some kind of meaning to the
        term.
    
        I might disagree with the term, but our meanings behind them 
        might just equate.
    
        I only wrote this to bridge what might be a terminology disconnect.
        
        Maybe this is completely useless and if so...sorry!!!
    
    							God Bless,
    
    		   					Tony

    .162
    
    Actually I think you hit the nail on the head! :-)
    
    Or the head on the nail, whichever hurts the most.

Yes Tony, that's what I was thinking of also.

Leslie

      Just want to add a couple things...
    
      Actually, I think being more nurturing IS a feminine trait.
      I really do.
    
      Anyway, lets use a hypothetical.
    
      Person A has stereotypically macho tendencies.  And God will
      take care of that if the guy will let him!  Anyway, he some-
      times is nurturing and other things (in spite of the above).
    
      Person B is really into feminism and has adopted feminist
      dialect.  Person B sees Person A holding a baby and nurturing
      it and says, "Your female side is so lovely!"
    
      Person A is frought with feelings of insecurity.  Is his man-
      liness threatened?  Gee, maybe he oughtn't hold babies anymore
      if doing so will elicit such a perception!!
    
      What if the whole problem was terminology/semantics?
    
      To the Greek, be a Greek.  To the Jew, be a Jew.
    
      Its VERY possible that when someone might say something like,
      "I think its important for men to get in touch with their
      female halves...", what they are really saying is that they think
      its important for men to more cultivate feminine traits such as
      nurturing.  (I don't have a problem with that...should that be
      the case.)
    
      I myself don't care for the lingo.  I'm a man!  (I think!  ;-)  )
      In my own personal myriad of shortcomings, I'd feel weird if I 
      was told that!
    
      But, the important thing IS the meaning behind the words.  And I
      would hate for a huge rift whose basis is semantics/terminology
      SHOULD there be a LOT of common ground with the actual meaning
      behind lingo we use.
    
    
    						God Bless,
    
    						Tony

    Tony,
    
    I believe you are right on too!.
    
    I believe that the goal is for each of us to be well balanced.  It is
    also important for each of us to be our best self regardless.
    
    Any person, male or female that demonstrates excessive feminine or
    excessive masculine traits needs to work on what they are missing.  It
    is not good for any man to complete be lacking in nuturing skills and
    it is not good for any woman not to be strong enough to stand up and
    take care of herself.  We all don't have to be alike.
    
                                      Patricia                          
    

    .166
    
    Patricia it is so good to see that we do agree on some things. :-)
    
    Thanks for sharing in here,
    Nancy

    I think Tony hit the gist of what I was getting at.  Thank, Tony.
    
    I object to the terminology itself, as it can be considered degrading
    or disengenuous to some.  In modern psychology, I think it is used to
    blur the distinction between the sexes, as well as sexuality barriers. 
    
    Perhaps this is fodder for another topic, though.  8^)
    
    
    -steve

    RE: .151  Jill Kinsella 

    >> So if women (with all our biological specifics) could have first
    >> pick of the roles that are *not* strictly biological, then how
    >> about if we picked the roles that offer the most money, power and
    >> authority?  Would some others *then* be saying, 'Gee, do you have a
    >> problem with complementary and specialist roles for men and women?'
    
    > Are your hands tied behind your back or something?  Mine don't seem to
    > be. 

    Huh??  (It seems I'm going to have to explain my comment about 'picking 
    roles' a few dozen more times.  I'm amazed at some of the interpretations
    folks are putting on it.)

    As I've stated in this topic already, I have a fine career going for
    myself (with a breadwinner class salary,) thank you very much.  I have
    multiple college degrees and am currently working on my Masters degree
    in Engineering.  But thanks anyway for your concern.

    > In this day and age, I believe we each have the right to choose
    > for ourselves what we want out of life.  If you desire to be a CEO, go
    > for it. 

    What I would really desire most (at the moment) is for people to have
    the capacity to understand what I said (many notes ago) and stop taking
    it so literally.  (First, someone thinks I'm saying that women should
    be allowed to 'pick [gender roles] first,' as if we really could go
    back to Square One and start over as a species.  Now, someone is telling
    me to go work to become a CEO.  What next, I wonder??)

    > And that's fine if that's what YOU
    > want.  I don't. I don't see why you need some broad sweeping statement
    > saying that women have this power.  We have the opportunity, just do
    > it.                               

    It's utterly hopeless to explain what I meant by my statement
    about 'CEOs,' so please just forget it.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    >>> Complementary and specialized roles <> roles that offer money, power
    >>> and authority.  You have a "worldly" sense of logic in regards to 
    >>> the "spiritual" nature of roles for men and women.  In the vernacular,
    >>> it does not compute.
    
    >> If you say that men have authority over women in the home and in
    >> spiritual matters, it will carry over to every other aspect of
    >> life in our society (as it has done for thousands of years.)
    
    >> We can't completely separate family/spiritual/worldly matters.

    > I see victim written all over this.  I have a God-given choice of
    > whether or not I submit to any leader, husband or otherwise.  However,
    > like with any choice there are good and bad consequences depending how
    > I choose. You make the choice, then deal with it.

    Well, you can see 'victim' wherever you want (or choose) to see it.

    Also, you can submit yourself to any man or woman you like, as far as
    I'm concerned.  

    I'm not interested in seeing 'male authority' institutionalized, that's
    all.

    RE: .157  John Covert

    >> My reference to 'priests' should have clued you in to the fact that
    >> I'm a Roman Catholic.

    > Your reference to Adam and Eve needing a priest clued us in to the fact
    > that you like to use red herrings in your arguments.

    Actually, I was responding to an accusation of being a non-Christian
    (which clued me in to the fact that some folks here like to play the
    game of 'either you believe *precisely* what I believe or you aren't
    a Christian.')

    > As a Roman Catholic you should know that a husband and wife marry each
    > other; the priest is a witness. 

    The priest may be called a mere 'witness,' but the Roman Catholic church
    does not regard any marriage ceremony *without* a priest officiating to
    be a marriage in the eyes of God.  Thus, my question about Adam and Eve.

    > "In the Latin Church, it is ordinarily understood that the spouses, 
    > as ministers of Christ's grace, mutually confer upon each other the 
    > sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church". 
    > (Catechism para. 1623)

    Is it still a Catholic wedding if the priest doesn't show up, though?
    How about if the priest stays in the audience and the couple stands
    up at the alter alone?  Is it a wedding if the priest says nothing
    (and merely observes?)

    > Marriage is a public declaration before God and Everyone that two people
    > intend to form the basic social unit.  Certainly Adam and Eve invited God
    > and Everyone to their wedding.

    Hey, if Adam and Eve got married, then there must be a description of
    the wedding in the Bible.  Why don't you post it?

    	The Catholic Church didn't exist (nor ANY laws -- except perhaps 
    	"be fruitful and multiply") in Adam and Eve's time.

    Well, certainly *God* knew about the Roman Catholic Church, though
    (being omniscient and all.)
    
    So why didn't God arrange for a formal wedding?  (Or *is* there a
    formal wedding ceremony between Adam and Eve described in the Bible?)

        <<< Note 708.170 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>

>    Huh??  (It seems I'm going to have to explain my comment about 'picking 
>    roles' a few dozen more times.  I'm amazed at some of the interpretations
>    folks are putting on it.)
    
    	Perhaps this says more about the speaker than the listeners.

>    As I've stated in this topic already, I have a fine career going for
>    myself ...
    
    	And the point being asked of you is:  if you've done it, why
    	not others?  What is the problem you are trying to describe?

>    Well, you can see 'victim' wherever you want (or choose) to see it.
    
    	So you are also not saying that women are victims of patriarchy?
    	I truly thought that was a premise from which you were working.
    
    	I think the problem is that most of us here simply don't work
    	from the same mindset that you are using, so yes, you may have
    	some difficulty in defining for us (or me, at least) what you 
    	are trying to express.

    does the Talmud or Mishnah speak of the marriage between Adam and Eve?

    	re .173
    
    	Perhaps to show us that the pomp and ceremony of a formal
    	wedding isn't what's important.  What is important is
    	Genesis 2:24.

    RE: .174  Joe Oppelt

    >>Huh??  (It seems I'm going to have to explain my comment about 'picking 
    >>roles' a few dozen more times.  I'm amazed at some of the interpretations
    >>folks are putting on it.)
    
    > Perhaps this says more about the speaker than the listeners.

    Perhaps.  Or I may have expected too much from the listeners.  :/

    >> As I've stated in this topic already, I have a fine career going for
    >> myself ...
    
    > And the point being asked of you is:  if you've done it, why
    > not others?  What is the problem you are trying to describe?

    *Others have done it*, too.  (I'm not the only woman on the planet with
    a lucrative and satisfying career.)

    My comment was made in the context of being asked if I had a 'problem'
    with 'complementary and specialist roles for men and women', though,
    and as you have already agreed, the only 'specialist' role for a man
    or a woman is biological.  

    My comment was intended to convey the idea that if we're going to have 
    truly 'complementary and specialist roles for men and women', would this 
    idea seem so great if *women* had been allowed first choice ('first pick')
    of non-biological roles (such as CEOs, etc.)

    In terms of what you and I discussed, we agree that *none* of the
    non-biological roles are sex-specific.  So my comments are certainly
    *not* directed to you.

    No, it is not true that I want to begin our species from scratch (as
    long as women get first pick of roles in our culture.)

