Home - List All Discussions

Stop The Slander

From both sides come lies

by: LiberalChiRo

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/15/internet.rumors/index.html

None of the rumors are true people. Palin isn't a separatist and Obama isn't Muslim. I'm personally ignoring all of the mud-slinging and focusing on electing someone based on who they represent themselves to be, not based off of what their opponents think of them. That's why I haven't really responded to any of the political threads on this forum: because I think it's all nonsense.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Nonsense? Obama's Indonesian school records list him as Muslim. He attended a Muslim school for two years. With his interest in killing babies, he may be a secularist/agnostic/athiest. However, people don't see a problem with saying they are of the Christian faith and then doing just the opposite of what their faith teaches.
I am concerned that Obama will drop the ball in the Middle East and allow Islamic nations to obtain the nuclear weapon. This will result in future horrors and death on an unimaginable scale.
I've found that taking one at their word for who they are and what they'll do is foolish. The fact is, most people are liars and deceivers. If Obama is against infants born alive or the right to keep arms he is not going to blow the trumpet and let voters know. Through deceptive techniques, candidates try to keep on everyone's good side.
The way to determine who a candidate is and what they'll do is to examine the record. The Bible gives good advice when it says you will know the truth by examing the fruits, what one has done, rather than listening to what they say.
Again, what one says doesn't matter, only what one does. Therefore, examine the evidence of what Obama has actually done.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

So people aren't allowed to change their religions? I've got a couple of profiles on the web in multiple places that I would definitely consider outdated; some of them probably say I'm everything from Buddhist to Deist. I was exploring my faith back then. For all you know, Obama was too.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Obama is so radical, I find it hard to believe he is a man of any faith. I believe he is about building a society based on equality and rights; which he views as great virtues. However, I believe his views are excessive when those rights include things such as the right to abort your unborn child.
Obama's dad was a Muslim and Obama said his half-brother, also a Muslim, was among the people he admired most. This would make some people uncomfortable. Obama has said we should respect all peoples. Does that also mean being sympathetic to the teachings of Islam, embraced by one billion. I think Obama believes respecting people means accepting non-judgementally their beliefs and practices. I am of the mindset that some beliefs and practices are just plain wrong, and in many cases destructive. I believe Obama will be soft on and naive to the dangers of certian movements. Did you know Jihad means winning the world for Allah? The unwary don't sense the danger presented by the Jihad philosophy. When Presidents aren't alert to the dangers (such as a Hitler) events can develop into worldwide wars.

reply from: CharlesD

Personally, I don't care if he was a Muslim during his youth and I'm willing to believe him that he isn't one now. When it comes to a politician, I don't care what his personal religious convictions are, but I do care about his policies. Obama's policies are atrocious and that is the reason I can't vote for him. If there was a pro life conservative running who was also a Muslim, I could vote for that guy.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

You do recall that it was 19 Muslims who committed the plane murders on 9/11. I believe they chanted "Allah is Greatest" as they successfully carried out their mission for him. In the videos of terrorists cutting off hostages' heads they always chant "Allah is Greatest".

reply from: RiverMoonLady

"Allahu-Akbar. Allah is the greatest.
These are the first words a Muslim child hears after entering this world. The father makes the call to prayer in his or her ears as the welcome-to-this-world message. The same call is heard wherever there are Muslims, five times a day. The prayers also begin with this pronouncement. Certainly this is the emblem of the Islamic faith. There is no power in the world equal to the power of the One God. Allah is the greatest."
Just substitute "GOD" or "JESUS" or "THE LORD" and what happens? It becomes the theme of Christians everywhere.
There is much danger in believing that YOUR God is the ONLY God, because - for all we know - THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD - but various faiths have different names for that God.
If you are afraid of Muslims or Islam, it is because of the fear the government used to turn you into sheep.

reply from: CharlesD

I differentiate between Muslims and radical jihadists. What percentage of Muslims are radicalized, maybe 10%. Now that's a lot of whackos out there, but I don't think we can paint them all with that broad brush.
There are groups who call themselves Christian as well, but who do things that go against orthodox Christianity. The KKK claims to speak for God as well, but I'm not going to use that to say that all Christians are racists. I am against Muslim terrorists, but not all Muslims. That's not to say that I don't disagree with their religion, but that's a different issue.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

I differentiate between Muslims and radical jihadists. What percentage of Muslims are radicalized, maybe 10%. Now that's a lot of whackos out there, but I don't think we can paint them all with that broad brush.
There are groups who call themselves Christian as well, but who do things that go against orthodox Christianity. The KKK claims to speak for God as well, but I'm not going to use that to say that all Christians are racists. I am against Muslim terrorists, but not all Muslims. That's not to say that I don't disagree with their religion, but that's a different issue.
Very nicely put. I agree.

reply from: CharlesD

That's twice you've agreed with me the last couple days. Is this one of the signs of the apocalypse?

reply from: RiverMoonLady

That's twice you've agreed with me the last couple days. Is this one of the signs of the apocalypse?
I highly doubt it. I don't believe in the Apocalypse of Revelations.
But you can take it any way you want

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Bingo. I don't care if he's Muslim, believes in Voodoo or worships a top hat every night. I'm glad you're voting on his policies and not his religion.

reply from: CharlesD

Every religion has its share of fringe wackos. That's why you can't paint every member of a religion with the same broad brush. Those fringe elements are the minority.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You do recall that it was 19 Muslims who committed the plane murders on 9/11.
You do remember the crusaders were Christian. Henry the VIII was christian. Hitler was christian!! You're not going to win this argument to deface another religion. It's not the RELIGION that is bad; it is the followers. I knew many Muslims in college and they were all really pissed off that Americans thought they were all suicide bombers.

reply from: CharlesD

Hitler might have called himself a Christian, but I very much doubt that he was. You can tell them by their fruits.

reply from: MC3

It is interesting that whenever "Christian violence" is brought up the name that most often pops into the conversation is that of Adolf Hitler. The Left loves to hold him up and talk about how a Catholic envisioned and then carried out the Nazi holocaust. The major flaw in that argument is that Hitler was not a Catholic. He was simply born to parents who were Catholic. Read any legitimate biography about him and you will see that he was virtually devoid of any sort of spirituality and that the closest thing to religion in his life was a disturbing fascination with occultism. The bitter irony is, if Hitler had indeed been a Catholic it is highly unlikely that World War II would have ever occurred.
Let's cut to the chase here. Understanding the real motivation behind this sort of Christian-bashing begins by understanding that the world just went through the most violent century in its history. In World War II alone, while Hitler's thugs were terrorizing western Europe, Joe Stalin and his buddy Lenin were carrying out a genocide - often against their own countrymen - that made Uncle Adolf look like a bumbling amateur. Meanwhile, the Japanese had jumped into bed with Hitler and Stalin and were piling up Chinese, Indonesian, Korean, Filipino, and Indochinese corpses by the millions. Then came despots like, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-tung, Chiang Kai-chek, Tito, Kim Il-sung, and others who carried on this tradition of using mass executions as a political tool.
In the end, the best estimates are that government sanctioned genocide during the 20th century stole the lives of about 175 million people. What the Godless Left does not want the public to think about is the fact that almost all the perpetrators of these atrocities were self-admitted atheists and/or non-Christians. In other words, the overwhelming majority of the butchery that occurred during the most violent century in world history was done by people with the same world view and belief system as the American Left. Their relentless Christian-bashing is simply a scheme to divert attention away from that uncomfortable reality. In short, they are the embodiment of the "guilty dog barks first" philosophy and, unfortunately, to a large measure it has worked.
The unvarnished truth is that the Godless Left has always embraced genocide as a means to an end. One such atrocity is going on right here in the United States as over 3000 helpless human beings are being executed by abortion every single day.
Of course, there are those who will contend that this holocaust is not associated with atheism since many of the people who call themselves pro-choice, and many of the people actually having abortions, claim to be Christians. That ignores the fact that just because someone claims to be a Christian does not mean that they are one. In reality, when someone says they are both pro-choice and Christian they are either heretics, frauds or simply ignorant about what it means to be a Christian.

reply from: Banned Member

Obama is so radical, I find it hard to believe he is a man of any faith. I believe he is about building a society based on equality and rights; which he views as great virtues. However, I believe his views are excessive when those rights include things such as the right to abort your unborn child.
Obama's dad was a Muslim and Obama said his half-brother, also a Muslim, was among the people he admired most. This would make some people uncomfortable. Obama has said we should respect all peoples. Does that also mean being sympathetic to the teachings of Islam, embraced by one billion. I think Obama believes respecting people means accepting non-judgementally their beliefs and practices. I am of the mindset that some beliefs and practices are just plain wrong, and in many cases destructive. I believe Obama will be soft on and naive to the dangers of certian movements. Did you know Jihad means winning the world for Allah? The unwary don't sense the danger presented by the Jihad philosophy. When Presidents aren't alert to the dangers (such as a Hitler) events can develop into worldwide wars.
You are so wrong, it's scary. Obama IS NOT Muslim, and so what if he were. What is so horrible running a country based on equality & rights? Besides abortion, what other rights should be banned in this country, who else doesn't deserve equality? Obviously you don't feel that Muslims do.
You are a fundamentalist Christian extremist, the rarest kind of Christian, exactly like fundamentalist Muslim extremist are the rarest kind. But it's the people like you in all religions that are most outspoken & who commit the most heinous acts. You & people like you!
By the way, why don't you actually research things before you go spouting off about them. I don't know what terroristic, Christian, slanderous email you got that little bit of info on Jihad from, but the word means sacrifice. Get a clue.

reply from: CharlesD

I thought jihad meant "struggle". The problem is that the extremist Muslims interpret that in a different manner than the moderates do. A moderate Muslim sees that as the struggle to reach the infidels with the Muslim religion, basically to gain converts. The extremist thinks that means to wipe out the infidel. Quite a difference there. What I don't like is the use of the word "fundamentalist" to mean extreme, regardless of which religion it applies to. A fundamentalist by definition would be someone who adheres to the fundamentals of his religion. A Muslim extremist distorts his religion to justify terrorist acts. That's not much of a fundamentalist.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Is this considered part of the slander?
By Deborah Feyerick and Sheila Steffen
CNN's American Morning

DENVER, Colorado (CNN) -- On a Sunday morning just weeks before the presidential election, Priscilla Linsley opened her local Denver newspaper and discovered a DVD inside.
Clarion Fund released "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West," in 70 newspapers in key swing states.
"I was shocked at the content and horrified that this had been in my Sunday paper," said Linsley, a 74-year-old Democrat, who watched about half of the video before throwing it in the trash.
"I have Muslim friends and respect Islam as a religion and felt that this was really hateful," said Linsley.
The hourlong film on DVD, "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West," was made by Israeli filmmaker Raphael Shore and shows disturbing, sometimes violent images.
Rima Barakat Sinclair, who is Muslim and a Republican, was so angry she called her local lawmakers in Denver. Watch voters reaction to the DVD »
"It is riddled not only with misleading facts but outright fabrication," said Barakat Sinclair.
In September, some 28 million of the "Obsession" DVD's were distributed as advertising inserts in 70 newspapers, primarily in critical swing states such as Colorado, Florida and Ohio.
It was paid for by the Clarion Fund, a nonprofit group established by the film's Israeli producer with the goal of exposing what it calls the threat of radical Islam. The Clarion Fund was created in 2006, the same year "Obsession" was released.
"Our focus is to educate with our movies and raise awareness, not influence elections," said Gregory Ross, a Clarion spokesman.
But Larry Sabato, a political observer and director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said it's naïve to think such a video won't influence undecided voters.
"It's pretty obvious that the group sponsoring it wants people to think more about terrorism, about national security, about Middle East politics and maybe less about the economy," said Sabato. "Well, that obviously favors one side -- the Republicans."
Because a number of Americans still believe, incorrectly, that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama is a Muslim, political observers said they believe the DVD plays directly into that misperception.
Clarion said neither the campaign of GOP candidate Sen. John McCain or of Obama had anything to do with the DVD that has outraged some Muslim groups. Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American Islamic Relations, called the film anti-Muslim and politically motivated. Holding up promotional material that came with the video, Awad pointed out, "It says clearly that, 'It's our responsibility to ensure that we can all make an informed vote in November.' "
Don't Miss
Commentary: So what if Obama were Muslim?
Election Center 2008
CNN's 'American Morning'
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, a group that includes some Democratic donors, has filed complaints with the Internal Revenue Service and Federal Elections Commission, saying Clarion has violated its tax-exempt status.
"A nonprofit organization getting involved in political campaigning, promoting candidates and scaring people and influencing voters for the election in November is something that needs to be looked into seriously," said Awad.
The Clarion Fund would not say who its donors are or how much they are giving. A records search comes up empty.
Muslim advocates from the Islamic relations council said the money is coming from the prominent Jewish educational group Aish Hatorah, which has headquarters in Israel.
"It seems that this campaign is well funded and directed by a foreign entity to influence the U.S. presidential elections," Awad said.
Clarion's spokesman called it "totally ludicrous."
"We do not accept donations from foreign entities. The accusations by CAIR are totally unfounded," said Ross. "We are responding to the FEC complaint. However, there is no substance to that whatsoever."
Aish Hatorah denied donating money to Clarion for its DVD campaign, though a spokesman said the filmmaker and other Clarion staffers worked for Aish Hatorah. The filmmaker, Raphael Shore, is employed by Aish Hatorah. His brother, Rabbi Ephraim Shore, is listed as an executive with the organization.
Clarion will soon release its latest film, "The Third Jihad," narrated by M. Zuhdi Jasser, who is president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. He describes himself as a devoted, peace-loving Muslim.
"It's always interesting how the Islamist organizations that have a certain political agenda claim 'victim' and yet they always want to attack the messenger, rather than dealing with the message," said Jasser.
He said groups such as the Islamic council should "condemn not only terrorism as an action, but the goals of the Islamic state and what Islamists would do if they were a majority and name Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations by name."
As for people like Barakat Sinclair who received the DVD, she said newspapers should have known better.
"If this DVD was produced and mass distributed by the KKK or an anti-Semitic organization, would it be included? Or rejected, rightfully so?" she said.
Linsley agreed and said newspapers should have made it clear the DVD was part of an ad campaign and not an editorial decision.
The FEC and IRS would not comment on the specifics of the case, but said they investigate all complaints.

reply from: CharlesD

I saw that on tv a few months ago. It was not misleading in any way. It showed a pretty disturbing look at the world of radical extremists. I don't think it in any way painted all of Islam that way. The threat that these radicals pose can't be ignored.

reply from: nancyu

You seem to have a desire for everyone to get along and play nice, liberal. People can and vote for whomever they wish to vote for, for whatever reason. And there's not a gosh darned thing you can do about it.
You also seem to have first hand knowledge of which rumors are true and which are not. If only we all had such a firm grasp of truth as you seem to have. Maybe you should run for President. I'm sure you would win, because you would tell people not to say anything mean or unkind about you.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

The film early on says it is only about radical extremists. Near the beginning and end are peaceful law-abiding Muslims that the film makes clear are not the subject of the film. The film starts with the 9/11 attacks, video of planes flying into the Twin Towers.