    No, it is not true that I am longing to be a CEO but refuse to work
    for it.  (I'm very, very, *very* happy with my chosen career and the
    work on my Masters degree in Engineering is very satisfying to me.)

    No, it is not true that I believe women are 100% excluded from CEO
    positions in the U.S.  Far from it.  We are only 95% (or so)
    excluded, which is a *gigantic* improvement from the many centuries
    where women were not allowed to vote, own property, or go to the best 
    schools/colleges/universities (even in America!)

    So, yes, things are really looking up.  But we do have a ways to go.

    RE: .176  Joe Oppelt
    
    > Perhaps to show us that the pomp and ceremony of a formal
    > wedding isn't what's important.  What is important is
    > Genesis 2:24.
    
    A lot of people in the United States believe that their relationships
    are more important than formal weddings, but they are often told that
    they are going against 'family values' by bearing a family out of
    formal wedlock.
    
    Perhaps the story of Adam and Eve shows us that it is *not* a formal
    wedding that makes a family, but rather the love and commitment the
    family members feel for one another.

>    > As a Roman Catholic you should know that a husband and wife marry each
>    > other; the priest is a witness. 
>
>    The priest may be called a mere 'witness,' but the Roman Catholic church
>    does not regard any marriage ceremony *without* a priest officiating to
>    be a marriage in the eyes of God.  Thus, my question about Adam and Eve.

This is explicitly not true, and as a Roman Catholic you should know the
facts, especially if you are going to make claims about what they are.

May I refer you to canon 1112: "the diocesan bishop can delegate lay persons
to assist at marriages where priests or deacons are lacking."

Furthermore, if a married couple, unbaptized, who have never seen a priest
before, come into the Catholic Church and are baptized, the Church does not
perform a marriage ceremony; they were already married.  Nor does it ask
Christians from other Churches or ecclesial communities who are received
into communion with Rome to "remarry" in the presence of a priest.

Learn the truth.  Deny the fiction.

/john

      Come on John.  Give Suzanne a break!
    
      If I was her, I'd consider dusting off my scandals and
      getting out of here.
    
      So what if certain things Suzanne might believe are out of
      the mainstream or if she may not have the entire 'Roman
      Catholic Catechism' right?
    
      I recall a woman at a well who started discussing where to
      worship.  Jesus seemed to sidetrack that whole issue and
      exhorted her to drink living water.  I also recall a PHARISEE
      who visited Jesus at night.  Jesus could have given him a huge
      list of Israel's problems.  Instead He tells him he must look
      up at the cross and be born-again.
    
      Suzanne, I think I'm with you on a whole lot of points.  I sure
      want women to have the same career oppurtunities as men.  I
      may disagree with the idea of authority within a marriage, but
      I choose to embrace you as a person and to exhort you to walk the 
      walk of seeing Christ hung for you in a deeper way.
    
      (Not to suggest that you are not already walking it and its the
      same walk I hope to be walking.)
    
    							Tony

 We don't need any scandals in here, Tony!  :-)







Jim

    RE: .179  John Covert
    
    >> As a Roman Catholic you should know that a husband and wife marry each
    >> other; the priest is a witness. 
    >>
    >> The priest may be called a mere 'witness,' but the Roman Catholic church
    >> does not regard any marriage ceremony *without* a priest officiating to
    >> be a marriage in the eyes of God.  Thus, my question about Adam and Eve.

    > This is explicitly not true, and as a Roman Catholic you should know the
    > facts, especially if you are going to make claims about what they are.

    > May I refer you to canon 1112: "the diocesan bishop can delegate lay 
    > persons to assist at marriages where priests or deacons are lacking."
    
    You dodged my question about whether it's ok for a couple to stand at
    the alter alone (while a priest merely *observes* the proceedings from
    the audience as a mere 'witness'), though.  I don't blame you.
    
    Yes, it's true that some high-level clergy in the Roman Catholic church
    can delegate others to represent the church when priests or deacons
    are not available.  Notice, though, that this delegation *must take
    place* (and that the couple may not simply 'marry themselves' without
    a representative of the Catholic church officiating at the ceremony.)
    
    >Furthermore, if a married couple, unbaptized, who have never seen a priest
    >before, come into the Catholic Church and are baptized, the Church does 
    >not perform a marriage ceremony; they were already married.  Nor does it 
    >ask Christians from other Churches or ecclesial communities who are 
    >received into communion with Rome to "remarry" in the presence of a priest.
    
    The statement I made is true for baptized Roman Catholics, though.  
    Any wedding which occurs outside of a Roman Catholic church environment
    (in whatever way the church sanctions such an environment and/or the
    person allowed to officiate at a wedding) is *not* considered a wedding 
    (or a marriage) in the eyes of God.  
    
    As a baptized Roman Catholic, I was taught the laws which applied to
    me (and to other baptized Roman Catholics.)

        <<< Note 708.177 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>

>    No, it is not true that I believe women are 100% excluded from CEO
>    positions in the U.S.  Far from it.  We are only 95% (or so)
>    excluded, 
    
    	I disagree.  I think that many others would too.  I think that
    	this is the 'victim' mentality that others have referred to.

        <<< Note 708.182 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>

>    You dodged my question about whether it's ok for a couple to stand at
>    the alter alone (while a priest merely *observes* the proceedings from
>    the audience as a mere 'witness'), though.  
    
    	There weren't any altars or priests for Adam and Eve. 
    	
>    The statement I made is true for baptized Roman Catholics, though.  
    
    	Adam and Eve weren't Catholic.  Nor Jewish.  You are demanding
    	a back-fit of today's religious practices upon people who weren't
    	part of today's religion.
    
>    Any wedding which occurs outside of a Roman Catholic church environment
>    (in whatever way the church sanctions such an environment and/or the
>    person allowed to officiate at a wedding) is *not* considered a wedding 
>    (or a marriage) in the eyes of God.  
    
    	More misinformation.  Roman Catholics recognize the same blessing
    	of God upon any other marriage sanctioned by any Christian faith
    	expression.
    
>    As a baptized Roman Catholic, I was taught the laws which applied to
>    me (and to other baptized Roman Catholics.)
    
    	Whatever.  Perhaps you need to be taught them again.

    RE: .183  Joe Oppelt

    >> No, it is not true that I believe women are 100% excluded from CEO
    >> positions in the U.S.  Far from it.  We are only 95% (or so)
    >> excluded, which is a *gigantic* improvement from the many centuries
    >> where women were not allowed to vote, own property, or go to the best 
    >> schools/colleges/universities (even in America!)

    >> So, yes, things are really looking up.  But we do have a ways to go.

    > I disagree.  I think that many others would too.  I think that
    > this is the 'victim' mentality that others have referred to.

    I'm celebrating the *gigantic* improvement in a situation I regard as
    injustice.

    You seem to be suggesting that no one can discuss any sort of injustice
    (to a group of which the person is a member) without being labeled a
    'victim'.

    So any time anyone says that Christians are treated unfairly, others
    should say, 'Ah yes, you are promoting yourself as a victim, now.'
    (Thanks for the info.)

    RE: .184  Joe Oppelt
    
    >> The statement I made is true for baptized Roman Catholics, though.  
    
    > Adam and Eve weren't Catholic.  Nor Jewish.  You are demanding
    > a back-fit of today's religious practices upon people who weren't
    > part of today's religion.
    
    God knew the Bible would be written for Christians later (and God
    most definitely knew how Christian laws involving marriage would
    be instituted later.)
    
    >> Any wedding which occurs outside of a Roman Catholic church environment
    >> (in whatever way the church sanctions such an environment and/or the
    >> person allowed to officiate at a wedding) is *not* considered a wedding 
    >> (or a marriage) in the eyes of God.  
    
    > More misinformation.  Roman Catholics recognize the same blessing
    > of God upon any other marriage sanctioned by any Christian faith
    > expression.
    
    Joe, I included any environment 'sanctioned' by the Roman Catholic church
    in the statement of mine you quoted above (so my statement is not untrue.)

      Uh oh...did I mispell another one?!!   :-)
    
    						God Bless Ya Jim,
    
    						Tony

.171 � The priest may be called a mere 'witness,' but the Roman Catholic church
.171 � does not regard any marriage ceremony *without* a priest officiating 
.171 � to be a marriage in the eyes of God.  Thus, my question
.171 � about Adam and Eve.

I don't think you can be insinuating that there is no marriage outside the
formal Roman Catholic ceremony?  That all non-Catholics who have ever thought
they were married are / were actually living in sin?  And yet, if that is not
your implication, I can't see why the initial statment has any bearing on
anyone outside the Catholic church.  Adam and Eve, for instance. Or me!!! 

.173 � So why didn't God arrange for a formal wedding?  (Or *is* there a
.173 � formal wedding ceremony between Adam and Eve described in the Bible?)

I'm not really sure why we're getting hung up on this.  God instituted the
state of marriage, but left the performance of the ceremony up to the
preference of each culture.  To worry about a lack of description of the first
ceremony seems to me to be a concern which would lead to legalism of form,
rather than commitment of intent.  It's the 'leaving' and 'cleaving'; one man
and one woman, that's significant.  Not 'how many bridesmaids' or 'the length
of the bridal train'.  Nor even the wording of the covenant. 

In fact, the only wedding celebration we're told much about in the Bible
actually doesn't even name either the bride or the groom.  Only that they ran
out of wine. 