reply from: scopia1982

We got this CD in the mail the other day and we threw it in the garbage after my son got tired of using it for a Frisbee.I ordered a copy of the Koran and some Islamic literature dealing with the rights and roles of women in Islam. Islam is the only religion that I know of in their sacred text that lays out explicit rights for women. Women are allowed to own and inherit property there husband has no legal claim to it. Upon marriage, her husband must give a dowry, usually in the form of jewelry or money. It is hers to keep and do with as she pleases. If she earns money from a job, it for her own personal use, she is under no obligation to spend it on her family, unless she chooses to. Muslim women are also entitled to an education.It is the man that is obligated to provide and support the family, True a woman only inherits half the money a man would, but he is obligated to use it to support his family, she can do what ever she wishes with it. Western women didnt have any of these rights to money or property, until the last 150 years or so. I believe the oppression we see inflicted on women in the name of Islam are misguided, they are more tribal customs than Islamic. Muslims have contributed a lot to the world for discoveries in math, medicine and science.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Gosh, we have this image from media that if a woman leaves her home without a burqa she gets beat with poles by the Taliban. So a Muslim teenager can date a non-Muslim and no one will kill her if she rejects and turns away from Islam? Don't some Islamic nations have the death penalty on the books for those who leave Islam? I understand they typically find the one who has left Islam has gone insane so they do not enforce the death penalty. One must be insane to leave Islam, right?

reply from: scopia1982

Gosh, we have this image from media that if a woman leaves her home without a burqa she gets beat with poles by the Taliban. So a Muslim teenager can date a non-Muslim and no one will kill her if she rejects and turns away from Islam? Don't some Islamic nations have the death penalty on the books for those who leave Islam? I understand they typically find the one who has left Islam has gone insane so they do not enforce the death penalty. One must be insane to leave Islam, right?
What the Taliban is doing to women is considered unIslamic, honor killings are tribal customs, not Islamic law or customs. A Muslim woman may not be married to a non muslim man, while it is permissable for a muslim man to marry women "of the book" which are Christian or Jewish women. I dont agree with that and I dont agree with polygamy. I think if one really wants to find out what another religion's beliefs and doctrines are then go straight to the horses mouth.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Gosh, we have this image from media that if a woman leaves her home without a burqa she gets beat with poles by the Taliban. So a Muslim teenager can date a non-Muslim and no one will kill her if she rejects and turns away from Islam? Don't some Islamic nations have the death penalty on the books for those who leave Islam? I understand they typically find the one who has left Islam has gone insane so they do not enforce the death penalty. One must be insane to leave Islam, right?
911 call during the actual murders of two teen girls by dad for dating non-Muslim men. As he is shooting them one girl says "stop it, stop it" "Oh my God, I'm dying" "My blood's...." Pictures of the two lovely smiling happy girls are shown
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujqmv-VPN6I
Here is the website for the "Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan". It has video clips of the Taliban and others doing horrific things to women (and men). Shooting people in the head, nearly decapitating prisoners, hanging people, the story of rape victims, crying terrified children. Go to the Website if you dare to learn about the treatment of some women by the Islamic religious police (Taliban).
http://www.rawa.org

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Gosh, we have this image from media that if a woman leaves her home without a burqa she gets beat with poles by the Taliban. So a Muslim teenager can date a non-Muslim and no one will kill her if she rejects and turns away from Islam? Don't some Islamic nations have the death penalty on the books for those who leave Islam? I understand they typically find the one who has left Islam has gone insane so they do not enforce the death penalty. One must be insane to leave Islam, right?
911 call during the actual murders of two teen girls by dad for dating non-Muslim men. As he is shooting them one girl says "stop it, stop it" "Oh my God, I'm dying" "My blood's...." Pictures of the two lovely smiling happy girls are shown
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujqmv-VPN6I
Here is the website for the "Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan". It has video clips of the Taliban and others doing horrific things to women (and men). Shooting people in the head, nearly decapitating prisoners, hanging people, the story of rape victims, crying terrified children. Go to the Website if you dare to learn about the treatment of some women by the Islamic religious police (Taliban).
http://www.rawa.org
http://www.rawa.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDLb2GuIM3Y

reply from: scopia1982

Godslaw I have seen the RAWA videos and I have no doubt that "honor killings" exist rampatantly in that part of the world and some of those immigrants from that part of the world bring those customs with them. But these are not permitted in the Koran or under Islamic law. In order to prove charges of fornication or adultery in the Koran, 4 witnesses that witnessed the actual act are required . Female Circumcision is rampant in Africa and parts of the Middle East. But all of these are tribal customs. Sadly what passes today as Islam is tribalism and Fundamentalists thought control, we have the same thing in some branches of Christianity as well.

reply from: CharlesD

I think most of us would agree that the extremists don't represent true Islam any more than Jim Jones was a representation of true Christianity.

reply from: Witness

Posted by MC3: It is interesting that whenever "Christian violence" is brought up the name that most often pops into the conversation is that of Adolf Hitler. The Left loves to hold him up and talk about how a Catholic envisioned and then carried out the Nazi holocaust. The major flaw in that argument is that Hitler was not a Catholic. He was simply born to parents who were Catholic. Read any legitimate biography about him and you will see that he was virtually devoid of any sort of spirituality and that the closest thing to religion in his life was a disturbing fascination with occultism. The bitter irony is, if Hitler had indeed been a Catholic it is highly unlikely that World War II would have ever occurred.
Let's cut to the chase here. Understanding the real motivation behind this sort of Christian-bashing begins by understanding that the world just went through the most violent century in its history. In World War II alone, while Hitler's thugs were terrorizing western Europe, Joe Stalin and his buddy Lenin were carrying out a genocide - often against their own countrymen - that made Uncle Adolf look like a bumbling amateur. Meanwhile, the Japanese had jumped into bed with Hitler and Stalin and were piling up Chinese, Indonesian, Korean, Filipino, and Indochinese corpses by the millions. Then came despots like, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-tung, Chiang Kai-chek, Tito, Kim Il-sung, and others who carried on this tradition of using mass executions as a political tool.
In the end, the best estimates are that government sanctioned genocide during the 20th century stole the lives of about 175 million people. What the Godless Left does not want the public to think about is the fact that almost all the perpetrators of these atrocities were self-admitted atheists and/or non-Christians. In other words, the overwhelming majority of the butchery that occurred during the most violent century in world history was done by people with the same world view and belief system as the American Left. Their relentless Christian-bashing is simply a scheme to divert attention away from that uncomfortable reality. In short, they are the embodiment of the "guilty dog barks first" philosophy and, unfortunately, to a large measure it has worked.
The unvarnished truth is that the Godless Left has always embraced genocide as a means to an end. One such atrocity is going on right here in the United States as over 3000 helpless human beings are being executed by abortion every single day.
Of course, there are those who will contend that this holocaust is not associated with atheism since many of the people who call themselves pro-choice, and many of the people actually having abortions, claim to be Christians. That ignores the fact that just because someone claims to be a Christian does not mean that they are one. In reality, when someone says they are both pro-choice and Christian they are either heretics, frauds or simply ignorant about what it means to be a Christian.
I just think this good enough to repeat it.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

"The major flaw in that argument is that Hitler was not a Catholic. He was simply born to parents who were Catholic."
OK, then - Barack Obama was born to two parents, ONE of which was apparently Muslim. So why is everybody whining that he JUST HAS TO BE Muslim?
And would a Muslim even go to Christian services?????
So silly, and I can't wait until this is over.

reply from: CharlesD

Especially since there are other areas of policy where he can be shown to be lacking. The whole Muslim thing isn't really the major issue here. But you know it will sway a few voters like that woman McCain corrected at one of his events. Politics is a very dirty game and people on both sides, whether it's the candidates or groups that support them, are going to grasp at every little thing that will garner a couple extra votes here or there.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

http://nobeliefs.com/luther.htm
Martin Luther was anti-Jewish and proposed committing violence against them, I've said that on this forum before. Yes Martin Luther should be on trail for "incitement of crimes against humanity". I've previously said Martin Luther is one of the most evil men who has ever lived primarily for his deadly perspective. In a letter he said a "Christian" could commit murder a thousand times and still be "saved" if his faith in Christ was stronger. What vain words. What a dangerous philosophy. Martin Luther was wicked. If Hitler found inspiration in his fellow German Martin Luther, I would not be surprised. Martin Luther has been accused of trying to add or subtract from the Bible to fit his personal beliefs.

reply from: CharlesD

I'll make my point again. We are throwing out fringe extremes here to illustrate failings in a particular religion, whether it is Christianity or Islam. I don't think that's fair to either side. There are going to be misguided people in all religions who misinterpret or distort that religion to suit their own ends. Those people should not be held up as examples for the failings of that religious system.

reply from: churchmouse

Godslaw is right. Even his family admits that he was Muslim in his younger years. He might have changed......which i doubt...........but he did attent a Muslim school and he did to to Mosque. He even states this in one of his THREE.....lol......autos.
You obviously have not read his books have you?
I do however. It not just policies but the character of a person that matters to me.
I have read the Koran, the Hadiths.....and no way could I vote for a Muslim that prays to a God that calls for people to do evil and also says that lying is ok.
Wright is close friends with Farakan.......Hussein is close friends with Wright...Hmmmmm. Black liberation, Islam?
No Muslim would ever get my vote, even a pro-life one.
but here is RiverMoonLady.......she would. She claims to be a Christian, and says its dangerous for someone to think their God is the only God. ROFLMAO.
Oh if that doesnt say it all. Its almost like she thinks Jesus and Lord are bad to say.
I am not afraid of Muslims. And for your information the government put no fear in me. But I have like I said read the Koran and the Hadiths which you obviously have not done. And dont even try to compare Muhammed with Christ.....Christ was a peaceful and loving man, Muhammed was evil and did evil things. Christ never told anyone to kill someone if the person did not believe in Him.
Muhammed, "If you find an infidel who will submit and pay alms to Allah, let him go in peace. If not, KILL him." Muhammed also stated that "If you find Christians and Jews and you feel compassion towards them, remember Allah sees you and he will hold you accountable for such thoughts."
What did Christ ever say that compares to this statement?
So were the terrorists that took down the towers good guys River? Were the men that decapitated Daniel Pearl good guys? How about all the other beheadings Islamic followers have carried out?
Here check this out......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents

Go down to the bottom and click on the year.....a list will pop up for terrorist acts.
Charles you say they are in the minority. Well how many Muslims are there around the world? Do the math, the minority even if its 10% of radicals is not so small.
Take a look at the Middle East. The religious leaders of Islamic countries believe that if Islam is to be practiced correctly ALL of society must submit to Islamic law. Do we want that in America?
Islam projects a religion of peace, love and tolerance and justice, in the West, but it is very much oppressive in the east. Why? In the West Muslims enjoy all the benefits and privileges of freedom and democracy because the laws go against Islam and do not allow the Muslim to practice their faith like they are supposed to do. They are forced in the East.
But you tell me what would happen if the majority of America became Islamic?
It has happened in Europe and it is happening all over the world.
We allow this to happen......it will be to late. We need to look at the bigger picture. Bottom line....We are a big threat to Islam...and in their thinking, killing the Jews and eliminating Israel is the only possibility for peace. That won't happen and they know it....... Because we stand in the way.
No wonder we are a target. And if you think its only 10% that want this, then we are in trouble.

reply from: cracrat

Where has it happened in Europe?

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

It's great that you've read the Koran and Hadiths churchmouse. Thomas Jefferson did the same thing when he dealt with the barbary coast pirates seizing American shipping. Jefferson wanted to know what made these Islamic pirates tick. I likewise read the Koran after 9/11, just as Jefferson read the Koran after the attacks on our shipping. I likewise have twice read, "Is the Homosexual My Neighbor" by a lesbian and another author. It was painful and difficult to read the books on homosexuality and Islam; but I believe it was necessary to see and understand where the other guy is coming from.
There are a lot of people arguing for tolerance and acceptance of Islamic beliefs; but I don't believe they've looked into the issues in depth.

reply from: CharlesD

Jefferson was the first president to deal with extremists. You know what bugs me though? If a fringe element calling themselves Christians does heinous things, other Christians will denounce them for what they are, but a lot of the peaceful Muslims are silent about the extremists. Is it out of fear? Are the extremists gaining more influence to the point where the moderates are afraid to speak out against them? That would be nice if we could see the moderates start to stand up to the extremists and reform things from within, but I don't see that happening.
Also, I agree about the numbers of the minority. We have around a billion Muslims in the world, so a 10% minority is still 100 million people who want to kill us. How do we deal with that, by negotiating with them? I don't think so. But we all know, if you've watched the political commercials, that this isn't an important issue to Americans. It's the economy and nothing else matters. Are people really that shallow? Maybe we need a good economy so we can afford to buy our prayer rugs if the extremists get their way.

reply from: CharlesD

Look at France. The extremists are gaining ground there at an alarming rate. I even heard something the other day on the radio about a British court recognizing Sharia law in civil cases. That is a dangerous precedent.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

And I don't personally think the hijackers truly represent THEIR religion either.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I've NEVER heard he was Catholic, just Christian in general.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You seem to have a desire for everyone to get along and play nice, liberal.
Yes, I do.
Actually, I simply read the article, which is all anyone else can do too. YOU don't have first-hand experience any of the rumors are true either. I loved the article because it defended Obama AND Palin, in case any of you actually bothered to pay attention. I hate the slander coming from BOTH SIDES.

reply from: Banned Member

Just wanted to say thanks CP, I found your posts to be very educational. I already knew a little of what you posted, but definitely learned some new things today.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I've NEVER heard he was Catholic, just Christian in general.
Christian Socialist (Protestant), according to history....
Yeah... so where did this "supposed" Catholic rumor come from?

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

I am responding to concernedparent's post on "God's Biblical Genocides". The author says: "God irrationally kills or tries to kill for no apparent reason".
Genocide is the elimination, in whole or part, of an ethic, religious, national or racial group.
The groups listed received death because of behavior. I fight against abortion because I realize that if adopted the children also accept and practice such traditions. A whole nationality can adopt the same indecent behaviors.
Four events are listed as genocides by the author.
1) Noah's Flood. God's reason per Genesis 6:5, 11-13 "Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his mind was only evil continually....The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. And God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth."
2) Passover. Contrasts the gift of eternal life for the firstborn children of God as opposed to the death received by the firstborn of man's system.
3) Canaan. God did not allow Abraham to dispossess the Amorites because (Genesis 15:16) "the inquity of the Amorites is not yet complete. I Kings 1:26 "Ahab behaved very abominably...according to all that the Amorites had done, whom the Lord had cast out before the children of Israel."
4) Tribe of Benjamin: The Bible says everyone did what was right in his own eyes at that time. In years past I've looked diligently to see if God approved, or disapproved. The Bible merely says everyone did what he thought was right in his own eyes. The Benjamites refused to give up murderers and rapists. They were willing to fight rather than turn the parties over.
The first 3 are Prophetic and will happen again. The saints receive life, the corrupt and violent are cut off.

reply from: scopia1982

He was baptized and raised Catholic, but when he grew up abandoned the faith. Many priests, nuns and monks were killed during the Holocaust.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

He was baptized and raised Catholic, but when he grew up abandoned the faith. Many priests, nuns and monks were killed during the Holocaust.
Yeah, I was baptized and raised Catholic too. Two of my brothers were Catholic alter boys. After I grew up and learned better I totally left Catholism.
The Catholic's probably count the baptized in their membership totals. But how can a few days old baby make a decision to commit to a faith?

reply from: RiverMoonLady

He was baptized and raised Catholic, but when he grew up abandoned the faith. Many priests, nuns and monks were killed during the Holocaust.
Yeah, I was baptized and raised Catholic too. Two of my brothers were Catholic alter boys. After I grew up and learned better I totally left Catholism.
The Catholic's probably count the baptized in their membership totals. But how can a few days old baby make a decision to commit to a faith?
That, my dear, is where we Anabaptists come in. No one can be baptized until they are old enough to make the decision to accept Christ. Our ancestors were, of course, persecuted by Catholics and Protestants alike.
http://www.anabaptists.org/history/mennohist.html

Just a place to start. You can learn more by googling Mennonite, Amish and Anabaptist.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I feel a little shy about it, and I'm no where near ready, but I think I want to be re-baptized some day. I was baptized as a baby (my mom is methodist/protestant and my dad is an ex-catholic) but lost the religion as I grew older. I was reading up on Lent this spring, and saw that it can be used as a way for christians to reaffirm their faith, so maybe I'll do Lent next year and have myself baptized at the end.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

He was baptized and raised Catholic, but when he grew up abandoned the faith. Many priests, nuns and monks were killed during the Holocaust.
Yeah, I was baptized and raised Catholic too. Two of my brothers were Catholic alter boys. After I grew up and learned better I totally left Catholism.
The Catholic's probably count the baptized in their membership totals. But how can a few days old baby make a decision to commit to a faith?
That, my dear, is where we Anabaptists come in. No one can be baptized until they are old enough to make the decision to accept Christ. Our ancestors were, of course, persecuted by Catholics and Protestants alike.
http://www.anabaptists...his.....nohist.html
"><br ">http://www.anabaptists.org/history/mennohist.html
<br ">http://.....his...nohist.html
Just a place to start. You can learn more by googling Mennonite, Amish and Anabaptist.
I believe Baptism pictures a commitment being made by the baptized individual. Israel was baptized in the Red Sea by the waters alongside and clouds above. They were suppose to leave their old life behind and come out on the other side moving towards the Promised Land, not returning to Eyqpt. Baptism pictures burying the old man, the way we use to live. We are suppose to come out of the watery grave to be a new creation, to live differently. Baptism is done by fully immersing a person who wants to bury the old self. Only a mature person can make the commitment to live differently. John the Baptist refused to baptize anyone who was not showing fruits worthy of repentance.
The Catholics were some bad dudes. They thought they were the one and only way and they were zealous to see the non-conformists disciplined. Ultimately, it was the Roman Empire that the Catholic Church was in bed with that carried out the executions. If you were a heretic you were a bad citizen (Church and State were in a fornicating relationship).
I know quite a few Mennonite, they are good and charitable people. There are a lot of Amish with their horse and buggies in the area; I haven't met them. They clog the country roads on Sunday with their horse drawn carriages. Being you are Pro-Choice, does that mean the Anabaptists are liberal, maybe even the "bad" side of the Mennonite, Amish, Anabaptist group?

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Gosh, we have this image from media that if a woman leaves her home without a burqa she gets beat with poles by the Taliban. So a Muslim teenager can date a non-Muslim and no one will kill her if she rejects and turns away from Islam? Don't some Islamic nations have the death penalty on the books for those who leave Islam? I understand they typically find the one who has left Islam has gone insane so they do not enforce the death penalty. One must be insane to leave Islam, right?
911 call during the actual murders of two teen girls by dad for dating non-Muslim men. As he is shooting them one girl says "stop it, stop it" "Oh my God, I'm dying" "My blood's...." Pictures of the two lovely smiling happy girls are shown
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujqmv-VPN6I
Here is the website for the "Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan". It has video clips of the Taliban and others doing horrific things to women (and men). Shooting people in the head, nearly decapitating prisoners, hanging people, the story of rape victims, crying terrified children. Go to the Website if you dare to learn about the treatment of some women by the Islamic religious police (Taliban).
http://www.rawa.org
http://www.rawa.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDLb2GuIM3Y
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3154043&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,438982,00.html

reply from: CharlesD

That's where I was too. I grew up Methodist, so I was baptized as an infant and was raised in the church. I didn't sew too many wild oats, but I didn't really commit myself to Christ until I was 20 years old. I'm not saying how many years ago that was, but of late I've been considering getting baptized again because I didn't after I really became a believer. It's something I've been tossing around in my mind recently. With that said, I don't have a problem with churches christening infants, as long as they don't teach that the child has nothing else to do to become a believer. I believe that someone's religion is a matter of personal choice and an infant isn't capable of making that choice. That baptism doesn't make you a Christian any more than walking into a barn makes you a horse.
All of this kind of ties into the topic of this thread. I don't believe that the religious affiliation of your parents carries over to you until you make that decision for yourself. Many people are raised in a Christian home and as soon as they're old enough to make the choice, they choose not to follow that path. The same applies with people born into Muslim homes. You can send a child to the madrasah all you want, but if when he gets old enough he decides to become something else, then he is no longer a Muslim. He may be an Arab, which is a distinction he was born into and cannot change, but I still view faith as a matter of personal choice. Whether Obama ever was a Muslim in his youth or still has sympathies that way is between him and God, but I'm not going there. I have other reasons to not vote for him, so I don't need that for a reason.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Nice post, thanks Charles :3

reply from: churchmouse

Well sure.....anyone can say they are anything and decieve people.
Would you beleive it if Sadam told you he wasnt a Muslim? Billy Graham wasnt a Christian? You look at a persons actions and what they do and make an educated guess.
Obama went to WRights church for over 20 years.........could he really not be a Christian and be trying to fool people?
The fact is......Obama went to a Muslim school and he got Islamic training. He went to Mosque. He does not really even want to address that and with good reason. He would never be elected if the majority of America knew underneath he was a Muslim. So is it really possible if he is lying to become the President?
Are you a closet Muslim Concerned? You bash Christians and Christianity but seem to be going to bat for Islam.
Sura 2 Verse 191: "And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers."
Sura 58 Verse 5: "Surely those who act in opposition to Allah and His Apostle shall be laid down prostrate as those before them were laid down prostrate; and indeed We have revealed clear communications, and the unbelievers shall have an abasing chastisement".
Verse 9:123 - "Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you."
Verse 47:3 - "When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly."
Verse 66:9 - "Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate."
http://bibleone.net/print_tbs74.html

Granted they hate America because we stand in their way. But the goal is Islam is worldwide domination for Allah.
Now you compare this to Christianity. Yes the Great Commission says spread the Gospel throughout the world......but do it peacefully. Not so with Islam because it is a forced religion in most parts of the world if there is violence Islam is involved.
Bin Laden said, " To all Mujahudeen, your brothers in Palestine are waiting for you...it's time to penetrate America and Israel and hit them where it hurts the most....Slay the United States and Israel."
Yasser Arafat said, " Peace for us means THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL. We are preparing for an all-out war that will last for generations. We shall not rest until the day when we return to our home and until we DESTROY ISRAEL.'
Its not just land they want......they want every Jew dead. But we stand in their way and because of it they hate us. They want worldwide domination and they are upfront about what they plan to do. No negotiations......no sharing the land...no peace until they have the entire world for Allah. They want all non- believers dead.
The tragedy of it all is the fact that Muslims are prepared to fight for generations......and most American Democratic politicians want to pretend there is no threat at all. The radicas....They are praying Obama wins.......because then they have a friend in the White House.
There are millions all over the world........no air time? Why?
Why are you so concerned with what the world thinks of us? I do not believe the majority love us. The Muslims in the United States cant actually practice their faith like the rest of the world does because our laws prevent that.
If we allowed freedom to worship Islam like it is practiced in the Middle East, would that be a good thing for American? How about Sharia law......good or bad thing?
About Hitler.......no Christian could commit the atrocities he committed. LIke Concerned said, anyone can claim they are anything they want to be.

reply from: scopia1982

Baptism in the Catholic Church is a sacrament of initation. It removes from us the taint of Original Sin. Here is a link explaining Baptism in the Catholic Church.
http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Sac_Baptism.htm

Most mainline Protestant churches also practice infant baptism. Luthern, Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian all baptize infants. According the the Nicenee Creed, which we recite in Mass every Sunday states that we believe in ONE baptism for the forgivness of sins and it also summarizes the core beliefs of the Catholic Church.
Nicene Creed
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

reply from: churchmouse

We submerge in our church like they did in the river when Jesus was baptized. I was sprinkled when I was an infant......but I could not make the decision then. I wanted to do it when I was older and I did, when I was 49 years old. It was awesome.
Not that it makes any difference but I have learned that baptize comes from the Greek word baptizmo which means to immerse or submerge. Jesus came up out of the water and I wanted to do it that way too.
I know many churches argue over the best way. But scripturally I think the way is to be submerged.
"Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to be baptized."
John 3:23
You don't need a lot of water to just sprinkle.
"It came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And immediately, coming up from the water, He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove."
Mark 1:9, 10
Coming up from the water.........in the Jordan.
Acts 8:38-39
Phillip and the Eunuch went "down into the water"
Into the water......
I can find no Biblical evidence for sprinkling.

Could you tell me how the thief on the cross hanging next to Christ got to heaven? He was not baptised. Also Noah, Abraham, David, Jonah, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and all the OT prophets were not baptized and they were handpicked by God to do His will.
Matthew 3:13-16
"Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he consented. And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."
In 1 Peter 3:21 it says:
"There is also an antitype which now saves us - -baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

It's not the Water that saves.....its the Holy Spirit. Water baptism is an outward expression of an inward act.

reply from: scopia1982

"Could you tell me how the thief on the cross hanging next to Christ got to heaven? He was not baptised. Also Noah, Abraham, David, Jonah, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and all the OT prophets were not baptized and they were handpicked by God to do His will."
I posted a link which, it does not seem you read explaining the Catholic position on Baptism. The Church considers baptism of Desire and of Blood, along with the Baptism of water. Here are 2 excerpts.
The Baptism of Desire:
That doesn't mean that only those who have been formally baptized can be saved. From very early on, the Church recognized that there are two other types of baptism besides the baptism of water.:
The baptism of desire applies both to those who, while wishing to be baptized, die before receiving the sacrament and "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of conscience" (Constitution on the Church, Second Vatican Council).
The Baptism of Blood:
The baptism of blood is similar to the baptism of desire. It refers to the martyrdom of those believers who were killed for the faith before they had a chance to be baptized. This was a common occurrence in the early centuries of the Church, but also in later times in missionary lands. The baptism of blood has the same effects as the baptism of water.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Why do people always make statements such as "got to heaven"? Jesus was merely responding to the man's request. The man said, "Remember me when you come into your Kingdom". Jesus said he was giving him an answer today, "You shall be with me in paradise".
The Bible does ask if Abraham was saved by the "Works of the Law". It asks if Abraham was saved because he believed or because he was circumcised. The "Works of the Law" are the ceremonial prophetic physical acts one takes. They are merely symbolic. Baptism is not "big magic" that automatically makes one through it's spell or potion irrevocably saved.
Ceremonies are good things to go through. Some believe they are commanded and we should observe them. Baptism shows our commitment to live differently and should be done. By itself, it is not an automatic indicator of whether one will be saved or lost.
Infant baptism is meaningless and does nothing. The baby has no idea what's going on and has not made any committment.
As for the OT Prophets not being baptized. Baptism is first mentioned with Moses and those who went with him. The first known baptism is when Israel and Moses went through the Red Sea. The clouds above and water alongside formed the watery grave. Moses and Israel were to bury the old life life to slavery (to sin) back in Egypt and come out of the watery grave to live a life committed to God.

reply from: scopia1982

Why do people always make statements such as "got to heaven"? Jesus was merely responding to the man's request. The man said, "Remember me when you come into your Kingdom". Jesus said he was giving him an answer today, "You shall be with me in paradise".
The Bible does ask if Abraham was saved by the "Works of the Law". It asks if Abraham was saved because he believed or because he was circumcised. The "Works of the Law" are the ceremonial prophetic physical acts one takes. They are merely symbolic. Baptism is not "big magic" that automatically makes one through it's spell or potion irrevocably saved.
Ceremonies are good things to go through. Some believe they are commanded and we should observe them. Baptism shows our commitment to live differently and should be done. By itself, it is not an automatic indicator of whether one will be saved or lost.
Infant baptism is meaningless and does nothing. The baby has no idea what's going on and has not made any committment.
That was Churchmouses statement not mine. Baptism is nessecary for Salvation. Jesus states that in John 3:5 below.
Amen, amen I say to you, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Why do people always make statements such as "got to heaven"? Jesus was merely responding to the man's request. The man said, "Remember me when you come into your Kingdom". Jesus said he was giving him an answer today, "You shall be with me in paradise".
The Bible does ask if Abraham was saved by the "Works of the Law". It asks if Abraham was saved because he believed or because he was circumcised. The "Works of the Law" are the ceremonial prophetic physical acts one takes. They are merely symbolic. Baptism is not "big magic" that automatically makes one through it's spell or potion irrevocably saved.
Ceremonies are good things to go through. Some believe they are commanded and we should observe them. Baptism shows our commitment to live differently and should be done. By itself, it is not an automatic indicator of whether one will be saved or lost.
Infant baptism is meaningless and does nothing. The baby has no idea what's going on and has not made any committment.
That was Churchmouses statement not mine. Baptism is nessecary for Salvation. Jesus states that in John 3:5 below.
Amen, amen I say to you, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
You may want to read the last paragraph I added to my previous post. Moses and those with him underwent the first baptism.
Certainly, one must receive the Holy Spirit to enter the Kingdom.
I'll have to locate your quote though. I don't believe it says "born again of water". I know one must be born of water (physical childbirth) and the Holy Spirit (Spiritually rather than the previous physical birth).
Your putting the verb "again" before water suggests a future water baptism is needed. I think someone has mistranslated or misquoted. By the way, I do believe a Christian is required to go through the immersion of water ceremony. But I never referred to the verse you did.
Cite the quote location and I'll look in my Greek/English Interlinear Bible to examine the translation. I don't have my Strong's Concordance with me now.

reply from: scopia1982

Thank you CP the last is the Catholic Translation I think the "born again" should be simple enough to state that baptism is nessecary for salvation.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Thank you CP the last is the Catholic Translation I think the "born again" should be simple enough to state that baptism is nessecary for salvation.
Most versions just say "born" because that properly reflects the original Greek.
G1080 (born)
???????
gennao?
ghen-nah'-o
From a variation of G1085; to procreate (properly of the father, but by extension of the mother); figuratively to regenerate: - bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring.
I've read this verse many times and always understood it to be a reference to physical birth (of water) and spiritual birth (of the Holy Spirit). It never, at any time, occurred to me that this verse was saying you must be born again by water and that it was a reference to baptism. The Catholic translation is wrong. I've seen several examples of translators adding to the original Greek to "clarify" it according to how they interpret it. Their interpretation is wrong, they have no business adding to the words of the Bible.
God says that if anyone adds to his Word, to him shall be added curses, to him who takes away from his Word, his part in the Book of Life shall be removed.