.177� My comment was intended to convey the idea that if we're going to have 
.177� 'complementary and specialist roles for men and women', would this 
.177� idea seem so great if *women* had been allowed first choice ('first pick')
.177� of non-biological roles (such as CEOs, etc.)

My perception is that the sexes had mutually acceptable and generally
distinctive roles which reflected their particular abilities and fulfilled
their creative design.  In that sense, I do not see either as having 'first
pick', or rather, I should say *both* had first choice, which was mutually
acceptable.  It was only following the fall that work became a burden instead
of a fulfillment; roles became a priority representation, and the grass on the
other side of the fence suddenly became unreachable, because someone had
erected a fence. 

.178� A lot of people in the United States believe that their relationships
.178� are more important than formal weddings, but they are often told that
.178� they are going against 'family values' by bearing a family out of
.178� formal wedlock.
    
The formal wedding is just the way a culture establishes the importance of a
relationship.  Going through the ceremony is a public proclamation that the
two people commit to each other uniquely and solely, with lifetime intent, in
a dedicated relationship covering all aspects of normal life, including the
physical, and its implication of procreation. 

Having a child is a lifetime responsibility.  There are financial, emotional,
social etc involvements in having a child, that needs both parents.  And the
mutual physical involvement the potential parents is saying that their mutual
dependence relies on that degree of commitment. For a couple to claim that
their relationship is more (or as) meaningful and permanent, without making a
solemn public commitment is to mistake what marriage really is, and to throw
out the baby with the bathwater (if that's not too appropriate a picture).  It
is asking the promise to be assumed without being stated, yet demands that the
conditions of the promise be met.  Sort of, like two countries agreeing they'd
like a treaty together, but not wanting to write it down in any way, but just
expecting the other to come to their aid when they need it... 

Such a demand puts an unfair strain on any relationship.

The wedding emphasises the reality of the relationship.  It doesn't 'make' the
relationship (except, possibly, in arranged marriages, which are outside our
scope for now...).  Without a particular empathetic relationship, no-one would
want a marriage to formally move it into the 'permanent commitment' phase. 

.178� Perhaps the story of Adam and Eve shows us that it is *not* a formal
.178� wedding that makes a family, but rather the love and commitment the
.178� family members feel for one another.

The formal wedding just says 'We are promising to turn our mutual affection
into a permanent commitment, and to strive against anything which would break
our unity, throughout the remainder of our lives.'  ie - the promise publicly
commits to exclude anything from breaking the home being formed, from outside
or inside. 

The promise is storing up security for the times of difficulty.  The sort of
thing no-one thinks they will actually experience, but everyone does to some
degree, and some intensely.  Conflicting affections, severe health
limitations, poverty, oppression...  The marriage is saying 'our relationship
is going to stand against all of these, I promise.'  While those who say 'we
love each other enough to commit without some formal ceremony' are generally
not looking ahead to realise that the relationship will be under attack.  The
claim is that the emotion of 'now' is enough for the hardships later.  Which
just isn't the case, when it comes to the crunch.  After all, many actual
marriages are crunmbling under the impact these days. 

.186� God knew the Bible would be written for Christians later (and God
.186� most definitely knew how Christian laws involving marriage would
.186� be instituted later.)
There are no 'Christian' laws about marriage beyond the Biblical ones, 
which are generally what most societies follow - ie one man and one woman 
to form a new family unit, committed for life, at leats in intent.

The rules or forms of any particular denomination are merely how we are at
liberty to signal the establishment of a marriage, but they are not a precise
pre-requisite in form for marriage. 
    
Sorry if I seem to pick out your replies, Suzanne, but apart from some sharpness
I regret, I didn't see much elsewhere which stimulated my interest ;-) 

						God bless
								Andrew

    RE: .188  Andrew

    / I don't think you can be insinuating that there is no marriage outside 
    / the formal Roman Catholic ceremony? 

    No - as others have pointed out, it isn't nearly as simple as my
    statement made it sound.

    / My perception is that the sexes had mutually acceptable and generally
    / distinctive roles which reflected their particular abilities and 
    / fulfilled their creative design.  In that sense, I do not see either 
    / as having 'first pick', or rather, I should say *both* had first choice, 
    / which was mutually acceptable.

    You're not really speaking about 'the sexes,' though - you're referring
    here to Adam and Eve (two individuals), right?

    / It was only following the fall...

    Ok, now it is positively established that you are talking about the 
    roles played by Adam and Eve (and not 'the sexes', meaning men and women
    in general) since everyone except Adam and Eve came along *after the
    fall*.  Thank you.

    / ...that work became a burden instead of a fulfillment; roles became a 
    / priority representation, and the grass on the other side of the fence 
    / suddenly became unreachable, because someone had erected a fence. 

    In terms of men and women who have existed *since* Adam and Eve, the
    roles have not been generally acceptable to both sexes.  If they had
    been generally acceptable to both sexes, we wouldn't have had the
    beginnings of the womens rights movement in the late 1700s in Europe
    and in the early 1800s in America (whose existence continues to this 
    day.)

    The problem is that men and women are (in fact) part of the same 
    species so we have a tremendous overlap of abilities.  When our
    culture kept men and women in distinctive (and mostly separate) roles,
    women were (much or mostly) denied opportunities to use their God-given
    talents and abilities (because of the fence you spoke about.)

    The whole point of all this is that it was a patriarchal system which
    systematically denied women the opportunities to use their talents,
    abilities and gifts for the betterment of all (in a very real physical, 
    spiritual, educational, and political sense.)

    When you have 5 billion members of the same intelligent species on one
    planet, it is a pointless and utterly futile exercise to paint the
    species as being so simplistic that 2.5 billion members of the species
    can be characterized *one way* while the other 2.5 billion members of
    the species can be characterized in some very specific *other way*
    (and to try to get 5 billion human individuals to stick to their assigned
    'either/or/but_not_both' roles.)  It's impossible, and what's worse, it's 
    unjust.
    
    (Not that you in particular are doing this, Andrew.)

  I believe there is plenty of evidence to show that once men and women
  began to abandon the roles that God had set for them, society began to
  to downhill, and we are seeing that decline continue today at an alarming
  rate.  


  Jim

	...and it seems clear to me that both men and women "began"
to abandon our God-given roles, when Adam and Eve made that first choice
to disobey God, by eating the fruit of the only forbidden tree, the tree of
the knowledge of good and evil.

	Right after that, times got tougher, and sin grew rampant.  People
began to selfishly "use" each other.  This usually led to societal roles
for women being narrowly defined by men, although it sometimes went in the
opposite direction.

	One job we have as Christians is to discern which of the roles
assigned to us are truly "God-given", and which are "men-made" (and/or
"women-made").  Fortunately we do have the Holy Bible as our Road Map,
and the Holy Spirit as our Inner Witness.  Some would also add (RC, e.g.)
Church Teaching, and I can agree, when it agrees with the first two. 

	Another thing we need to do as Christians is to decide what roles
we are willing to accept for ourselves, then learn to be faithful in these
roles.  Also, we need to learn to allow others the freedom to determine
their own roles.

	Let's take the marriage of two Christians as an example.  Clearly,
we are to be sexually faithful to each other.  The husband is to love his
wife as Christ loves His Bride, i.e. willingly lay down his life for her
every day.  In return (assuming the husband is fulfilling *his* role -
a *beeeg* assumption!), the wife is to respond to her husband's love by
honoring him.  We (both sexes) are admonished to care and provide for our
own family (children and parents), at a minimum (anyone who doesn't is
"worse than an infidel").

	Now, that may *seem* to narrowly define roles.  To be sure, the
above agenda sure keeps us busy, especially in this post-fall, post-flood,
post-Christian world.  However, it leaves us with a lot of freedom to
choose, to learn how best to love and help one another, how to grow out
of our natural self-centeredness into Christ-likeness.

 Amen, Mr. Sampson...





 Jim

Hi Suzanne,

The effect of the fall was a progressive deterioration.  Hence, although
the ideal was only present in the pre-fall Adam and Eve, total anarchy did
not immediately result - for instance, it was only after a number of
generations that the judgement of the flood became necessary. 

The fact that mankind is fallen and corrupt doesn't change the reality of
the ideal, or our design optimum.  It only changes whether people can
recognise it or not.  The majority of people (in rebellion against God) are
committed to establishing an alternative modus operandum.  So - they see
God's design functionality as oppressive, just because they are fighting
against what they really are.

A major part of the systematic deterioration you observe is a misapplication 
of aspects of the male role in particular, to effectively first turn
'protection' into 'oppression', and secondly, to misrepresent the role as
'superior' (to generalise).  These combine to make the traditional female
role seem undesirable and inferior.  It also reduces the upbringing of the 
next generation (one of our most important tasks) to a 'chore' which is 
delegated to nurseries, instead of recognising each child as significantly 
individual, benefitting from the specialised attention of the parents who 
have the natural understanding of the same inheritance.  As well as the 
particular responsibility of moral instruction.