reply from: CharlesD

I've always viewed baptism as an outward sign of an inner cleansing. I wouldn't go as far as saying that it is necessary because that doesn't account for the thief on the cross or other such times where a person might make a profession of faith and not have the opportunity to get baptized before death. The other thing that disturbs me, and it's not just a Catholic thing because I saw it in the Methodist church which I grew up in, and that's the idea that baptism is not only necessary for salvation but sufficient. You put a little water on the baby's head and that child is from that point forward a member of the Kingdom and is assured of salvation. I'm not saying all Catholics and Methodists believe this, because I've met plenty who don't, but I have seen this belief among enough people for it to bother me. That makes the Christian faith out to be something you can be born into, not something you choose. One of the points of this thread is that one's religious faith is a choice, not a matter of birth. I am a Christian today not because my parents had the preacher put some water on my head when I was a baby, but because when I was much older I committed my life to Christ. It was my choice. After years of trying to run from God I finally just gave up running.

reply from: churchmouse

You might have read it but you dont know it unless the Holy Spirit convicts you of it. Book knowledge vs spiritual knowledge. You do have a big ego and like to brag.
In your Christian training Concerned didn't you learn in Proverbs 6:16-19 that God hates 6 things, 7 He detests? One of those is haughty eyes. The spirit that makes one overestimate himself and underestimate others.
Do you also think that you know the pains of childbirth better than I do? You would certainly be in character if you said, yes.
Here ya go Concerned.
9:187 Kill them wherever ye find them, and drive them out from whence they drive you out; for sedition is worse than slaughter; but fight them not by the Sacred Mosque until they fight you there; then kill them, for such is the recompense of those that misbelieve. 188 But if they desist, then, verily, God is forgiving and merciful. 189 But fight them that there be no sedition and that the religion may be God's; but, if they desist, then let there be no hostility save against the unjust.
http://i-cias.com/e.o/texts/koran/koran002.htm
">http://i-cias.com/e.o/texts/koran/koran002.htm
sura 47:4 "And when ye meet those who misbelieve then striking off heads until ye have massacred them, and bind fast the bonds!"
http://i-cias.com/e.o/texts/koran/koran047.htm
sura 66:9 "9 O thou prophet! Fight strenuously against the misbelievers and hypocrites and be stern towards them; for their resort is hell, and an evil journey shall it be!"
sura 16:90 90 "Those who misbelieve and turn folks off God's path, we will add torment to their torment, for that they were evildoers. 91 And on the day when we will raise up in every nation a witness against them from among themselves, and we will bring thee as a witness against these; for we have sent down to thee a book explaining clearly everything, and a guidance, and a mercy, and glad tidings to the believers."
The hadiths and the koran show the hatred towards nonbelievers, I am not going to spend time debating this. Your bias is Islam mine Christianity.
It doesnt in any way shape or form. Its as different as night and day. If you follow Christ you love your neighbor as yourself, God loves even the unbeliever. If you are Muslim you are to slew them....not take them as friends........and Allah hates the unbeliever. Martyrdom is the only known ticket to Paradise for Muslims, the only sure way to heaven. Dying and killing for the cause of Islam is not only an honor, but also a way of pleasing Allah. Muhammed commands this for Allah. What does Christ say? Love.
Where are there Christian groups today that are in the news killing innocent people in the name of Christ?
What is obvious in your post Concerned is that you hate Christianity and Christians, Jews and Judaism and your loyalty is with Islam. I have never since joining this forum seen you say one thing in defensive of Christianity.
I can also could cut and paste hundreds of posts showing evidence of the real evils of Islam.......but why? Your sites are the only ones that arent biased, and the only ones that tell the truth, right?
This is what I believe. There are two faces of Islam. One in countries like ours that do not allow Muslims to practice their faith to the letter and those that live in countries where Islam is the religion, is the state. There is no separation of church and state in Islamic societies.
No free speech,,,,,,no freedom to worship, woman are forced to hide under hot garments sometimes not even being allowed out of their homes. You either bow to Allah.......or else. And what could "else" be? Beheaded, have your genitals mutilated, honor killings?
How many Muslims live in countries that allow free speech, where you can worship freely whatever you want? How many live in a society that forces people to believe one way?
If you think the Muslims in America represent true Islam you are sadly mistaken because they do not. The greatest danger today facing the world comes from religiously inspired state sponsored terrorists that are seeking to destroy nations like ours. And as we have seen terrorism is successful. How many Christian terrorist groups are there around the world doing what radical Islam is doing?
We will go down......because in America today we are more concerned with protecting the rights of terrorists (Clinton let 18 puertoRican terrorists out to get votes for Hillary) than our own citizens. Thank you ACLU.......who is on the side of terrorism because we deserve what we get, we are the evil one.
We make laws that tie our hands when we have to deal with terrorists. We have to many legal and moral restraints and because of that our enemy gets the upper hand. Nothing much, no outrage when Daniel Pearl was beheaded.......but a lot was made about Abu Ghraib. Beheading him was terrible but not as bad as throwing the Koran in the toilet. Do you feel Pearl got what he deserved?
You say they want justice? Well what is justice Concerned? What is your brand of justice?
Pleazeeee. Hey liberals would have jumped at the chance.....of showing conservatives that Islam is peaceful and denounced what those terrorists did. Had it happened.......it would have been shown especially by the Liberal media.

You say I dont want to hear it?
Maybe its fairer to say that you just dont want to face it.

reply from: Cecilia

Very good post.
I am completely disgusted by the self righteous attempts on this thread to justify bigotry, stereotyping, and discrimination of people based on their religion.
It's only hate if its against Chrisitianity, apparently.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Very good post.
I am completely disgusted by the self righteous attempts on this thread to justify bigotry, stereotyping, and discrimination of people based on their religion.
It's only hate if its against Chrisitianity, apparently.
I do "hate" Islam. It was started by Satan. Muhammad was possessed by a demon who crushed the breath out of him three times and commanded him to recite. Muhammad reported to his wife that he had been possessed by a demon. His wife and a "Christian" convinced him that it was the same archangel that spoke to Moses.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Ignorant, ranting idiots like HouseRat are pretty scary, especially when they are advocating all sorts of religious nonsense in THIS country while condemning it in others.
Cannot wait to see her response, CP.

reply from: Banned Member

Yep...Like I said, it's like kicking a dead dog.

reply from: churchmouse

How do you know they wear it proudly? LOL
Do they have a choice? Can they go out and sit in the sun? Walk on the beach and feel the wind in their hair?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/022916.php

Again you are shifting the subject off the unborn child.
I think if a Muslim woman wants to wear it......its wonderful. But she should not be forced to wear it. But to say ALL MUSLIM WOMEN WEAR IT PROUDLY IS A STRETCH. You would have to possess all knowledge to know that one.
Concerned........
Does Islam teach hatred of non-believers?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/024-hell-and-hate.htm
Now is this website stating things that are not in the Koran?
About Muhammed......Was he a terrorist?
In Muhammad's words: "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them..." (Bukhari 8:387)
http://www.angelfire.com/or/dhuard/Muhister.html

How about this Concerned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeRsfc8_4eg

Sounds like a Pakistani Hate Crimes Bill. Wow Freedom and Peace in Islam.
So is this guy lying? He says Islam is about numbers....its forced, fastest growing because its forced.
How about this one.....
This guy lying?
These are awesome testimonies.
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ba1ab13d742e22eed8da

You say I do not know anything about Muslims but I do. And most are here because they want freedom. My gynocologist and her husband and family fled Pakistan. I know other doctors, friends of my husbands that are here because of the termoil in their countries. They wanted something better for their kids.
I have been to Israel, Egypt and Turkey.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLGt2skCVhk

Concerned said, "Oh, please! Do not presume to instruct me on a subject of which you are obviously almost completely ignorant! "
And who made you god? Why do you presume to know everything? Are you a Muslim Humanist? LOL
You are so smug and conceited. How was childbirth Concerned, tell us how it felt.
My inlaws are Jews. So I hear from them about what their ancestors went through. As i said I have been to Israel. My husband had a Bar Mitzvah. This religion is not foreign to me.
The historical facts prove that palestinian-arabs were not in control of that land. The native population consisted of nomadic bedouin tribes and farmers that came to work there. It was the Zionist pioneers that claimed the land which basically were just swamps. They rebuilt and cultivated the land, built roads and buildings. After this arabs began coming to the land for jobs. Bottom line.....the Palestinians came as immigrant workers after the Jews WERE ALREADY IN THE LAND. They had no title to the lands they worked. Its the Jewish people that can document a presence in that land and for over 2000 years. The Jews have always been the premanent residents of that land. Why would they leave, they believe it holds their future. Since the middle 1800's, Jews have been the majority of the resident population there. They repeatedly have offered Israeli citizenship with all benefits to those Palestinians who would live within the State of Israel. But that isnt good enough for many Palestinians. Many think it would be treasonous to accept such an offer. These people dont want to negotiate.
It was Arafat that said it best, his peoples goals.
"Within five years we will have six to seven million Arabs living on the West Bank and in Jerusalem. All Palestinian Arabs will be welcomed back by us... You understand that we plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian State. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion; Jews will not want to live among us Arabs!" [Arafat at Stockholm]."
"We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem . . . All the rich Jews who will get compensation will travel to America . . . We of the PLO will now concentrate all our efforts on splitting Israel psychologically into two camps. Within five years we will have six to seven million Arabs living in the West Bank and in Jerusalem....You understand that we plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian State . . . I have no use for Jews; they are and remain Jews. We now need all the help we can get from you in our battle for a united Palestine under total Arab-Muslim domination!"
Yasser Arafat, January 30, 1996, (Speech) "The Impending Total Collapse of Israel," Stockholm, Sweden (1,2)
Sound like they want to compromise?
http://www.geocities.com/palestiniansarelies/YasserArafatDeclaration

You are a hoot. You, talk about religion? Yes, it would be religion for you and not spirituality, certainly not a relationship with Christ. That you would think our Holy God loves and would think that killing the unborn in the womb would be ok, is sacrilegious?
Your experience......? But you are god, you know everything....remember?

This week is Arizona State Fair.......am working at the Pro-life booth. You know speaking out against abortion. You and Moonbat wouldn't get that, since you both are pro-aborts.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

OMG, HouseRat just admitted that her husband is JEWISH. She is yoked to an unbeliever! I cannot imagine how "thrilled" he is that his wife turned into a Christian zealot. He's waiting for the Messiah that she's already found, while she waits for the Rapture that will take her away as Dr. Rat gets left behind.
Isn't that a problem???

reply from: churchmouse

River are you saved?
You seem to mock Christ and mock his chosen......the Jews? Do you think Jews hate Christians, Christians hate Jews? We are a lot alike.
You just seem to be so joyful over mocking people. Why?
When I got born again things did change. And they changed a lot. Less arguing, fighting......and more respect towards one another. I focused my life making sure I was following the Word instead of what the world said to do.
Yes we were not yolked equally because I wasnt walking right........But God works in mysterious ways. And he is workin on my husband that is for sure. He never practiced his faith because his parents never practiced theirs. He went to a Methodist school in fact so from the time he was little he had Christian friends.
He did not like it when I would not go to R rated films. He didnt understand it when I refused to watch suggestive television shows. But he does today. He sees first hand how God has changed my life for the better. I am blessed.
He loves the people in my church and he goes probably once a month and to special events. He believes in God and acknowledges Christ....but is he walking, has he given his heart to Christ....only Christ knows.
I continue being a godly wife to him. He is the head of our household and I greatly respect that. So does God.
Are you saved River?

reply from: scopia1982

"How do you know they wear it proudly? LOL
Do they have a choice? Can they go out and sit in the sun? Walk on the beach and feel the wind in their hair?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhim...h/archives/022916.php

Again you are shifting the subject off the unborn child.
I think if a Muslim woman wants to wear it......its wonderful. But she should not be forced to wear it. But to say ALL MUSLIM WOMEN WEAR IT PROUDLY IS A STRETCH. You would have to possess all knowledge to know that one."
CM I said "most" not "all" muslim wear their hijab proudly because they are devout religious women who follow the command of their Creator to cover their hair and bodies in public and when they are around men who are not their husbands or immediate family. They do not have to cover in the company of other women. I know this because in college in my world religions class I had to to an extenisve reasearch paper on Islam which counted as 50% of my final grade. Not all Muslim nations require that women wear the hijab when going out in public. Paul commands Christian women to cover their hair when they pray, that is why I wear a scarf on my head when I go to Mass, most Catholic women dont anymore, but the older ones and more adherant ones like myself do. It seems to me that you think the only valid religion is Fundamentalists Christianity. Is the KJV version of the Bible the only valid English translation ? I read the New American Standard version , although I do prefer the prose of the old Duay-Rheims translation.
.

reply from: Rosalie

Did he tell you that personally? God, I mean.
I also wonder what is so horrible about equality in marriage or partnership. Why does he have to be the head of the household? Can't you make decisions together?

reply from: BossMomma

Actually according to biblical scripture the nonbeliever is covered by the believing spouse, this is so the resulting children will be "clean".

reply from: scopia19822

Did he tell you that personally? God, I mean.
I also wonder what is so horrible about equality in marriage or partnership. Why does he have to be the head of the household? Can't you make decisions together?
In the biblical/christian concept of marriage as I have been taught as a Catholic is that both are equal partners and particpate in the decision making together.However the man is to be the provider and protector of his family.

reply from: carolemarie

In a Christian worldview (not a denominational one) both males and females have equal worth. Both can work, both raise the children. The man is the spiritual head of the household in a family because someone has to make the final decision if you are at an impasse.
We are equal in every way to a man. God created males and females to be equal, not for one to rule over the other.

reply from: scopia19822

CM you stated it better than I did. It is sad however that some men only see the "wives submit unto your husbands..." part and fail to see the mandate to love her as Christ loved the Church. That means a man is to protect her and if nessecary give his life for her. They see that one part of the verse and think that gives them liscence to dictate to her and in some cases beat her.

reply from: Cecilia

What's the reasoning behind this?

reply from: scopia19822

What's the reasoning behind this?
Scripture.

reply from: Cecilia

What's the reasoning behind this?
Scripture.
Sheep.

reply from: scopia19822

Instead of name calling, why not respect peoples religious beliefs?

reply from: Cecilia

Instead of name calling, why not respect peoples religious beliefs?
What's to respect? You take Scripture at face value, you read an archaic novel written by men hundreds of years ago without question and define your life this way.
Nothing there to respect.

reply from: scopia19822

Instead of name calling, why not respect peoples religious beliefs?
What's to respect? You take Scripture at face value, you read an archaic novel written by men hundreds of years ago without question and define your life this way.
Nothing there to respect.
Actually yes there is something to respect. That to some of us hold the Bible in more regard than an archaic novel as divine Scripture. Respect the facts that others dont adhere to your world view. If you dont believe in God, I respect that and will not name call or condemn you for it. Simple common courtsey.

reply from: carolemarie

Cause sometimes in marriage you have an impass that you can't agree on. If each party only gets one vote, how do you decide a tie? I look at it as a tie breaker.
It is basically regarding spiritual matters.
Usually you can debate and discuss and come to a mutual agreement.
For years our tie breaker on job things was "whoever makes the most gets the final decision" on moving to another state, we had to agree together or we stayed put. On child raising, we were in agreement so that didn't matter. What church we went to we solved by eaching going to a different one....having more kids was my ultimate decision cause I had to have them....but aborting one would not even be a consideration because it would end th marriage. I knew that going in.
Compromise is the key to working things out. I have been asked not to do something cause it bothers him. I can choose to do it anyways or choose not to do it. The choice is mine. Same the other way around.
I guess you can just insist on having your own way all the time, but in any marriage that will end up in divorce if you disrespect the other person.