� When you have 5 billion members of the same intelligent species on one
� planet, it is a pointless and utterly futile exercise to paint the
� species as being so simplistic that 2.5 billion members of the species
� can be characterized *one way* while the other 2.5 billion members of
� the species can be characterized in some very specific *other way*

Are you in serious doubt that men and women are clearly and identifiably
different?  Even starting from the physical sexuual characteristics, men
and women perceive their bodies, their sexually interactive role, and hence
their precise position in society differently from each other.  That does
not by any means type-cast either men or women in either character or wider
scope of capabilities or role - God has made us infinitely variable - but
it gives certain biases and preferences which generally point towards an
optimum (and preferred) way of working.  Not to be restrictive, but to free
us to be who we are, instead of feeling compelled to compete against
uncomfortable roles.  In fact, even the separateness of our traditional
roles is a natural protection against temptation, to guard marital
fidelity. 

My thesis is that the pre-fall state is still the ideal, and the closer we
can get to it - the closer to God's design - the more fulfilled we are as
individuals; that this does not imply oppression, or forcing anyone into an 
unwelcome role, but that the answer is in God's Word, and in seeking to
fulfil His plan in our individual lives.  God has not given us any revision
of the Bible, to counteract His instructions.  As far as operating
instructions go, the New Testament expands on and clarifies the Old
Testament, in the light of the new revelation of the LORD Jesus Christ.
That this reinforces the original instructions, rather than countermanding
them, underlines the validity of the original design.  The root problem of 
society's deviation from that design is in false historical understanding 
and application (through sin), and not because of any flaw in the design.
But we cannot expect people to understand this - still less voluntarily
submit to it - where the Holy Spirit does not reign in their heart, to give
them revelation of God's truth. 

						God bless
								Andrew

    RE: .193  Andrew

    / The majority of people (in rebellion against God) are committed to 
    / establishing an alternative modus operandum.  So - they see God's 
    / design functionality as oppressive, just because they are fighting
    / against what they really are.  

    Andrew, most people whom you see as in 'rebellion against God' are
    only in rebellion against what other humans *believe* about God
    (which is totally different than rebelling against God since these
    other humans *a r e  n o t  G o d* themselves.)

    Most people I know do not believe that God's design functionality is
    oppressive.  They believe that humans have distorted God's design
    as a way to oppress women (so the oppression comes from *people* in
    the patriarchy, and *not God*.)

    / Are you in serious doubt that men and women are clearly and identifiably
    / different?  Even starting from the physical sexuual characteristics, men
    / and women perceive their bodies, their sexually interactive role, and 
    / hence their precise position in society differently from each other.  

    Men and women are biologically different.

    We are *way* too numerous and too varied to have 'precise positions in
    society' as men and women, though, unless you're talking about the
    gender prejudice and bigotry which have been institutionalized by the
    patriarchy.

    / That does not by any means type-cast either men or women in either 
    / character or wider scope of capabilities or role - God has made us 
    / infinitely variable - but it gives certain biases and preferences 
    / which generally point towards an optimum (and preferred) way of working. 

    Individuals have optimum and preferred ways of working, but men and
    women (as members of the same species) do not have distinct sets of
    optimum and preferred careers or interests.

    / Not to be restrictive, but to free us to be who we are, instead of 
    / feeling compelled to compete against uncomfortable roles.  

    Being 'free to be who we are' means that women and men can pursue
    *whatever* career or educational pursuit interests each individual
    (whether most other individuals of that pursuit happen to be members
    of the same sex or not.)

    We're only 'free' if we can determine this interest for ourselves.

    / In fact, even the separateness of our traditional roles is a natural 
    / protection against temptation, to guard marital fidelity. 

    Are you suggesting that we were 'designed' for men and women to be
    kept separate in the work force to guard marital fidelity???  

    / My thesis is that the pre-fall state is still the ideal, and the closer 
    / we can get to it - the closer to God's design - the more fulfilled we 
    / are as individuals; 

    In the 'pre-fall state,' Adam and Eve lived naked in a garden (they
    didn't have occupations or children yet.)

    We don't know what God would have wanted if Adam and Eve had lived
    in an urban environment with several children and booming careers.

    You can't push women away from their interests and pursuits in this
    world by suggesting that it isn't consistent with the idea of being
    naked in a garden.  Men don't live naked in gardens either these days.

Hi Suzanne,

�    Andrew, most people whom you see as in 'rebellion against God' are
�    only in rebellion against what other humans *believe* about God

That depends really on what you take as your ultimate authority.  If you 
take every opinion as having equal weight, then you end up with spiritual 
anarchy, where everyone is their own god, and a compromise position is 
reached by concensus.  However, God's existance and character is not 
controlled by our votes.

As I mentioned a few replies back, we (including you, I presume) believe
that God revealed Himself and His character in the Bible.  He also revealed 
that mankind as a whole is in rebellion against Him.  So when you say that 
those in rebellion are only in rebellion against some people's specific 
beliefs, are you saying that mankind as a race is not in rebellion, and 
that belief in the Bible is an optional extra as far as God - and reality -
are concerned?

Or are you saying that you do not believe that the Bible teaches that 
people are in rebellion against God?

I feel we need to establish an understanding of where each of us is coming
from there, if we are to progress, and I'm not quite sure I'm clear on your 
perspective.

� Most people I know do not believe that God's design functionality is
� oppressive.  They believe that humans have distorted God's design
� as a way to oppress women (so the oppression comes from *people* in
� the patriarchy, and *not God*.)

I'm 100% in agreement with that principle.  Whether most people I know 
believe it or not, I'm not in a position to say...

� Are you suggesting that we were 'designed' for men and women to be
� kept separate in the work force to guard marital fidelity???  
I just see it as a spin-off from a specific preference type.  There are so 
many other factors involved that I don't think it would be profitable to  
pursue this line of thought ...

� In the 'pre-fall state,' Adam and Eve lived naked in a garden (they
� didn't have occupations or children yet.)

They did have occupations.  It's just that these were perceived as so
totally complementary to their character and design that they were not seen
as 'work'.  For instance, Adam had the extensive job of naming the animals...

The fact of being clothed instead of being naked was instituted by God
immediately after the fall, as nakedness would then become a temptation.
The covering was for both men and women.  I'm not suggesting that we
pretend there's no temptation there, like some groups do.  Similarly, later
still, God extended the ordinance to include the eating of animals. 

We can't turn the clock back, but there are design facets under which we 
still operate.  Where we see these referred to in the New Testament, we 
have reason to understand that they are still valid.  
Would you go along with that?

								Andrew

    RE: .195  Andrew

    // Andrew, most people whom you see as in 'rebellion against God' are
    //only in rebellion against what other humans *believe* about God

    / That depends really on what you take as your ultimate authority.  

    If you don't take other humans as your ultimate authority, then you
    are *not* rebelling against God if you rebel against what they say
    (even if they think *they* are synonymous with God, somehow.)

    / If you take every opinion as having equal weight, then you end up 
    / with spiritual anarchy, where everyone is their own god, and a 
    / compromise position is reached by concensus.  However, God's 
    / existance and character is not controlled by our votes.

    Exactly.  So even if a *billion people* held your specific position
    (about the inerrancy of the Bible), it would not be enough to make
    it true to someone with a **genuine and sincere belief in God** who
    doesn't happen to take the Bible in the exact same way you do.

    Neither does it mean that such a person is worshipping some other
    God (or her/himself as a God) simply because this person worships
    God *slightly differently* than you do.

    / He also revealed that mankind as a whole is in rebellion against Him.  
    / So when you say that those in rebellion are only in rebellion against 
    / some people's specific beliefs, are you saying that mankind as a race 
    / is not in rebellion, and that belief in the Bible is an optional extra 
    / as far as God - and reality - are concerned? 
                                                
    Andrew, I was referring to the practice of looking at people who do
    not hold your precise beliefs and calling them non-Christians and
    non-believers (and/or telling them they must be worshipping some other 
    God because they can not possibly worship ***your*** God unless they 
    think exactly the way you do.)

    / Or are you saying that you do not believe that the Bible teaches that 
    / people are in rebellion against God?

    While I do believe that the Bible says this, I believe the reference
    was being made to the times of Jesus and not to a permanent condition
    of the human race (for as long as any humans walk this earth.) 

    / I feel we need to establish an understanding of where each of us is 
    / coming from there, if we are to progress, and I'm not quite sure I'm 
    / clear on your perspective.

    I don't believe that it is Christ-like for humans to walk around this
    planet telling other humans that they are not really Christians (or
    are 'rebelling against God.')

    Christ said such things, but He did so with an authority that people
    on this planet do not have.  It is more Christ-like to love each
    other.  All this condemning and pushing people away from God is not
    the lesson I have learned from the teachings of Jesus.

    / We can't turn the clock back, but there are design facets under which we 
    / still operate.  Where we see these referred to in the New Testament, we 
    / have reason to understand that they are still valid.  
    / Would you go along with that?

    They are not valid if they try to limit men and women to certain
    restricted roles in our society.  If one chooses to limit oneself
    to a particular role (like staying naked in a garden) based on the
    Bible, then fine.  But such limitations should not be institutionalized
    by our culture to be imposed on everyone.

Snarf

 .198, .199 and .201 set hidden while the moderators discuss.  I'm not sure
 we need to rehash something that happened months ago and has been settled
 between the mods and the offendee.  Secondly, concerns with the moderator-
 ship of this conference should be taken up off line with the moderators.


 Jim

708.196 � / Or are you saying that you do not believe that the Bible teaches 
708.196 � / that people are in rebellion against God?

708.196 � While I do believe that the Bible says this, I believe the reference
708.196 � was being made to the times of Jesus and not to a permanent condition
708.196 � of the human race (for as long as any humans walk this earth.) 

What I meant by people being in 'rebellion against God', is that the whole 
human race is fallen, as from Adam & Eve.  As in :

  "There is no-one righteous, not even one .... All have turned away..." 
and 
  "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" 
					Romans 3:10,23, and Psalm 14:2-3

etc etc...

Hence the need for a divine Saviour, for anyone to have reconciliation with God.

�    I don't believe that it is Christ-like for humans to walk around this
�    planet telling other humans that they are not really Christians (or
�    are 'rebelling against God.')

'How it is put' depends upon the audience and opportunity, but the fact 
remains that we as a race are in rebellion aghainst God.  And that bad news 
has to be realised before anyone is in a position to accept the good news
of salvation.  Would it be better for people to remain in the dark, and end 
up in hell, or to be offered salvation (which implies understanding that 
we all have a personal problem to be solved), and have the possibility of 
eternal life?

However, I think that your concern is not so much about the evangelisation 
of those who reject the LORD Jesus, but of those who call themselves 
Christians, while rejecting what He did?  As if taking the name were a 
sort of immunisation against the work being effective inside?

							Andrew

I've hesitated about entering this note, because there's a potential big
rathole that can be taken from it.  I'd like to ask, if you don't agree that
the Bible gives instructions to men/women wives/husbands, for the moment at
least, could you not draw us down that rathole?

I want to address, from a Biblical perspective, what has become a christian
'norm' for husband/wife relations, and how that matches up with what the
Bible calls us to, or more specifically how it DOESN'T match up.  People look
at how women are treated in supposedly 'Christian' contexts, and are quite
rightly appalled.  That treatment of women is then often defended, when it is
really indefensible from a Biblical standpoint or from any standpoint.  And
then because people react to that defense, the whole Biblical model of
male/female relations gets tossed, which is a tragedy.

Let's assume, for the moment, that the Bible calls BOTH husbands and wives to
sacrifice themselves for the other, but in slightly different forms.  First
addressing the New Testament assertions of equality before the Lord, there is
Eph 5:21, which exhorts ALL believers to 'submit'� to each other.  There is
Gal 3:28, which proclaims that in Christ there is neither male nor female. 
There is 1 Cor 7:3-5, that proclaims equally that the husband's body belongs
partly to the wife, and the wife's body belongs partly to the husband.  There
is 1 Pet 3:7 that identifies that wives are co-heirs to the gracious gift of
life in Jesus.  I'm sure there is more, and there's certainly more in the Old
Testament.  And there are numerous passages that call us to sacrifice
ourselves for others in general, not just for our spouses.

So far, so good, and I think everyone is probably still with me.  :-)  The
Bible also gives some more specific commands to wives and to husbands.  These
are a bit more controversial.  Again, if you disagree that these commands are
given, could we talk about that another time?

The specific command to wives is to focus on and excel in the 'submission'
that all believers are called to, to the point of sacrificing themselves. 
Scriptures which assert this are Eph 5:22-24, Col 3:18, Tit 2:4-5, and
especially 1 Peter 3:1-6, which calls wives to focus on the beauty of "the
inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of
great worth in God's sight." 

The specific command to husbands is to focus on and excel in the 'loving'
that all believers are called to, to the point of sacrificing themselves. 
Scriptures which assert this are Col 3:19, 1 Pet 3:7, and especially Eph
5:25-33, which calls husbands to "love your wives, just as Christ loved the
church and gave himself up for her."

Now it's important to note that both of these are, essentially, sealed
orders.  Wives have their orders from the Master, which are for them and for
them alone.  Husbands have their orders from the Master, which in the same
manner are for them and them alone.  There's nothing in these orders giving
authority to the spouses to see that they are followed.  There's nothing that
says: "Wives, it's up to you to make sure your husbands love you and give
themselves up for you."  Nor is there anything that says "Husbands, it's up
to you to make sure your wife submits to you."  The orders are directed
specifically to the people who must obey them, not to their spouses.

What men have in fact done, historically, by virtue of superior strength and
power positions, is to tear up their own orders unread, snatch their wives
orders out of their hands, and then beligerently hold their wives to those
orders, while completely ignoring the orders that were for them.  Men in
supposedly bible-believing Christian churches have asserted again and again
for centuries (millenia, now) that their wives should submit to them -
demanding it, enforcing it with ridicule, shame, and violence.  Self-
righteously, they have used it as a spiritual club to keep women in a
position not of submission, but inferiority.  And all the time the men have
done little or none of the "giving up their lives" for their wives that Jesus
has called *them* to.

It's one of the great tragedies of Christianity, and *long* overdue for
correction.

But compounding that tragedy is the way that it is now being corrected. 
After centuries of having their husbands tear up the orders they were
supposed to follow, and then insist that their wives should still follow
theirs, women are now moving into a stage of tearing up their own orders, and
saying, in effect "You won't follow yours, so we won't follow ours, either." 
Male/female relationships are now being completely destroyed because
*neither* are following God's plan any more.

Perhaps it's necessary.  I don't know how to get men to stop trying to get
their wives to follow the orders for them and instead focus on their own
orders without shaking the men up.  But I fear that this method, instead of
shaking men into re-examining how *they* should be following the Lord, will
just result in destruction.  Or if the men finally do figure it out, then
their wives will no longer be interested in following their orders any more,
and we'll switch from one imbalance to the other.

What I think is most critical is for men to focus on *ignoring* the Biblical
mandates for their wives altogether.  So the Bible says they should be in
submission, and so they are not following that mandate.  As Jesus said to
Peter on the beach "What is that to you?  You follow me."  Jesus did not
demand that people submit to Him.  Far from it, He allowed Himself to be
nailed to a tree and put to a horrible death to *call* people to submit to
Him.  Men's orders are to do exactly the same thing - to literally die for
their wives, and not just in some relatively easy, done quickly and gotten
over with way like stepping in front of a bus for them.  But the much more
difficult path of daily, for a lifetime, giving up, sacrificing, doing
anything for their wives out of love.  And to do it *BEFORE* their wives
decide to follow what Christ as called them to.  Men are to emulate Christ,
and "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom 5:8)  We are to
die, daily if necessary, for our wives, while they as yet are not loving us
as Christ commands.

Perhaps if enough men start following our orders soon, before too many
christian wives believe the lie that they shouldn't follow their orders
either, we can restore Christian marriage (on a large scale, there have
always been a few who have figured it out) to God's design.

Paul

� Greek "A voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating"

Amen!  Thanks!

As a couple who had Eph.5:21... read at our wedding, we remind those that 
don't "like" Eph.5:22  (and there's always someone who comes up to say 
"I can't believe you read that at your wedding"!), it's important to remind 
them that the Bible first encourages all of us to submit to each other 
"out of reverence for Christ".  And along with wives call to submission 
is the husbands call to _leadership_.  That's a weighty responsibility!
But I've noticed personally (and it was pointed out in a Christian marriage 
conference) that even for those who balk at the passage as written, 
women long for their husbands to show leadership and responsibility, and
the marriage goes more smoothly when that is the case.

And for you romantics,  John had Eph.5:21 engraved inside my wedding ring 
(along with our wedding date) as his promise to me, and I had Ruth 1:16
engraved in his as a promise to him.  Our two readings at our wedding.

Sniff!
Tanya

    The Bible indicates that, in Christ, we are all equal in our salvation.
    The Bible further calls out different roles for men and women while we
    are alive.  The roles are of no greater or lesser import, just
    different.
    
    dp

 Amen..




 Jim

    
    Well said Paul.  I have long believed this to be true.
    
    Tanya...that's was so special about your rings and readings 
    at your wedding.  Thanks for sharing it with us.
    
    Jill

      re: .207
    
      Yeah Paul...that was EXCELLENT.	
    
    						Tony

 1 Peter 3:7 principle :

    "Husbands,  in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, 
     and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you 
     of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers."
    
    
    Here is one of the Bible's more astute verses that I don't remember seeing
    before.   It must have gotten too close to the final by the time I read
    1 Peter and figured the final would emphasize the weightier matters of
    Romans, and Corinthians, and ever Revelation.

1Peter 3:7  Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, 
giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs 
together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. 

    There's so much truth to that too.  Ever notice how when you're
    ministering at church you and your spouse/children/relatives have some 
    sort of disagreement or conflict that detracts from you being a 100% 
    willing vessell?  It's especially common with worship leaders/musicians
    and teachers.  Satan doesn't want you to be an effective vessell.
    
    Also for honoring your wife and not having your prayers hindered,
    Ephesians 4:26 says not to let the sun set on your anger (which
    immediately precedes Ephesians 5 on family relations).
    
    Mike

    That's exactly what us women should do.
    
    Keep our mouths closed in church.  Recognize that we are the weaker
    vessel and if we opened our mouth, then the devil might be released to
    do its number on all the strong men in the congregation.  Maybe us weak
    women should be just sent down to the nursery with the children.

<--- Patricia... never thought those words would come out of your mouth. :-)

>    That's exactly what us women should do.
>    
>    Keep our mouths closed in church.  Recognize that we are the weaker
>    vessel and if we opened our mouth, then the devil might be released to
>    do its number on all the strong men in the congregation.  Maybe us weak
>    women should be just sent down to the nursery with the children.