reply from: Rosalie

Yes, I know that. I just keep wondering how come it does not bother you.
Just out of curiosity - have you ever questioned what you have been taught?

reply from: ProLulzer

It doesn't really matter all that much if Hitler was a Christian or not. I think that an argument can be made that he was and for the opposite. The problem is that his statements conflict because he told various groups what they wanted to hear. What is know is that he USED the religion and those who believed in it. The SS had gott min uns (god with us) on their uniforms and were certainly believers. They were following the long Christian tradition of persecuting the Jews which stretches back the the Passion of The Christ plays in the middle ages and works such as the "Jews and their lies" by Martin Luther.
As for what it means to be a Christian, you may claim it is one thing and they another. I would side with them on this and cite the numerous examples of god approved genocide in the Old Testament.

reply from: Rosalie

Again - does that not bother you? Why should it automatically be him? Just because you've been taught that?
And your last two sentences contradict the first paragraph. Either we are, according to your religion, equal and therefore no one gets the upper hand when making final decisions, or we're not and therefore the man gets to make the final decisions.
You can't have both.

reply from: Rosalie

Even with the second part, of which I am aware by the way and I'm not a Christian, I still find that quote offensive and sexist.

reply from: Rosalie

What's the reasoning behind this?
Most likely the man's penis, I'd wager. That's all the reasoning some people need.

reply from: Rosalie

So a husband can tell you that you will do whatever he wants you to do and you automatically must listen because he is the ultimate decision maker and you just need to hope that it's for the best.
Can you really not see how disturbing and sexist that is?
And again, you contradict yourself. Either he makes the final decision and you must obey or you compromise and therefore he doesn't get to make that final decision for both of you.

reply from: ProLulzer

Divorce for any reason other than sexual misconduct is not biblical. Google what Jesus said about divorce in the bible. As a man, I can make all the choices in the relationship and the woman has no choice but to give in every time she can not change my mind. If she does not like it she can not divorce me either. I guess unfairness is just part of life eh?

reply from: Cecilia

Instead of name calling, why not respect peoples religious beliefs?
What's to respect? You take Scripture at face value, you read an archaic novel written by men hundreds of years ago without question and define your life this way.
Nothing there to respect.
Actually yes there is something to respect. That to some of us hold the Bible in more regard than an archaic novel as divine Scripture. Respect the facts that others dont adhere to your world view. If you dont believe in God, I respect that and will not name call or condemn you for it. Simple common courtsey.
Again, there is nothing there to respect. You just repeated that you hold this book in such a high regard and do not examine it. I would respect your beliefs if you utilized higher cognitive functions to delve into your religious views, but "because the bible says so" is just not worth respecting.
Also scopia, maybe there is a tie between your religious views of dominant men/subservient women and the issues you face today:
Is he right? Should you just get over it?
Do you allow him to treat you like this because he is "the spiritual head of the household"? Is that right?

reply from: Rosalie

Is he right? Should you just get over it?
Do you allow him to treat you like this because he is "the spiritual head of the household"? Is that right?
Valid point. I'm honestly interested in the answer.

reply from: carolemarie

No,he can't just tell you to do something, you both have to discuss it, and debate it and try to jointly find a solution that you both agree with. He is required to lay don his life for you, so most of the time, he will lay down his own desires to make you happy. But, If after all of that you can't arrive at a solution then it is time to allow someone the final decision. Most marriages the people in it like each other and want the best for each other. It isn't an adversaerial relationship.
I don't OBEY my husband like a stepford wife! I am an equal partner in this marriage and my pov is just as important as his.

reply from: carolemarie

That is not true, men don't get to rule over women and make all the choices. That is not biblical at all.
First of all, men and women are equal in God's eyes. In Gen., God creates men and women and gives them both dominion over the earth. Not dominion over each other. We are equal to men in every way. God made us both in His image.
Sin is why human beings do horrible things to each other. Part of the fall is that men want to rule over women and make them subserviant. That is the sin nature of men and it is wrong. God is certainly not for that at all. He has been pretty clear that we are equal. For example, God used Deborah to judge Isreal, He used Ester to save her people, Rahab was Jesus's great-grandmother, in Joel God pours out His spirit on all flesh, not once are any of the spiritual gifts denied anyone, regardless of sex, social status or economical status. Women were apostles, preachers and pastors in the NT. This male suppression of women is an evil unchristian mindset, it is a misreading of scripture and is santanic in nature.
It happens because in the fall, God sets enimity between women and Satan. Satan hates women and wants to destroy us, and this is one way to do it. It is no accident that all through out history men have oppressed and mistreated women, Satan twist the truth of God's word and incites men to treat women as less than they are.

reply from: scopia19822

Is he right? Should you just get over it?
Do you allow him to treat you like this because he is "the spiritual head of the household"? Is that right?
Valid point. I'm honestly interested in the answer.
My husband and I see eye to eye on many things abortion isnt one of them. The problem here is his, not mine. He is a man and incapable of understanding grief that a woman experinces when she looses a child. I am in no way subserviant, I have just learned to ignore him when he says things like that. When it comes to making decisions we sit down and discuss things, if we both agree we then the matter is settled. If we cannot agree we usually come to an acceptable compromise. If it is something that he is more knowlegable of in those instances I wil defer to him, such as handling the bills and finance directly because he has more experince and is better at handling those things. When it comes to something we may need for the house or our son needing something I am usually more competent in domestic matters and knowing what is needed, so he will defer to me on those matters. People have different abilties and are better at somethings than others. We are equal but different.

reply from: scopia19822

Cecilia:"Again, there is nothing there to respect. You just repeated that you hold this book in such a high regard and do not examine it. I would respect your beliefs if you utilized higher cognitive functions to delve into your religious views, but "because the bible says so" is just not worth respecting.
Also scopia, maybe there is a tie between your religious views of dominant men/subservient women and the issues you face today: "
Once again Cecilia you have demonstrated your ignorance. You assumed because I a read something a little more intellectually stimulating than Cosmopolitian that I am stupid. I have a college education and I took surveys of both the OT and NT, along with world religion classes. I have also took courses dealing with Paul's epistles of 1st and 2nd Corinthians. This was at a state school so no religious overtones were involved. It was purely historical and intellectual examinations of Scripture. As far as my views on men and women, both sexes are equal before God. Men and women are just different, that does not make one inferior or superior to the other. Generally men are physically stronger than women and are linear thinkers. Women are more emotional and generally does not possess the same physical strength as men. As a Catholic I take a contextual approach to Scripture not literal. Some things even when taken in context are meant to be taken literally, such as women serving in the clergy. Scripture is pretty clear on that matter. Men are the only ones that can be ordained as priests or bishops, but women may distribute communion, teach religious education, be lectors or serve in any number of other roles within the church. In my parish most of the people who fulfill this roles are women and they would be highly offended to be told by someone like you that they are unintelligent and subserviant. You really need to learn matters of common courtsey and respect that people dont think like you. That does not make them stupid or sheep. I know this is a foreign concept to you. When I read your posts regarding the matter of abortion, you seem to blindly follow the proabortion lobby like a sheep, so you calling me a sheep is the pot calling the kettle black.

reply from: churchmouse

scopia You are right not all cover their hair....head body. But in many countries they are required to do this.
I think its perfectly find to do it, I think its nice. My mother in law told me tonight that Jewish women were not allowed in her day to go out of the house with their hair hanging long, they had to wear it up and secured.
Yes, He told me that last night at Outback Steakhouse while we were eating. LOL
It's in the scripture.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cbmw/rbmw/chapter10.html

Jesus said, "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery," (Matt. 19:9).
The word in Greek for immorality is porneia from which we get the word pornography. Sexual immorality, i.e., adultery, is a grounds for divorce according to Jesus.
In addressing the issue of husband and wife, Paul said, "Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace," (1 Cor. 7:15).
I am the believer I can't leave or divorce my husband....unless he has committed adultry. I love him to death however and I would never do that. If he should choose to leave....then I am not held to the marriage.
http://www.carm.org/questions/divorce.htm

But he is a lot more than that even.
From the beginning of creation God created someone to be in charge and someone to help. Read Genesis and how God created everything.
Adam said, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh."
"God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food." And when God was done with all this wonderful thing, verse 31, He said, "Behold, it was very good."
The reason God created woman was so that man would not be alone. So that together they would create children so that they would have sexual fulfillment and happiness. This is marriage.....One woman one man becoming ONE.
Everything was perfect until they sinned and God punished them. "To the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow in thy conception.......Thy desire shall be to control thy husband, but he shall rule over thee."
She is to submit quite simply.
"To the man Adam said, Because you have hearkened to the voice of your wife, and eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake. In sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. In the day that you eat thereof you shall surely . . . .die"
Ephesians 5: 22-33: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.......... In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-for we are members of his body. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This is a profound mystery- but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."
http://www.thewayoflife-eg.com/english/teaching/family2_en.php

Just out of curiousity have you ever thought that maybe there is something to God and Christ, that you might be wrong?
Don't forget Gods orders to the husband. A woman does have a choice especially if her husband loves her the way God commands him to do. He would never ever ask her to do something that would hurt her, not if he loved her.
Great post. We do the same in our marriage. Although my husband is against abortion today. At one time he was pro-choice......as I said, God is working on him.
You miss everything. I told you they did not practice, nor did my husband. It was social. My husband had a "big party" as he calls it when he became a man and that was it.
You think I know nothing about this issue.
I have read these books about this topic. And I went to Israel 5 year ago. Have you ever been over to this region of the world?
You want me to quote from the books I have studied from, I own them?
Why Terrorism Works, by Alan Dershowitz
Fast Facts on Islam by John Ankerberg and John Weldon
Reasoning from the Scriptures with Muslims by ron Rhodes
Iraq Babylon of the Times? by Marvin Pate and J. Daniel Hays
Unholy War by Randall Price
The Demon Lover:The Roots of Terrorism, by Robin Morgan
Light in the Shadow of Jihad, by Ravi Zacharius
The illustrated Guide to World Religions by Dean Halverson
In the Name of God:Experts on Religious Terrorism Reveal the Facts by Timothy Demy and Gary P. Stewart
Now I am no expert but don't tell me I haven't read and don't know anything about this subject, because I do. Now of course you will come back and say that all these books are lies, that the authors are all frauds spreading nothing but propoganda. So basically we aren't going to solve anything here because I doubt either one of us is going to budge on positions. Why discuss it?
We have proved nothing but that this war will never end.

reply from: Rosalie

No,he can't just tell you to do something, you both have to discuss it, and debate it and try to jointly find a solution that you both agree with. He is required to lay don his life for you, so most of the time, he will lay down his own desires to make you happy. But, If after all of that you can't arrive at a solution then it is time to allow someone the final decision. Most marriages the people in it like each other and want the best for each other. It isn't an adversaerial relationship.
I don't OBEY my husband like a stepford wife! I am an equal partner in this marriage and my pov is just as important as his.
And you know, I don't think that's right, either. No one should be required to lay down their life for anyone. Either you want to do that out of love, or you don't want to do that at all. Requiring something like that is not right.
Why should the someone who makes the final decision should be the man? Because a book you believe in said so? That's too weak a reason to me.
And if you are equal partners in your marriage, then no one gets the final say so automatically. You continue to contradict yourself.

reply from: Rosalie

But that was exactly my point, you see. A compromise. Of course, if you are better at something than he is, it's only logical you get to take care of it and vice versa. That's still compromise.
The point is that you cannot say you are equal and then turn around and say that you are to submit to him. That's mutually exclusive. Either you are equal, or he has the upper hand because the religion says so - but in that case you are not equal (again, according to your religion).

reply from: Rosalie

That might be good enough to you. To me, that is a book no different from any other with no authority whatsoever to people outside of your own religion.
Of course. I have explored several religions over the years, I learned about them, I looked at them objectively with no prejudice because that's what I was taught.
I arrived where I currently am after a lot of researching and soul-searching.
I am no sheep, I do not blindly follow what people tell me or what I have been taught.

reply from: scopia19822

Submission in Christian marriage is a mutual submission. One does not rule over the other. It is about putting the other ones needs ahead of your own. Both are equal in the eyes of God. Men and women are meant to complement each other not competing with each other. How many women today loose their since of femininity because the feel the need to become more like men to get ahead in the world? Men are linear thinkers, which in tough times makes them more better at making decisions. Women are more emotional , which makes them more nurturing , more empathetic to others. We are equal but different. But since you are an atheist it maybe difficult for you to under stand this.

reply from: ProLulzer

"Don't forget Gods orders to the husband. A woman does have a choice especially if her husband loves her the way God commands him to do. He would never ever ask her to do something that would hurt her, not if he loved her. "
No, she doesn't have a choice in the matter. Sorry.

reply from: ProLulzer

That is not true, men don't get to rule over women and make all the choices. That is not biblical at all.
First of all, men and women are equal in God's eyes. In Gen., God creates men and women and gives them both dominion over the earth. Not dominion over each other. We are equal to men in every way. God made us both in His image.
Sin is why human beings do horrible things to each other. Part of the fall is that men want to rule over women and make them subserviant. That is the sin nature of men and it is wrong. God is certainly not for that at all. He has been pretty clear that we are equal. For example, God used Deborah to judge Isreal, He used Ester to save her people, Rahab was Jesus's great-grandmother, in Joel God pours out His spirit on all flesh, not once are any of the spiritual gifts denied anyone, regardless of sex, social status or economical status. Women were apostles, preachers and pastors in the NT. This male suppression of women is an evil unchristian mindset, it is a misreading of scripture and is santanic in nature.
It happens because in the fall, God sets enimity between women and Satan. Satan hates women and wants to destroy us, and this is one way to do it. It is no accident that all through out history men have oppressed and mistreated women, Satan twist the truth of God's word and incites men to treat women as less than they are.
First, men have authority over women:
"...women should remain silent in churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission..." 1 Corinthians 14:34
You need to reread your bible old sport
"Wives submit to your husbands, as is fitting to the Lord." Colossians 3:18
There are more verses, but these are enough to support the premise above.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

That is not true, men don't get to rule over women and make all the choices. That is not biblical at all.
First of all, men and women are equal in God's eyes. In Gen., God creates men and women and gives them both dominion over the earth. Not dominion over each other. We are equal to men in every way. God made us both in His image.
Sin is why human beings do horrible things to each other. Part of the fall is that men want to rule over women and make them subserviant. That is the sin nature of men and it is wrong. God is certainly not for that at all. He has been pretty clear that we are equal. For example, God used Deborah to judge Isreal, He used Ester to save her people, Rahab was Jesus's great-grandmother, in Joel God pours out His spirit on all flesh, not once are any of the spiritual gifts denied anyone, regardless of sex, social status or economical status. Women were apostles, preachers and pastors in the NT. This male suppression of women is an evil unchristian mindset, it is a misreading of scripture and is santanic in nature.
It happens because in the fall, God sets enimity between women and Satan. Satan hates women and wants to destroy us, and this is one way to do it. It is no accident that all through out history men have oppressed and mistreated women, Satan twist the truth of God's word and incites men to treat women as less than they are.
First, men have authority over women:
"...women should remain silent in churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission..." 1 Corinthians 14:34
You need to reread your bible old sport
"Wives submit to your husbands, as is fitting to the Lord." Colossians 3:18
There are more verses, but these are enough to support the premise above.
As usual, you have things just exactly backwards carolmarie. The Bible is about Government and lines of authority. The man is the head of the woman. This means he is the ultimate authority in the family. Sounds like you are on Satan's team carolmarie, denigrating God's Government.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

No man is the head of me and I'll punch any man in the crotch who tries to rule over me. I was not raised to be a second-class citizen.

reply from: churchmouse

Then you are not a Christian and you dont believe the Word, its that simple.

reply from: CharlesD

A lot of Christians misunderstand the passages that talk about the man as the head of the house and think that being the head denotes some superiority. In reality, it does not indicate any such superiority, but merely a different role in the household. In the true Biblical model, the man does not lord it over his wife or rule her in any way. My father (shortly before the divorce) liked to say to my mother, "The Bible says that wives are to submit to their husbands!" What he was forgetting was the next part of that passage that says that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Christ laid down His life for His people, sacrificing himself for the good of mankind. Likewise, husbands are to sacrifice themselves for the good of their wives, laying down their own lives and placing their wives ahead of themselves. In a Biblical marriage, the man is submissive to God and he seeks to lead his family in a Godly manner, so that the so called submission of the wife to him is not a difficult thing or even a manner of inferiority. They are both submitting to the authority of God, but the man is held accountable to God for his wife. She was put into his trust and if he messes up, God is not pleased. If a man is truly seeking to serve his wife and to put her needs above his, there is really no need for any kind of subservient submission. The two of them will be on the same page.

reply from: Rosalie

Personally, I don't support submission of any kind. I don't think it's a good thing at all.
I put my family's well-being first out of love, not because I should be (according to your beliefs) supposed to submit.
I also never said I was an atheist. I do not feel comfortable sharing my belief system on the internet.

reply from: Rosalie

Then you are not a Christian and you dont believe the Word, its that simple.
By this comment, you are implying that women are supposed to be second-class citizens. Do you really think so?

reply from: Rosalie

The division of roles in a household can be achieved without using terms like "submission". If you can't do it without it, you're doing it wrong.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

The division of roles in a household can be achieved without using terms like "submission". If you can't do it without it, you're doing it wrong.
Do without submission? Did you know Jesus always did what pleased his Father? He carried out the Father's Will. Jesus submitted. This will throw fuel on a fire; however, the truth is Jesus testified that His Father was greater than Him. Did you know the debtor is slave to the creditor? Did you know we are to submit to our employer as unto the Lord. We are to submit and be good employees whether the employer is good or unreasonable. Who shall the Lord exalt? He shall say to his slaves, "Well done, though good and faithful servant, you have been faithful over a little, I will put you over much." The Lord (Master) refers to those carrying out His Will as slaves or servants. Is that offensive to you? Or would you rather be in an adversarial relationship bent on carrying out your own will.
Jesus did say that to be put into a position of authority one must become a servant and wash his brother's feet. Jesus said he came to serve, not to be served. The man of the family is to serve the needs of the family; to meet the needs of wife and children. In return, they are to honor him and be in submission.

reply from: Rosalie

The division of roles in a household can be achieved without using terms like "submission". If you can't do it without it, you're doing it wrong.
Do without submission? Did you know Jesus always did what pleased his Father? He carried out the Father's Will. Jesus submitted. This will throw fuel on a fire; however, the truth is Jesus testified that His Father was greater than Him. Did you know the debtor is slave to the creditor? Did you know we are to submit to our employer as unto the Lord. We are to submit and be good employees whether the employer is good or unreasonable. Who shall the Lord exalt? He shall say to his slaves, "Well done, though good and faithful servant, you have been faithful over a little, I will put you over much." The Lord (Master) refers to those carrying out His Will as slaves or servants. Is that offensive to you? Or would you rather be in an adversarial relationship bent on carrying out your own will.
Jesus did say that to be put into a position of authority one must become a servant and wash his brother's feet. Jesus said he came to serve, not to be served. The man of the family is to serve the needs of the family; to meet the needs of wife and children. In return, they are to honor him and be in submission.
I'm not interested in the Jesus talk. Can you actually address my last post? If not, just say so.

reply from: carolemarie

Only if you read them out of context! 1 Corinthians 14:34 is regarding behavior in church and usually read as in context with Church government, saying women can't lead the church. When you consider the context, you see just before this earlier in the letter Paul had just given instructions on how women should pray and prophecy in public. (1 Corinthians 11:5), so we can assume that Paul must have meant something less than a total ban for women in public ministry. Since it doesn't line up with Paul's writing that affirm ministry efforts of women, it must be in the context of this one church.-same with 1 Timothy 2:11-15 this has to do with teaching Timothy regarding improper conduct at Ephesus. (1 Timothy 2:9, 1 Timothy 5:13, 2 Timothy 3,6) When interperting scripture context is very important !
In Romans 16:7. The apostle Paul mentions Junia - who he calls an apostle! And she is a woman. This is the same word Paul uses to refer to himself! Being an apostle is the highest office, and Paul himself says a woman held it. That alone opens all offices in the church to females. Which kind of debunks the idea that women can't lead....
Then there is Phoebe, who is described in the Greek as a diakovos which in the greek is the same word that Paul uses to refer to himself as a preacher and a minister, which is used 22 times in the New Testament- 2o times as a minister, 8 times as a servent and deacon 3 times. And Paul is the greatest authority in the New Testament, except for Jesus himself.
As for women being created to serve men, that is not true.
In Gen. 2:18, And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.
That is generally explained as women are to be a help and support to men. But when you look up the words in Hebrew, a different story is unveiled...
The Strongs is 5929- Hebrew = ezer which means aid. Strong's Root = 582 (Hebrew= azar) azar=prime root: to surround, ie protect or aid: help, succour. Meet in Hebrew- kenegdo, corresponding to, counterpart to, equal to matching.
If you look at the context of every other use of the word ezer in the scriptures, you will see that ezer referes to either God or military allies. The word ezer is used twice in Old Testament to refer to the female and 14 times to refer to God. For example, in the Psalms when David says, :The Lord is my Helper," he uses the word ezer.
In all other cases the one GIVING the help is superior to the one receiving the help. Adding kenegdo (meet) modifies the meaning to that of EQUAL rather than superior status. Men and women are equal!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Then you are not a Christian and you dont believe the Word, its that simple.
Bullshit, darling.

reply from: joe

Then you are not a Christian and you dont believe the Word, its that simple.
Bull*****, darling.
Churchmouse is right. Follow God or don't but stop making God into what you want Him to be. (or is He a her to you)

reply from: LiberalChiRo

God doesn't actually have a gender in the original language, so YOU actually look like the uninformed nonbeliever. It's just english that is incapable of having non-gendered pronouns.

reply from: carolemarie

You are so right LRC! God is a spirit and in heaven there will be no gender either.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

The Bible is about authority, lines of command and government. The Gospel is about the Government of God coming to replace the governments of man. The Bible is about calling people to be rulers and teachers in that future Government. Those are the main topics of the Bible.
If you are opposed to government, authority and lines of command, then the Bible is not for you.

reply from: carolemarie

It is about a whole lot more than rules and authority.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

This is what it is about carol marie.

reply from: CharlesD

Yes, authority and government are themes in scripture, but not the main theme. The main theme throughout is redemption. Mankind has rebelled against God and God is always trying to reconcile mankind back into a relationship with Him. Throughout the Old Testament the Jews would rebel and He would chastise them and they would come back, only to rebel again when things got going good. Finally, Christ was sent to provide the final atonement for man's rebellion so that man could be reconciled to God. The unmerited grace and mercy of God is the main theme of scripture.

reply from: carolemarie

The bible is a story of God's amazing love for each of us and the promise that we can know and share in that love....
Redemption and salvation....mercy and grace....it is a love story from God to us.

reply from: scopia19822

I think the concept of "ruling over" is not the best wording to describe it. We are equal, but different. I appreciate the differences in the sexes, the difference between masculine and feminine. In many ways old fashioned traditional values are a good thing. IMHO men are to be the providers and protectors of their families, while women who are more nuturing by nature tend to traditionally played the major role in raising the kids and taking care of the home. While I certianly appreciate the accomplishments of the early feminest who got us the vote, rights to property, education etc,. The efforts of so called modern day femininst have caused men to think they dont have to respect us anymore. It used to be that a man would help a woman carry a heavy parcel and open the door for her. On a date he would pull out your chair and open the car door for you. THese men are a dying breed. Some that would do it are afraid too because they have had their heads bitten off by some feminists for doing it. These feminist consider it a sign of inferiorty. I dont know about you, but when I go into a store and a man holds the door open for me it makes me feel very respected and hardly 2nd class. I intend to raise my son to do these things for women.

reply from: scopia19822

Yes, I know that. I just keep wondering how come it does not bother you.
Just out of curiosity - have you ever questioned what you have been taught?
Many times and I still question many things. It does not bother me in the least. By nature men want to protect their families and provide for them. My husband is disabled and no longer able to work it bothers him that he cannot provide for us like he used too. I like the idea of being protected and provided for and I do not think I am the only one.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Yes, HouseRat, as I've told you before, I am saved and baptized - neither of which can be taken away from me.
Your husband is apparently Jewish in ethnic terms only, as he does not practice his religion. Why have you not converted him to Christianity, so that you are not yoked to an unbeliever? He is either Jewish, agnostic or atheist if he is not a Christian (unless he is a Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist, which I doubt.)
If he has not given his heart to Christ, he is an unbeliever.
Yes, HouseRat, I am save and baptized. Is your husband? Does he attend synagogue for holidays? Does he attend church on a regular basis? Or does he just go to church with you now and then?
Maybe the two of you could meet with your pastor for counseling. Unless your husband has been saved and baptized, he is still Jewish - unless you conveniently forgot his heritage, bris and Bar Mitzvah.
I enjoy mocking so-called Christians who are Christians in name only and who do not follow the Word. You are NOT following the Word, that is for sure:
2nd Corinthians 6:14 (King James Version) "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"

International Standard Version (©2008)
Stop becoming unevenly yoked with unbelievers. What partnership can righteousness have with lawlessness? What fellowship can light have with darkness?
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Stop forming inappropriate relationships with unbelievers. Can right and wrong be partners? Can light have anything in common with darkness?
American King James Version
Be you not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion has light with darkness?
American Standard Version
Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? or what communion hath light with darkness?
Bible in Basic English
Do not keep company with those who have not faith: for what is there in common between righteousness and evil, or between light and dark?
Douay-Rheims Bible
Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness?
Darby Bible Translation
Be not diversely yoked with unbelievers; for what participation is there between righteousness and lawlessness? or what fellowship of light with darkness?
English Revised Version
Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? or what communion hath light with darkness?
Webster's Bible Translation
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
Weymouth New Testament
Do not come into close association with unbelievers, like oxen yoked with asses. For what is there in common between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what partnership has light with darkness?
You are a sinner who continues to sin unrepentantly through your marriage to an unbeliever.

reply from: CharlesD

Maybe originally marrying an unbeliever could be said to be a sin, but I don't see where remaining married is a sin, especially since the scripture also says not to divorce that person if he/she is willing to stay with you. Also, was she a believer when she first married him? Because if she wasn't and became one after the wedding, then the sin of becoming equally yoked doesn't really apply. If two unbelievers marry and then one becomes a believer, it is not a sin to stay married. God also hates divorce. The best case is that eventually the other spouse comes to Christ as well. That doesn't always happen, but it is a possibility.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Yes, HouseRat, as I've told you before, I am saved and baptized - neither of which can be taken away from me.
Your husband is apparently Jewish in ethnic terms only, as he does not practice his religion. Why have you not converted him to Christianity, so that you are not yoked to an unbeliever? He is either Jewish, agnostic or atheist if he is not a Christian (unless he is a Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist, which I doubt.)
If he has not given his heart to Christ, he is an unbeliever.
Yes, HouseRat, I am save and baptized. Is your husband? Does he attend synagogue for holidays? Does he attend church on a regular basis? Or does he just go to church with you now and then?
Maybe the two of you could meet with your pastor for counseling. Unless your husband has been saved and baptized, he is still Jewish - unless you conveniently forgot his heritage, bris and Bar Mitzvah.
I enjoy mocking so-called Christians who are Christians in name only and who do not follow the Word. You are NOT following the Word, that is for sure:
2nd Corinthians 6:14 (King James Version) "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"

International Standard Version (©2008)
Stop becoming unevenly yoked with unbelievers. What partnership can righteousness have with lawlessness? What fellowship can light have with darkness?
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Stop forming inappropriate relationships with unbelievers. Can right and wrong be partners? Can light have anything in common with darkness?
American King James Version
Be you not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion has light with darkness?
American Standard Version
Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? or what communion hath light with darkness?
Bible in Basic English
Do not keep company with those who have not faith: for what is there in common between righteousness and evil, or between light and dark?
Douay-Rheims Bible
Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness?
Darby Bible Translation
Be not diversely yoked with unbelievers; for what participation is there between righteousness and lawlessness? or what fellowship of light with darkness?
English Revised Version
Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? or what communion hath light with darkness?
Webster's Bible Translation
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
Weymouth New Testament
Do not come into close association with unbelievers, like oxen yoked with asses. For what is there in common between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what partnership has light with darkness?
You are a sinner who continues to sin unrepentantly through your marriage to an unbeliever.
She quit calling you moonbat so maybe you could quit calling her houserat.
I've found many Jewish act more Christian than those who call themselves "Christian".
Christ means Messiah. Many Jewish believe in a coming Messiah, not that Jesus was the messiah. But they act as if there will be a Messiah and act appropriately.
Many "Christians" act as if Jesus is not the Christ (their Lord and Master). They love saying they are "saved", but Jesus their Lord, Master, their Christ; no way!
Messianic Jews have the closest belief system to my own. The Jewish people in Israel act more righteously than the "Christian" citizens of America.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

"I've found many Jewish act more Christian than those who call themselves "Christian".
Christ means Messiah. Many Jewish believe in a coming Messiah, not that Jesus was the messiah. But they act as if there will be a Messiah and act appropriately.
Many "Christians" act as if Jesus is not the Christ (their Lord and Master). They love saying they are "saved", but Jesus their Lord, Master, their Christ; no way!
Messianic Jews have the closest belief system to my own. The Jewish people in Israel act more righteously than the "Christian" citizens of America."
Christ is the English term for the Greek (Khristós) meaning "the anointed". In the (Greek) Septuagint version of the Old Testament, Khristós was used to translate the Hebrew (Mašía?,) (Messiah), meaning "[one who is] anointed." Many modern Christians explicitly describe Christ as both fully human and fully God, while the Jewish tradition understands the Messiah as a human being without any overtone of deity or divinity.
Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC. Widely used among Hellenistic Jews, this Greek translation was produced because many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their Hebrew language. The process of translating the Hebrew to Greek also gave many non-Jews a glimpse into Judaism.
Followers of Jesus became known as Christians because they believed that Jesus is the Messiah, or Christ. The majority of Jews reject this claim and are still waiting for the messiah to come.
I doubt that you will find many "Jews" acting "Christian", or "Christians" acting like "Jews." Their beliefs are very different. Messianic Judaism is NOT Judiasm at all, it is a bastardization of Christianity and Judaism that is not recognized by EITHER religion.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