Bitter sarcasm doesn't become you, Patricia

Paul

    Patricia,
      
      Why sarcasm? This is just a discussion. We are all equal here. As
    fare as I am concerned, I have recieved bits of wisdom from women just
    as fruitful and precious than those I have recieved from any man.
      Jesus loves you just as much as he loves anyone else, whether you are
    a woman or not.
    
    
    -Joe
    

    My sarcasm has nothing to do with Jesus' respect for woman.  He was
    revolutionary in his inclusiveness.
    
    My sarcasm has to do with how scripture is interpreted to control
    women, keep them in their place, protect the special status of men.
    
    Sexism is sinful and it does not become the Christian church.

<----- now THAT'S the Patricia *I* know!!!! :-)  I couldn't agree with you more

    
>    My sarcasm has to do with how scripture is interpreted to control
>    women, keep them in their place, protect the special status of men.
    
 
   Do you ignore the many responses to this "issue" that have been posted?





 Jim

re .216, Patricia, I don't see which of today's entries triggered that 
response, but presume it must in some way have been Mike's .215?

Mike was merely flagging how a public ministry draws the devils attention, 
and puts us under attack, especially before, say, preaching, etc.  I have 
been very aware of this for many years.

It might seem unkind to flag the family as a prime source of the 
dissention, but that is the most available channel for the enemy to reach 
people.  Not that they are a burden, but that they are so close a concern 
that they matter where other people could not [so easily] reach us.

Possibly your bitterness stems from reading into this, 1 Timothy 2:12,
which says : 
   "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man". 

Various verses - 1 Corinthians 11 in particular - stress the different
character and role of men and women.  If today's society has lost sight of
this, does that invalidate scripture?  

It would be very easy to represent men's role in a negative sarcastic way, 
as though it was something onerous and unfair.  It just isn't fashionable 
to do that these days, while it is fashionable to denigrate the woman's 
role.  That doesn't make it right, over scripture.  It rather emphasies how 
far mankind has fallen, and how distorted our views are.  In fact, the 
glorification of materialism has elevated 'money' and wealth over the value 
of people.  Jesus came to die for mankind.  Not for money.  Society today 
would reverse those values too.

It is popular, where current opinion differs from scripture, to call 
scripture out dated and wrong.  However it is public opinion that 
fluctuates, while the Word of the LORD stands firm.  If we base our idea of 
God on man, we have a mere putty fabrication which bends to reflect the 
ideas of the day.  If we look into the authoritative Word of God, we see 
the unchanging wisdom of the Author of the Universe.

						God bless
								Andrew

    I'm kind of shocked that my .215 could be taken negatively.  When I
    said "spouse" I meant that both men and women can be affected in this
    way.  Women also teach and have various ministries in the church.  Men 
    can hinder their ministries just as easily.
    
    Mike

    Women cannot teach or have ministries in the church.
    
    Corinthians 11 says they must be silent.

    If you take it out of context, I can see why you feel this way,
    but I've explained the context to you before.

           Re: <<< Note 708.226 by OUTSRC::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>

> If you take it out of context, I can see why you feel this way,
> but I've explained the context to you before.

Help me, Mike. I was not privy to this discussion previously. Can you give me
a pointer to it? (Or, feel free, to explain again, if you prefer). I really
am asking in earnest...

Brian

    Basically, when Paul wrote that, couples didn't sit together.  Women
    were on one side of the synagogue and men on the other.  If something
    said from the pulpit stirred a thought or a comment couples wanted to
    share with each other, they were instructed by Paul to wait until after
    the service was over.  Paul was basically exhorting them to not disrupt
    services.
    
    Mike

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RE  739.13
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
>    let's not forget lot's job's wife. she turned her back on job in his
>    deepest time of temption telling him "curse your God die". but yet
>    job was a WINNER! from the start and to the last!
.>    
>    let's remember lot's wife, she backslid and was turned into salt.
>    lot had nothing to do with her rebellion to the angels warning
>    to not look back. but yet, lot was saved!
>    
>    and remeber david's wife michel "the daughter of saul" was cursed
>    with a barren womb, for dispising david for openly praising God!
>    and this was before david's sin of adultry.
>    
>    In all these cases this were upright men of God, being used of God.
>    God at any time could have stop any of their wifes from backsliding
>    to save face, but he DIDN"T!
    
>    "...through much tribulation shall you enter into the Kingdom of
>     Heaven"
    
>    if brother stanley can maintain the way he has since his been going
>    through. He IS SOME MAN! 
    
    Just goes to show.  Behind every holy man, there is the shadow of Eve,
    every ready to tempt the holy men.
    
    That is why men must be sure to assume the spiritual leadership in
    their household.  If they don't..
    
    
    well then there fate will be the same as poor Adams(:-0)
    
    

    Mike,
    
    I don't believe that couples sitting together or not sitting together
    had anything to do with 1 Corinthian 11.  I believe the real issue is
    that the women in Corinth were a little more assertive than Paul was
    accustomed too.  They were also more ready to accept speaking in
    tongues rather than the more traditional sermons.  Paul felt that
    people speaking in tongues at the same time was disruptive and that the
    women were encouraging this disruptiveness.  
    
    Paul was human.  He got angry on one or two occasions and 1 Corinthains
    11 is the result of this anger.
    
    I believe that Paul was a man of his time.  He was not use to women
    taking leadership positions.  When angry, he fell back into his gut
    level response that women should be silent.
    
    Paul's difficulty with the leadership of women in Corinth is further
    recognizable in taking the familar words that he incorporated into both
    Galatians and Corinthians.  In Galatia, he said, "In Christ there is
    now male or female, slave or free, Jew or Gentile.  When he repeated
    this saying in Corinth, he left out the men and women saying "In Christ
    there is no slave of free, Jew or Gentile".
    
    I do believe that Paul in spite of being a man of his times and
    therefore a bit of a chauvanist was still a brilliant theologian.  His
    definition of Faith, his theology of the Body of christ, new creation,
    his definition of Holy Community, his clear understanding of the
    supremacy of Faith to Law are all brilliant works.
    
    Paul was a Holy man and a great theologian.  He was also a human being
    with human frailties.  Paul had somewhat of an Ego problem.  He always
    felt that he had the right answer and got very angry at anyone who
    challenged his understanding.  He was somewhat of a zealot.  He was
    somewhat of a chauvanist.  He was a man, uncomfortable with his own
    sexual impulses as clearly recorded.  He was a sinner just like you and I.
    
    To misread the letters of Paul totally distorts our understanding of
    the Bible.  Paul's letters are the earliest New Testament Writings
    available to us, The testemony closest to the time of Christ, A first
    hand account of the early church.  Failing to recognize the
    significance of Paul's own shortcomings in the letters distorts the way
    we understand the letters.

 Patricia....ah, nevermind.






 Jim

>    I don't believe that couples sitting together or not sitting together
>    had anything to do with 1 Corinthian 11.  I believe the real issue is
    
    The historical and cultural records don't support your interpretation
    of this passage.  Your interpretation is biased by the axe you've been
    grinding.  It's truly sad to see how your personal agenda with respect
    to gender roles hinders your growth and understanding of God's Word.
    
    Mike

>    To misread the letters of Paul totally distorts our understanding of
>    the Bible.  

I agree, Patricia.

We're starting to get (we're actually well onto it, I think) the same treadmill
Glen's been on for five years.  You simply flat refuse to address any
scriptures that are brought up that show that your views are unbiblical, and
then come back again and again with your view, trying to present it as
scriptural by using some fragments of scripture which you have deemed by your
own arbitrary personal standard to be useful, occasionally even trying to take
the high road with phrases like "*I* take this particular verse seriously,"
implying that we don't take the Bible seriously and you do.

It doesn't work.  It isn't going to.  And it gets tiresome to bring up the same
scriptures again and again in response which you will once again simply refuse
to address.

You view the Scriptures through the filter of the world and your experience. 
That view is diametrically opposed to the foundation of this conference - we
view the world and our experiences through the filter of Scripture.  The two
views are *ALWAYS* going to be opposed, they are *ALWAYS* going to be at odds. 
You can stay here for five years, and argue with us again and again and again
that we should view Scripture through the filter of the world and experience as
you do, and we're never, never going to do it.

Or you could just accept that we view the world differently and let us be.

I'm not angry, Patricia, I'm just weary at your relentlessness.

Paul

P.S. I absolutely knew, sure as the sun would come up in the morning, that you
were going to have the response you had in .229, despite Andrew's pointing out
that the point made has nothing to do with gender.  When the only tool you have
is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

                  re: <<< Note 708.233 by PAULKM::WEISS  >>>

> We're starting to get (we're actually well onto it, I think) the same 
> treadmill Glen's been on for five years. You simply flat refuse to address 
> any Scriptures that are brought up that show that your views are unbiblical, 
> and then come back again and again with your view, trying to present it as
> Scriptural by using some fragments of Scripture which you have deemed by 
> your own arbitrary personal standard to be useful, occasionally even 
> trying to take the high road with phrases like "*I* take this particular 
> verse seriously," implying that we don't take the Bible seriously and you do.

Well, at least we're getting better at discerning porkine opera preparation
more quickly.

> It doesn't work.  It isn't going to.  And it gets tiresome to bring up the 
> same Scriptures again and again in response which you will once again simply 
> refuse to address.

Then select the "Ignore" option, and carry on.