No, CP, I am not referring to the Lubavichers. I am speaking of the many "Messianic Jewish" groups that have sprung up fairly recently that follow Judaic holidays and traditions, but believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah for which other Jews are still waiting.
We have a number of them in our area and one of my former co-workers actually renounced her Evangelical Christian church to join the Messianics. (Her group was shaken up when their "Rabbi" was arrested for using the Internet to lure a young girl to a meeting.) The local (real and large) Jewish community wants nothing to do with the Messianics and calls them fakes and frauds and "not Jewish."

reply from: CharlesD

That's probably not that far from the truth, since the early Christians were all Jews as well. Christianity has its roots in Judaism. I think the difference between most Christians these days and the Messianic Jews is ethnicity. I've been to some of their services and I've enjoyed them.

reply from: BossMomma

Then you are not a Christian and you dont believe the Word, its that simple.
So you believe that to be a christian woman she must lower herself beneath a man and be subject to his will? You obviously are not familiar with with any independant christian women. BTW, it's not for you to say who is a christian believer and who is not, her faith is between her and her God and has nothing to do with you.

reply from: BossMomma

The division of roles in a household can be achieved without using terms like "submission". If you can't do it without it, you're doing it wrong.
Suppose you replace the word submission with the word respect, that is after all the true intent. A good marriage is based on love and a mutual respect between spouses and, there is submission on either side whether you'd like to admit it or not.

reply from: CharlesD


That pretty much nails it. There are areas where my wife is better than I am and I gladly submit to her judgment in those areas. There are other areas where it's the other way around. It's a two way street.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

"Messianic Judaism is a religious movement, composed of faith groups of persons who:
Regard themselves to be committed Jews.
Believe that Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus Christ) is the Messiah spoken of in the Hebrew Scriptures (a.k.a. Old Testament).
Believe that they are following the practices and beliefs of the very early Christian movement.
Follow an Evangelical Christian theology.
They differ from Reform, Conservative, Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox Jews over their beliefs about the Messiah. Jews generally believe that the Messiah has yet to come; they do not accept Messianic Jews as real Jews.
from: http://www.religioustolerance.org/mess_jud.htm

CP, I'm rather surprised that you haven't heard of this group.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Jews
Summary statement at beginning of entry:
Messianic Judaism is a Christian movement whose adherents believe that Jesus of Nazareth, whom they call Yeshua, is both the resurrected Jewish Messiah and their Divine Savior
I've obtained material from Messianic Jews and consider that branch of religion to most nearly reflect my own beliefs. I like a lot of the ideas and material from Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, and various Church of God groups. I disagree with points from all groups. Most Protestants or Catholics think the groups I've listed are abominations, or as RiverMoonLady said, bastardizations. I've attended with the United Church of God, website www.ucg.org.
I have no idea who this dead Rabbi concernedparent was referring to is.

reply from: churchmouse

I doubt that but only God knows the truth. Your stance on abortion is Satanic to say the least. You condmn Gods creation, you condemn innocent childrens lives. If you think for one minute that your position is godly, then you are not reading the Word of God and follwing it.
God can do whatever He wants with you River. nEVER SAY NEVER. You obviously do not fear the Lord. You know what Proverbs 1:7 says, "Fearing the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." God might not take your salvation away, but if you think for one minute that God does not punish His children for disobedience, you are sadly mistaken. You can't just keep sinning and counting on His forgiveness without some sort of punishment. You will get it in one way or another, everyone does.
If you have sin in your life....you are willingly separating yourself from God. I'ts a shame you don't see that.
....which shows that you do not understand the Word. No one can convert someone elses heart. I can't make my husband be a Christian, and accept Christ. No one on earth can save someone.........you can lead them to Christ, but He alone does the saving. So unless my husband repents, asks Christ into his heart and unless the Holy Spirit convicts him, it can't happen. I can't make it happen. I can plant seeds however and that is what I do.
And I can show him Gods love. Not like you do it as displayed here..... Calling names is not godly and it shows people that the person isn't walking in the light. We must show the unsaved by our words and actions. You show people here that you really do not hold to a Christian worldview because you are pro-abortion.

It not about paper conversion River it's all about what is in the heart, and that, you have no control over, unless its your own heart.

I did not sin when I married my husband because I was a Christian in name only, I was not saved. I did not read nor did I know what the Word said about being equally yoked. I am however still accountable for my actions today and God wants me to still be a godly wife to my husband and to my family. God says my husband is the head of our home.....and I live by His standards, not mine. And I told you already he comes to church probably once a month and for holidays.
I told you what his belief system was. He believes there is a God, he believes Christ lived. He does not walk it however. Unless you ask Christ into your heart......you are unsaved.
Yes he is Jewish by birth. And?

He went through the motions, it was tradition a ritual. He did what his parents wanted him to do. As I said, this is about what is in someones heart, not what anyone else wants them to do. Christ saved me....baptism, or taking the sacraments didn't save me. They were outward acts confirming my faith. Christ alone saved me, when I asked to be saved.
When we married, we were equally yoked. I was a Christian in name only and had not accepted Christ.
So let me ask you this......Should all the husbands or wives that come to know Christ after they marry, and their spouse remain unsaved.....just pick up and leave them? LOL
Where in the scriptures does God say to do this?
You say this because the Holy Sprirt has not convicted you.
Read this.......
http://www.heavenministries.com/articles/unbelievingspousewhowantsadivorce.htm

"For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. (1 Corinthians 7:12-14 NIV)
God's ideal is for couples to stay together and try and make the marriage work. The believing spouse should try and bring the wayward spouse to Jesus Christ. Since God does regard your marriage as sanctified by the presence of just one believing spouse, the believing spouse should do what they can to help the unbelieving spouse come into the light and accept Christ.
But if the unbeliever leaves let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances. (1 Corinthians 7:15 NIV)
God wants the believing spouse to work with the unbelieving spouse if it does not compromise his or her own faith and beliefs. Not bound in such circumstances does not mean it is okay to divorce your unbelieving spouse. It means that you are not bound to try and make the unbelieving spouse stay with you if it is going to compromise your beliefs in the process.
You cannot make an unbelieving spouse stay in the marriage. But there are a few things you can do to help them to see their erring ways, and come to Christ. Be an example to the unbelieving spouse. Being a good influence has far greater spiritual power than you think.
Therefore, strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees. Make level paths for your feet, so that the lame may not be disabled, but rather healed. (Hebrews 12:12,13 NIV)
Believers have a responsibility to the marriage if they are truly living for Christ, as they claim to be. Your example should make it easier for your spouse to believe in and follow Jesus. If your example makes the unbelieving spouse confused and misled, they will not see Jesus in you. Sometimes you might not feel well enough spiritually or emotionally to be a good example for your spouse, and this is why you need to always stay focused on Christ for your own strength and comfort. Then you can use that strength to help the unbelieving spouse find their way back home again where they belong.
Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the lord. (Hebrews 12:14 NIV)
Pray constantly for the unbelieving spouse. Let them see their erring ways not by what you say to them but by how you live your own life. In many instances it is good to bring their erring ways to their attention in a good way so as to restore him or her to God. Don't talk the self-righteous story with them by telling them how sinful or rotten they are. Don't say you are a Christian and they are not. This kind of behavior will make them run from you as fast as they can.
"If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, 'I repent,' forgive him." (Luke 17:3,4 NIV)
Last but not least, and I think this is very important, do not allow the unbelieving spouse to take advantage of your good graces and mercy. There will be times you will need to detach from them and you can do this in a loving way. If they are doing something that goes against your conscience, do not be a part of it or allow it to carry on in your presence. Be humble but strong. Be discerning but compassionate. Be careful that the unbeliever does not bring you down with them. Always stay focused on the Lord and He will keep you protected and strong in your time of suffering and need.
Whether you turn to the right or to the left, your ears will hear a voice behind you, saying, "This is the way; walk in it." (Isaiah 30:21 NIV)"
River you need to read ALL OF THE WORD NOT JUST PARTS.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

I had to look up the United Church of God. It's not the same Church of God that I belong to - ours is part of the Churches of God in North America (following the Anabaptist beliefs), not to be confused with the more Pentecostal Church of God International or any of the other more than 20 versions of "Church of God."
Kind of confusing, isn't it????

reply from: churchmouse

I believe Gods plan for a husband and wife in the Word. He created us second and from man. We are to be a helpmate for our husbands. He also told the man to love us as they love themselves.
It goes both ways. We are equal in Gods eyes, but we have different roles. And God says man is to be over us.
You are right, I cant judge anyones heart Boss.....but I have every right to judge them on words and actions. God gave us the Word for a reason.
If someone steals, lies, commits adultery, murder and condones ungodly acts etc., the Christian can make a (righteous) moral judgment and say that the actions were morally wrong, and that these sins will have eternal consequences.
I absoutely love what Chuck Colson said about this, "True tolerance is not a total lack of judgment. It's knowing what should be tolerated - and refusing to tolerate that which shouldn't."
The bible is clear about what is to be tolerated, and sin isn't one of them. People make claim statements here.....and we all have a right to judge those statements and who is making them, me included.
When someone says abortion is ok, and they claim to be a Christian......I know that they obviously do not know what Gods Word says about life. God says make righteous judgements.......would God think abortion was a righteous act?
1 Corinthians 5:11-13, says
"I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people, not at all referring to the immoral of this world or the greedy and robbers or idolaters; for you would then have to leave the world.
But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person.
For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within?
God will judge those outside. "Purge the evil person from your midst."
We as Christians have a right to judge the words and actions of BELIEVERS. God will judge non-believers.
Go read 1 Corinthians 6:1-4

1 "It is widely reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of a kind not found even among pagans--a man living with his father's wife.
2 And you are inflated with pride. Should you not rather have been sorrowful? The one who did this deed should be expelled from your midst.
3 I, for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced JUDGEMENT on the one who has committed this deed,
4 in the name of (our) Lord Jesus: when you have gathered together and I am with you in spirit with the power of the Lord Jesus,
5 you are to this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord."
Our leaders are expected to judge those whom they lead. Hebrews 13:7 and 13:17....it is clear church leadership is expected to exercise authority and maintain discipline. If a leader sees a member in sin......you think he should do nothing? Or protect those who remain?
People make the mistake of assuming that the primary function of judging is to punish the wicked. Its NOT, that's secondary. The primary function of judging is to PROTECT THE RIGHTEOUS. Look at our justice system today. We bend over backward to protect the criminal and offer little to the victim. This is perverted thinking. It is NEVER in line with Gods will to deal with righteous as with the wicked.
We as Christian have every right to judge believers behavior and actions. We are not however responsible for the final evaluation of anyones character, including our own. (1 Corinthians 4:4)
God alone has this authority. We are responsible to judge conduct and relationships. We are not to base this on our feelings, or by the opinions of society or even by our own estimation of ourselves. We are to judge conduct and relationships by the CLEAR TEACHING AND STANDARDS REVEALED IN THE WORD OF GOD.

You can't change the Word Boss. Read what God wanted the roles of the man and woman to be.
No godly man that was following the Word would ask his wife to do something she was so adamately opposed to doing especially somethign that would hurt her. He is to love her like he loves himself.
Most the time my husband has given me that kind of love, I am blessed. I put my two cents in but he calls the shots. And most times he is right. I usually ran the household and he ran the business end. The only thing we came to blows over were the kids curfews and a few activities they went to.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

I've seen Church of God buildings which I believe belong to evangelical Christians. The group I attended with is/was very different. Law, government and biblical holy days (see Leviticus) were main features. The founder of one branch is Herbert Armstrong. I imagine he is easily googled. While his emphasis on law, government and traditional biblical observances was great; he also had many flaws. He was expecting the return of Jesus during his lifetime and a date was actually set. And the co-worker newsletters were always saying "Send more money" while detailing that WW III was any day now. Elders really went overboard when they declared Armstrong the Elijah that was to come just before Jesus' return. I was too embarrassed to stay with the group due to the wild and reckless speculation they were engaging in.
I also traveled with Missionaries to the Preborn several years. But, once again, I learned that they were associating with at least one person who said it was justifiable to kill abortionists in defense of babies. I had to quit associating with that group also.
Mostly, I sit at home now when it comes to religion or defense of babies.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Herbert Armstrong founded the Worldwide Church of God. They are related more closely to the Seventh Day Adventists than most other "Churches of God."
Armstrong was an early evangelist and much of what he preached went directly against Biblical basics.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Churchmouse - "I doubt that but only God knows the truth."
God DOES know the truth, and that's good enough for me.
BTW, I married a Christian man - I didn't have to convert anyone.
What will you do if your husband refuses Christ's offer of salvation? I cannot understand why you would remain with someone who was NEVER a Christian, who was born into a religion antithetical to Christianity and are living with the hope that he will change.
But if that is want you want, to be separated from your husband after death, that is up to you. You do know that he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven, don't you? How will you die in peace knowing that he will be left behind?
I'm sorry, but I find this very confusing.

reply from: churchmouse

River I did not say I doubt that God knows the truth. God is the truth.
"What will you do if your husband refuses Christ's offer of salvation? I cannot understand why you would remain with someone who was NEVER a Christian, who was born into a religion antithetical to Christianity and are living with the hope that he will change."
I am NOT RESPONBLE FOR HIS SOUL, nor anyone elses. He knows about Christ....so he will have no excuse on judgement day, nor will anyone else. I cant worry about that. Hopefully before he takes his last breath he will get saved.
Jesus was a Jew. I love Jews. God loves Jews, they are His chosen people. I should hate Gods very own people? I think the Jews are wrong....i think Muslims are wrong, that goes for those what worship Buddah.....but I dont hate them.
I love my husband and I believe God is working on his heart. I am doing what God wants me to do. didnt you read what a posted above, the scriptures that say, I am NOT TO LEAVE.
God changed my heart and He can do that for my husband and other unsaved family members. Should I throw them all out too?
I am not responsible for anyones salvation, just my own. I am commanded however to follow Gods Word.
But if that is want you want, to be separated from your husband after death, that is up to you. You do know that he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven, don't you? How will you die in peace knowing that he will be left behind?
I'm sorry, but I find this very confusing.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

What you mean is that Herbert Armstrong taught exactly from the Bible, things such as the Sabbath, Feast of Unleavened Bread, etc. He was hated and considered a heretic because he did not adopt the new fangled days such as Sunday worship, Christmas, Easter, etc. He rejected the theology that had developed. He had a "back to the Bible approach" rather then "Let's see what others are doing and have accepted and copy them".
His greatest contribution was pointing out that the Gospel (Good News) is that God's Government is coming to replace man's governments. He also correctly pointed out that we are called to become rulers and teachers in that government; that is why saints are called and study and live what is in the Bible.
The Seventh Day Church of God split from the Seventh Day Adventists. Herbert Armstrong, born a Quaker, came out of the 7th Day Church of God.
Seventh Day Adventists made the mistake of elevating Ellen White's writings to the same status as the Apostles. The Worldwide Church of God also made the mistake of callling Herbert Armstrong an Apostle near the end of his lifetime; believing he was doing a work similar to the Apostle Paul. Some of the followers get carried away.
The Worldwide Church of God is as Protestant and Evangelical as any today. They slid back into the errors of the mainline denominations.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