> You view the Scriptures through the filter of the world and your experience. 
> That view is diametrically opposed to the foundation of this conference - we
> view the world and our experiences through the filter of Scripture.  The two
> views are *ALWAYS* going to be opposed, they are *ALWAYS* going to be at 
> odds. You can stay here for five years, and argue with us again and again 
> and again that we should view Scripture through the filter of the world and 
> experience as you do, and we're never, never going to do it.

> Or you could just accept that we view the world differently and let us be.

Possible, but not likely. America Online has a *wonderful* feature in its 
online chat function, which I wish notes could incorporate - the "IGNORE"
button. Select a member's name while they are in a chat "room", click on
"IGNORE", and you will no longer see any of their drivel. Similarly, USENET
Newsgroups have "KILLFILES", which permit you to filter postings based on a
number of criteria, *including* author or thread. A moderator can even
*exclude* postings via a KILLFILE. One can only dream...

8^{(

Brian

	At least the contrast between two world views is continually
and sharply defined in this conference.

  There have been some unhelpful and unfriendly replies to Patricia in 
  here, which I am very sorry to see.  We know that the beliefs of most in 
  this conference - and, in fact, its Biblical guidelines - are different 
  from Patricia's position, and it must be very difficult for her to note 
  here.  Please don't make it any worse!  The differences can be addressed,
  and that's what we're here to discuss.  If you feel that there's too much 
  repetition, and are unable to express yourself more clearly, it is 
  possible that another approach altogether may help.  It is unlikely that 
  expressing frustration will.  God has been very patient with me, even 
  since Calvary.  He hasn't yet set me to "IGNORE", though in His position 
  I might have been severely tempted to - if my doctrine allowed for such 
  a compounding of paradoxes! ;-}.
    Maybe He's on a shorter fuse with others, but somehow I doubt it...

  If you feel that some limit has been reached - from either side - please 
  feel free to contact a moderator.

							   Andrew
							co-moderator

Given the sensitivities, it was unfortunate that 739.13 (quoted in .229)
only gave examples in one direction.  I trust that no-one is naive enough
to think that it constitutes any sort of principle, though! 

However, I feel a need to address one point in particular ... :
.230 � Paul was human.  He got angry on one or two occasions and 1 Corinthains
.230 � 11 is the result of this anger.
This would seem to imply, Patricia, that you think that 1 Corinthians is 
not inspired scripture in its entirety, as you judge this chapter to result 
from his temper, rather than from the leading of the Holy Spirit.

If this were the case, it would be evident to all who have the Holy Spirit 
as a deposit, witnessing in their hearts, and this would totally disqualify 
the whole book of 1 Corinthians from being included in the Bible.

If the Bible is from God, our natural approach to a passage we find 
unacceptable, or difficult in some way should not be to assume that God got 
it wrong, but to realise that our finite understanding has not encompassed 
His total wisdom.

Certainly, Paul was a sinner, as we are, and it can be interesting to
speculate about his character, from the evidences given.  But those of his
writings included in the Bible are filtered by the Holy Spirit.  The one
who does not accept that, puts themself _above_ scripture, and effectively
redefines their god around their own character and experience.  Their god
will change from time to time, but he will never become Jehovah, because He
is reached by faith, not by logic.  Accepting the blood of Jesus to address
our sin implies going beyond human understanding, and letting go of the
filters which confine self. 

					God bless
							Andrew 

| <<< Note 708.232 by OUTSRC::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>


| The historical and cultural records don't support your interpretation
| of this passage.  

	Mike, are the cultural and historical records inerrant? I know you
believe the Bible to be, but if the other records are not, then you can't use
them to prove what you believe the Bible is meaning. Using inerrant material to
prove something is no different than a person's interpretation of a passage.
Can human records compare to the Bible in your belief system?

| Your interpretation is biased by the axe you've been grinding.  

	Gee.... now I see we're onto telling others why they are doing <insert
anything>. How nice. 

| It's truly sad to see how your personal agenda with respect to gender roles 
| hinders your growth and understanding of God's Word.

	I don't think it hinders anything with Patricia. I do believe it helps
her see that some things should just never happen again. You may not agree with
what she is saying, but can you really know the reasons behind her beliefs? Is
it really an axe? Come on.....



Glen

| <<< Note 708.233 by PAULKM::WEISS "For I am determined to know nothing, except..." >>>


| We're starting to get (we're actually well onto it, I think) the same treadmill
| Glen's been on for five years. You simply flat refuse to address any scripture
| that are brought up that show that your views are unbiblical, and then come 
| back again and again with your view, trying to present it as scriptural by 
| using some fragments of scripture which you have deemed by your own arbitrary 
| personal standard to be useful, occasionally even trying to take the high road
| with phrases like "*I* take this particular verse seriously," implying that 
| we don't take the Bible seriously and you do.

	Well Paul, what a long sentence that was!!! :-)  Now to address the
part about me. You're wrong. I have addressed Scripture you and others have
brought up. A lot of it I had to do off line cuz the premise won't allow me to
do so in here. So like I said, you're wrong.

	Now, as to the implying claim you're laying on Patricia, you have to be
totally blind to not see what's happening. Go reread yours and other peoples
notes. They make the claim that she doesn't take it seriously, that she omits
this and that, and when she comes back and says she does take it seriously, you
sling this at her? It's clear as day that she is rebuking the claims made by
others, not saying you don't take it seriously. Man.....

| It doesn't work. It isn't going to. And it gets tiresome to bring up the same
| scriptures again and again in response which you will once again simply refuse
| to address.

	You not accepting her replies does not mean she did not address the
issue. This is something many in this file have got to learn to realize. I know
it's difficult, but just try. You don't need to agree with what is said, just
realize that the person has addressed the issue(s).

| You can stay here for five years, and argue with us again and again and again
| that we should view Scripture through the filter of the world and experience as
| you do, and we're never, never going to do it.

	Wow..... Paul, maybe you should take a break. You're starting to foam a
bit. You have your beliefs, others have theirs. Your beliefs will NOT match up
100% with too many other people, if any. (it's the same for everyone) Until you
can claim absolution, please don't blast others for having a belief that is
different than yours. 

| I'm not angry, Patricia, I'm just weary at your relentlessness.

	You mean her standing by her beliefs? Would anyone expect any less from
you?????


Glen

   <<< Note 708.236 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "He must increase - I must decrease" >>>


	Andrew.... good note

>    The historical and cultural records don't support your interpretation
>    of this passage.  Your interpretation is biased by the axe you've
    
    >been grinding.
    
    The historical and cultural records do in fact support my
    interpretation.  A careful reading of Paul also supports my
    interpretation.   Why do you suppose the Male and Female is left out of
    the formula "In Christ there is no male or female, slave or free, jew
    or Gentile" in the Corinthian version but included in the Galatian
    version.
    
    A great book to read about the Corinthian letters, is Antoinette Ware's
    The Corinthian women prophets.  After reading her book, I rejected the
    other common hypothesis that the "Women should be silent"  was an
    editorian addition to the letter.
    
    >  It's truly sad to see how your personal agenda with respect
    >  to gender roles hinders your growth and understanding of God's Word.
    
    It is also sad to see how your refusal to take gender issues seriously
    hinders your growth and understanding of God's Word.
    
                                    Patricia

Patricia, 

Galatians is particularly directed at the problem of imposing legalism,
especially as applied in circumcision where it does not apply.  As such,
the male/female distinction has an extra significance.  In addition to
this, Galatians 3:26 stresses that "You are all sons of God through faith
in Christ Jesus...".  Paul is underlining here that even women who are
Christians are described as 'sons of God' - just as male Christians are a
part of the Bride of Christ. 

1 Corinthians 12:13 is discussing a different issue, stressing that baptism 
into the Holy Spirit includes Christians in the same body.  That the 
particular analogy is taken further in another instance doesn't in any way 
imply that Paul has overridden divine inspiration!

Note also that the Corinthian church was in a very difficult area.  It was
at the confluence of trading routes, and as a result, the cosmopolitan city
encompassed many loose practices.  Promiscuity and idol worship was rife,
and many of the Corinthian Christians who had come from such a background 
were apparently unclear about moral distinctions.  This was why the trouble 
in 1 Corinthians 5 wasn't dealt with until Paul pointed it out.  It would
also mean that he would have to be very careful not to leave any sexual
ambiguity, as might just have been siezed upon had 'there is neither male
nor female' been addressed to them!  The Holy Spirit overruled such a faux
pas, and we have it through the Galatian letter instead. 

							Andrew

    The Corinthian Letters tells women to be silent in church.  the
    Corinthain letters tells women not to withhold sex from there
    husbands.(yes it does tell husbands to not withhold sex from their
    wifes, but somehow I don't think this was an issue).  It tells the
    Corinthians the celibacy is better than being married, but it is better
    to be married than to burn.  Now with all this advice to women about
    their sexuality, I cannot really believe that he left the male and
    female out of the formula so that men or women would not get the wrong
    message.
    
                                     Patricia

Missed the point, Patricia.  To the Corinthians, he focussed on addressing
the male / female issue in the physical context, where they had direct 
need, rather than in the eternal, which required a little more perception.

I'm not sure why you think only one side of 1 Corinthians 7:3 was an issue. 
The social habits of Corinth were *very* different, even from what western 
civilisation would perceive as valid.

							Andrew

    re .242
    
    What you have indicated is a subtle form of Patriarchy in the use of
    the term Circumsized and Uncircumsized by Paul.  The Circumsized
    identify the Jewish Christians.  The Uncircumsized the Gentile
    Christians. 
    
    The claim that feminists make is that throughout the Bible men are
    recognized as normative and women as the other.
    
    Paul does talk about real circumsision being spiritual and not
    physical, but never applies that to the question of women.  In the Old
    Testament Circumsion was seen as the symbol of the Covenant with God. 
    Men only were circumsized.  The covenant is then seen as directly
    between men and God.  women are included in the covenant indirectly
    through there relationship with husbands and fathers and other male
    relatives.
    
    The question that you raise, is the heart of the Patriarchy issue.
    
    
                                   Patricia

�    The question that you raise, is the heart of the Patriarchy issue.

I'm glad you recognise that.  It was God Who instituted circumcision; not 
Paul.  Any quibble with its scope or emphasis is with Him, not mankind.  If 
there is a problem with this particular aspect of God's covenant, the
reason should be sought with God, rather than in any mortal aspect, such as
the culture to which it was applied.  There is more for us to understand 
here than lies on the surface, which our culture has lost, rather than 
'risen above'.

It's interesting to note that in spite of the claims of those who do not
hold the Bible to be inspired, that Paul's writings demonstrate
antagonistism to women, it was Paul himself who emphasised that this
difference (the application of physical circumcision) was removed. 

�    The claim that feminists make is that throughout the Bible men are    
�    recognized as normative and women as the other. 

This again is due to their lack of understanding of what the true
differences are.  Men are representative rather than normative.  There is
no lack of recognition in either testament that women are people in their
own right.  The objections are generally due to an undue exaggeration of 
the importance of one role or another, instead of recognising that both 
have their function before God, and are incomplete without the other.

�    The claim that feminists make is that throughout the Bible ...
This raises another, and more significant question.  Are you maintaining 
that feminists are following a belief which is in conflict with the Bible?

							Andrew

    As a feminist, I look to the man Jesus and what he stood for and it is
    clear that he was radically inclusive.
    
    If I compare Jesus' acceptance of women, his socializing with women,
    his honoring of women even above the men in the crowd(i.e. the
    annointing).  If as I read
    that at the time of his execution, the men ran away, as the women
    stayed to support him at the cross.  As I read that the women were the
    first to return to the empty tomb, then I am certain that the living
    Word of God, i.e. Jesus himself can be called a feminist.
    
    As a feminist, I get much of my inspiration from Jesus who radically
    supported women and radically redefined what it means to be a man.  A
    man who turned the hierarchical structure of power upside down, when he
    said that to lead, one must serve-who said the last will be first.
    
    As a feminist, I am inspired by the relational theology of Jesus.  More
    inportant than anything else, he tells us is our  relationship of love
    with all humanity, with Ourself, and with God.
    
    
    
    
    Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are extraordinary given the time in which
    they were written for their mention of women, Jesus' acceptance of
    women, and the role women played in those Gospels.    Romans,
    Corinthians, Galatians, Philipians, 1 Thessoleans, Ephesians are all
    wonderful theological treasties in spite of a handful of questionable
    versus. 
    
    Timothy, Titus, Revelation, and Jude, I will leave to you all.
    
    Your right Andrew, I do not believe that the Bible itself is Divine.  I
    believe that calling anything human Divine is idolatry.  
    
    As I women, I know that God did not tell women to be silent in Church,
    that God did not tell women to be subordinate to men, that God did not
    exclude women from his covenant.
    
    Unfortunately my faith in the Living God breaks the rules of this
    conference.
    
    It is probably time for me to go back to Christian Perpectives.
    
    I thank you for the opportunity to note here with you.  I hope that I
    can continue to note with some of you in the other Christian
    conference. 
    
    There is a lot that I do admire about this conference and this
    community.  I just wish you were more inclusive.
    
    
                                           Patricia
    
    
    
    

� As a feminist, I look to the man Jesus and what he stood for and it is
� clear that he was radically inclusive.
Jesus made it abundantly clear that all people are equal in God's eyes.
Equally loved, and equally responsible, and needing salvation.  Regardless
of sex, age, race, colour, social standing and computer fluency.  [ Perhaps
I ought to qualify that, as I don't actually recall a direct reference to
that last, and the 'social standing' one actually leaves the wealthy with a
bit of a spiritual limp. ] 

So it's likely that feminism would find things to admire in Jesus.  But
without knowing more about feminism, I couldn't say how far you'd be likely
to accept His full statement. 

� Your right Andrew, I do not believe that the Bible itself is Divine.  I
� believe that calling anything human Divine is idolatry.  

Now there you have significantly misquoted me.  Neither did I say that the
Bible is Divine.  I also would see that as idolatry.  What I did say was
that it is Divinely inspired.  That we are not at liberty to pick and
choose what we will or will not accept from it, because then we are setting
ourselves in authority over scripture.  That is the form of idolatry which
is calling oneself god.  For the individual to decide what they can accept
or reject of scripture is to place the individual mind as the ultimate
judge - and as we all not only have different perceptions, standards and
weaknesses, but also each one of us is changing continually in these areas, 
it ultimately denies that there is any absolute right or wrong.  It has to 
reach this conclusion for all mankind to live with sin unchallenged.  

God is concerned with removing us from sin; not with making us contented to 
live with it.  He is interested in us as whole people, not in emphasising
on one facet of our humanity. 

If there is something in the Bible which conflicts with my sense of right
and wrong, or with my personal sense of reasoning, my faith in the Living
God and experience of Him is enough to assure me that the limitation is in
me, rather than in Him or in His control of what constitutes His Word.  I
can wait until it is time for me to be shown what it means, or until I see
Him face to face.  Meanwhile, I'll accept all the Bible you'll leave us, 
including the questionable verses.  ;-)

Thanks for noting with us here, Patricia.  My impression is that it has
been very useful to us, as I hope it has to you.  Obviously your stance on
Biblical inspiration does not preclude your continuing participation,
though you might feel that it would be too limiting on the line of argument
you would prefer to use.  I could say that I just wish you were more
inclusive - of all the Bible! ;-)  Do return whenever you feel that
communication here would be useful! 

						God bless
								Andrew 

    re: <<< Note 708.247 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    As a feminist, I look to the man Jesus and what he stood for and it is
>    clear that he was radically inclusive.

Absolutely. He even agreed to minister to the the needs of several Gentiles,
which was absolutely unheard of for a Jewish Rabbi in His time.
    
>    If I compare Jesus' acceptance of women, his socializing with women,
>    his honoring of women even above the men in the crowd...
>    ...Jesus himself can be called a feminist.

As the word feminist is in common usage, I don't think so. If you mean one 
who highly regards women (even moreso than His contemporaries), I would agree.
Nevertheless, He understood that men and women have differing natures and
differing roles (after all, He *is* the Creator!), and never got them 
confused, trying to substitute the function of one gender for the other.
    
>    As a feminist, I get much of my inspiration from Jesus who radically
>    supported women and radically redefined what it means to be a man.  

Fascinating! What an unusual twist to put on Scripture!

>    A man who turned the hierarchical structure of power upside down, when he
>    said that to lead, one must serve-who said the last will be first.

Which is why you rebel so strongly at the thought of mutual submission between
husband and wife?
    
>    Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Philipians, 1 Thessoleans, Ephesians are 
>    all wonderful theological treasties in spite of a handful of questionable
>    versus. 

Is the word questionable, or merely unpalatable? If God's Word does not suit
your preferences, guess which needs correction...
    
>    Timothy, Titus, Revelation, and Jude, I will leave to you all.

Sorry, Scripture is an entirety. Take it or leave it, but you do not have the
luxury of rendering it.
    
>    Your right Andrew, I do not believe that the Bible itself is Divine.

Perhaps the phrase "divinely inspired" is more apt.

>    I believe that calling anything human Divine is idolatry.

Well, there is the crux of our disagreement. Bible-Believing Christians know
that the Bible is *not* human(-ly inspired), but *is* divine(-ly inspired).
    
>    As I women, I know that God did not tell women to be silent in Church,
>    that God did not tell women to be subordinate to men, that God did not
>    exclude women from his covenant.

The first two are clearly in contradiction to Scripture. The first must be 
understood in context, the explanation of which you have refused to accept.
The second is a rebellious response to abuse of authority previously exerted
over you by irresponsible and immature men. I am sorry for that, but previous
unfortunate experience with those abusing Scripture does not change its truth
or validity. The third clause is obviously true, and has been uncontested,
insofar as I have observed. As such, it appears to have been included to 
coerce agreement with the first two (erroneous) clauses. Sorry, the syllogism
fails, for lack of consistency.
    
>    Unfortunately my faith in the Living God breaks the rules of this
>    conference.

Not to mention the rules of reason and Scriptural exogesis.
    
>    It is probably time for me to go back to Christian Perpectives.

Sorry to see you leave. It was just getting interesting.
    
>    I thank you for the opportunity to note here with you.  I hope that I
>    can continue to note with some of you in the other Christian
>    conference.

I've been there before. I don't find the final adjective all that applicable.
To start with, they implicitly and explicitly deny the validity and authority
of Scripture, thereby implicitly abjure the adjective, Christian.
    
>    There is a lot that I do admire about this conference and this
>    community.  I just wish you were more inclusive.
    
Inclusiveness is not a quality, when inclusion implies disavowing those things
which form the distinctives of one's character and nature. Philosophical
porrige is quite bland and unpalatable (which is why I avoid CP).

Regards,

Brian