That's humorous. In response to Armstrong's "Plain Truth" magazine is this author's "Painful Truth" book on the "Oh what a tangled web we weave" website.
I've already read Tkach's book on how the new church leaders rejected all of Armstrong's doctrines and what they thought were wrong with them.
Traditional Christianity is what is totally messed up. The majority is in error.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

What you mean is that Herbert Armstrong taught exactly from the Bible, things such as the Sabbath, Feast of Unleavened Bread, etc. He was hated and considered a heretic because he did not adopt the new fangled days such as Sunday worship, Christmas, Easter, etc. He rejected the theology that had developed. He had a "back to the Bible approach" rather then "Let's see what others are doing and have accepted and copy them".
His greatest contribution was pointing out that the Gospel (Good News) is that God's Government is coming to replace man's governments. He also correctly pointed out that we are called to become rulers and teachers in that government; that is why saints are called and study and live what is in the Bible.
The Seventh Day Church of God split from the Seventh Day Adventists. Herbert Armstrong, born a Quaker, came out of the 7th Day Church of God.
Seventh Day Adventists made the mistake of elevating Ellen White's writings to the same status as the Apostles. The Worldwide Church of God also made the mistake of callling Herbert Armstrong an Apostle near the end of his lifetime; believing he was doing a work similar to the Apostle Paul. Some of the followers get carried away.
The Worldwide Church of God is as Protestant and Evangelical as any today. They slid back into the errors of the mainline denominations.
Worldwide Church Of God was originally founded by Herbert W. Armstrong. Since his death, the Worldwide Church Of God has been reorganized and has discarded many of the doctrines taught by Herbert W. Armstrong. The Worldwide Church Of God has attempted to identify itself more closely with traditional Christian doctrine.
"In 1938, Armstrong was stripped of his COG-7th Day ministerial license. Armstrong had been teaching that the Jewish Feast days were binding on the church contrary to COG-7th Day doctrine. Armstrong retained his Eugene church and his radio ministry. In the years during the war, Armstrong taught that Armageddon was just around the corner. He taught that Mussolini and later Hitler were both the Antichrist. He made many specific false prophecies..."
"There was a split in the church in 1974, when forty ministers and several thousand members left the church because of doctrinal disputes and resulting abuses.
Armstrong disfellowshipped his son, Garner Ted, in 1978. Garner Ted formed his own church, The Church of God, International located in Tyler, Texas. By the mid-seventies, Armstrong was proclaiming himself God's apostle for the last days. In 1979, the state of California placed the church in receivership under allegations of financial abuses by church leaders. After lengthy court battles the courts removed the church from receivership."
Sounds like a bit of an egomaniac to me. Some writings refer to his church as a cult, too.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I believe Gods plan for a husband and wife in the Word. He created us second and from man.
Actually that's not true. If you read the first story of human creation in Genesis, it simply says "God created man and woman." Simultaneously. The ONLY story where woman comes second and from man is in the story of Eden. Many Biblical scholars believe that most humans descend from the first set of humans God made, with man and woman equals. Adam and Eve are special cases made specifically by God in the Garden.
You cannot be equal if someone is over you. You contradict yourself. I am not equal to my boss at work. I was not equal to my teacher in school. I am not equal to a judge in court. If someone is over you, then you are less. So either you believe women are less than men, or you believe they are equal and neither is over the other. Make up your mind.
What happened to "Judge not lest ye be judged" and "let he who is without sin throw the first stone"? Eh? Conveniently forgot them didn't you? I have always been told and taught that Christians should not judge others, because our only judge is God.
So, casting stones I see.
That's not true tolerance at all, that's subjective tolerance. No wonder your beliefs are so contradictary.
Not according to the Christianity I was raised with.
And YOU don't know what it says about women.
Depeneds on which passage you read.
And I advise YOU to read Jesus' words about creating stubling blocks for new believers.
We are to judge conduct and relationships by the CLEAR TEACHING AND STANDARDS REVEALED IN THE WORD OF GOD.
I'm not taking YOUR word on anything religious.
You're the one that needs to read it. Again.
That sounds an awful lot like a fantasy book series in which almost all women are legal slaves of men. These men have power over the women. Now, no truely rightious owner would ever ask something bad of his slave, but he still had the right to do so.
You are saying that men have the right to tell their women to do anything, even something atrocious. It wouldn't be very Godly of them, but it's still their right. And the woman has to obey.
I could never live as a slave.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

What you mean is that Herbert Armstrong taught exactly from the Bible, things such as the Sabbath, Feast of Unleavened Bread, etc. He was hated and considered a heretic because he did not adopt the new fangled days such as Sunday worship, Christmas, Easter, etc. He rejected the theology that had developed. He had a "back to the Bible approach" rather then "Let's see what others are doing and have accepted and copy them".
His greatest contribution was pointing out that the Gospel (Good News) is that God's Government is coming to replace man's governments. He also correctly pointed out that we are called to become rulers and teachers in that government; that is why saints are called and study and live what is in the Bible.
The Seventh Day Church of God split from the Seventh Day Adventists. Herbert Armstrong, born a Quaker, came out of the 7th Day Church of God.
Seventh Day Adventists made the mistake of elevating Ellen White's writings to the same status as the Apostles. The Worldwide Church of God also made the mistake of callling Herbert Armstrong an Apostle near the end of his lifetime; believing he was doing a work similar to the Apostle Paul. Some of the followers get carried away.
The Worldwide Church of God is as Protestant and Evangelical as any today. They slid back into the errors of the mainline denominations.
Worldwide Church Of God was originally founded by Herbert W. Armstrong. Since his death, the Worldwide Church Of God has been reorganized and has discarded many of the doctrines taught by Herbert W. Armstrong. The Worldwide Church Of God has attempted to identify itself more closely with traditional Christian doctrine.
"In 1938, Armstrong was stripped of his COG-7th Day ministerial license. Armstrong had been teaching that the Jewish Feast days were binding on the church contrary to COG-7th Day doctrine. Armstrong retained his Eugene church and his radio ministry. In the years during the war, Armstrong taught that Armageddon was just around the corner. He taught that Mussolini and later Hitler were both the Antichrist. He made many specific false prophecies..."
"There was a split in the church in 1974, when forty ministers and several thousand members left the church because of doctrinal disputes and resulting abuses.
Armstrong disfellowshipped his son, Garner Ted, in 1978. Garner Ted formed his own church, The Church of God, International located in Tyler, Texas. By the mid-seventies, Armstrong was proclaiming himself God's apostle for the last days. In 1979, the state of California placed the church in receivership under allegations of financial abuses by church leaders. After lengthy court battles the courts removed the church from receivership."
Sounds like a bit of an egomaniac to me. Some writings refer to his church as a cult, too.
Armstrong believed that he could calculate from the prophetic books when the final resurrection of the Roman Empire would arise. He believed Hitler and Mussolini were fulfillment of that end-time resurrection. He was just wrong. Daniel is pretty clear that an end-time resurrection of the Roman Empire will be instrumental to final events. There have been attempts to unify the nations surrounding the Mediterranean Ocean.
I heard that top Church officials started calling him an Apostle first; but then Armstrong himself accepted and believed the title. He was wrong to think he had it all figured out. His belief that he was very important to God's cause was overreaching.
Armstrong flew in a jet, met world leaders, he gave expensive gifts to world leaders. Some felt his spending habits were inappropriate.
Today in the news is a split between a major retired evangelist and the son who had been groomed to replace him. The same thing happened between Herbert and his son Garner Ted. Dads and sons often don't see eye to eye.
The Church was run like a dictatorship and opposing opinions weren't allowed. Thus, one of the major divisions in 1974. The Church was run Armstrong's way, and no other.
Despite Armstrong's flaws, errors and possibly excessive ego; I do believe he was sincere, not a charlatan.
He was always asking co-workers for financial assistance. This did bother many. All magazine subscriptions, booklets, books, everything was given away at no cost to the public and churchmembers. The only support was from contributions.

reply from: carolemarie

God did not create women to be under the authority of a man. We are under the authority of God, not a fallen human being.
We were not created to serve men....if we were that would make us slaves. We are not slaves, God didn't intend us to be slaves.

reply from: scopia19822

Well said Carolemarie, we both agree on this. This is where taken a contextual approach to interprating scripture comes into play. You not only have to take into account the one verse, but the whole chapter behind as well as the time in which it was written.

reply from: carolemarie

And what the actual Hebrew words mean! Changes the whole meaning when you look it up.
Jesus saved me because He loved me and He set me free for freedom, not to serve another master.

reply from: BossMomma

I believe Gods plan for a husband and wife in the Word. He created us second and from man. We are to be a helpmate for our husbands. He also told the man to love us as they love themselves.
It goes both ways. We are equal in Gods eyes, but we have different roles. And God says man is to be over us. .
If we are equals in Gods eyes then there is no reason for a woman to place herself beneath her husband. I tell every man in my life the same thing when in a relationship. " I will not walk at your heel as I am not below you, I will not walk ahead of you as I am not above you. I will walk at your side as your equal or not at all."
God said " and your husband shall rule over you" first, but then said " Wives submit unto your husbands, husbands love your wives" which means that he is not to lord his authority over the woman. In a healthy relationship couples submit willingly unto each other out of love and mutual respect, not just because gender dictates it.

reply from: CharlesD

A careful reading of Genesis will also tell you that Adam was not a southerner. Not even God could take a rib from a southerner.

reply from: lukesmom

Hahahahaha! Charles, you are a card tonight! LOL

reply from: carolemarie

When God said and your husband will rule over you, he was talking about the effects sin would have on their relationship. In a sinful world, men would try to rule over women. God never wanted it or ordained it, He just told them what would happen because of sin....it wasn't the punishment God meeted out to them for sinning.
The bible is clear that we are suppose to submit to each other, considering the other more esteemed than ourselves...putting the good of the other person over yourself. But both parties are suppose to do it, not just women.
Equality is the birthright of Christian women.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

When God said and your husband will rule over you, he was talking about the effects sin would have on their relationship. In a sinful world, men would try to rule over women. God never wanted it or ordained it, He just told them what would happen because of sin....it wasn't the punishment God meeted out to them for sinning.
The bible is clear that we are suppose to submit to each other, considering the other more esteemed than ourselves...putting the good of the other person over yourself. But both parties are suppose to do it, not just women.
Equality is the birthright of Christian women.
I think some Christian women want to PUT themselves "under the authority" of their husbands because they feel or ARE incapable of thinking or doing for themselves, and it is so much easier for them to do as they are told or have someone do for them, just like children.

reply from: MrBig

Women rule the world from behind the scenes and most are smart enough to control their husbands while making them think they're in charge. No man is a match for a crafty woman. Cleopatra knew how to use her feminine wiles to achieve wealth and power and smart women have been doing the same for centuries. Most of the time their men are the puppets who get the recognition but the women are the ones who really pull the strings. Smart guys realize that this is how it is and accept it. There are exceptions but this is the rule. Value your women, guys. They complete you and sometimes even make you whether you realize it or not.

reply from: MrBig

Who peed in your cheerios this morning? I didn't say women are prostitutes but they can control men easier than men can control them and yes that's partly because they have sex appeal and they can use that to help them. I never said a woman can't make it without a man either only when they have a man they can be in control while he thinks he is so a lot of times the man gets the recognition when the woman is really the one who makes things happen. I wasn't putting women down if that's what you think and I'm sorry if you thought that but you're wrong.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Stop acting stupid Vexing. Mr "Big", men can very easily control women. It's called abuse. I think you are trying to say something meaningful but you're coming across as a sexist pig.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You weren't. You were being moronic about his metaphor. You just piss me off in general.

reply from: churchmouse

I thought I sent a reply to these posts but I'll do it again.
Well you need to read more than that verse.
It's just amazing to see Christians so easily deny the Word because it does not fit their idea of how things should be run. They try to find loopholes that allow them to live like they want to live instead of how God wants them to live. His plan is perfect.
What scholars are you talking about Liberal? The Genesis account of creation is pretty clear in that the institution of marriage was ordained and instituted by GOD at CREATION. Marriage is regulated by God's commandments. And that law circumscribes the meaning and legitimacy of marriage. What does God say about marriage? It is to be an exclusive relationship between whom? God says one man and one woman. The two then become one flesh. Marriage is intended to last for LIFE. A covenant is made between the two and they consumate the relationship physically. If you read the Word only TWO reasons are given when divorce can happen, and those two are abandonment and adultry.

If you read what Paul says about marriage he compares the union between husband and wife to that of Christ and His Church.

Like it or not God is pretty specific about who is the head of the household. The head is not the woman. The man is called to be "HEAD" of the wife and the wife is called to be in submission to her husband as to the Lord. THIS IS WHAT SCRIPTURE SAYS. The husband IS CALLED TO LOVE HIS WIFE AS CHRIST LOVED HIS BRIDE, THE CHURCH AND GAVE HIMSELF FOR IT.
How can you deny what the scriptures say if you are a Christian?
You can't throw a stone if you have uncontrollable sin in your life.
If you tell your kids that God says sex is only for married people and then you have an affair......you have no right to talk.
If you tell them stealing is wrong and you take stuff from your workplace that isnt yours....you have no room to talk.
We have the right to judge words and actions of other believers.
What is contradictory? You deny the Word not me.
And what were you raised with Liberal? That some sin is acceptable? That all roads lead to Heaven? That Jesus wasnt God? That it's ok to change by adding and taking away from the Word? That God is a loving God and the wrath thing is overexagerated?
What does it say, you tell me.
Find me where God says that women are the head of the household. Find me where He says marriage can incude anybody. Find me where it says everybody goes to heaven.
This says it all IMO. You are either a pro-choicer and are not really pro-life or you are not a Christian and you say the Bible says abortion is ok. Which is it? Where does God condone abortion?
Really, you advice me to read the Word? LOL
I do read it. Which part do you think I should read? I wouldnt want you to take anyones word for anything especially mine about the Word. People should search the scriptures for themselves to see what God says. Why dont you do just that? I think you would be surprised what it says. Start with the questions I just ask you to find answers for. See what ya can find. Where does it say marriage is between anyone but a man and a woman. Find where it says all roads lead to heaven. Find where it says the woman is head of the household. I would LOVE to read what you find. Be sure to post the scripture numbers.
Fantasy book? You would compare the Gods love letter to His believers as that. You aren't really a Christian are you? Why do you mock Gods Word?
I never said any man should be able to tell his wife to do something that would hurt her. God would not like that and he would be sinning and going against what God said the marriage should be. He is to lover her like Christ loves us.
What is so bad about that Liberal? What love could be better that that? God did not give the woman the right to wear the pants in the family. The husband is the head of the woman and he is to love her like he loves himself.
Let me say this again so that just maybe this will sink in. I did not write the Bible. I had no hand in writing it. This is how God wants us to live. If you have a problem with it......then don't be a Christian or take it up with Him directly. But you can't change what God ordained. His plan is perfect and we are to follow it. If you are a Christian you need to take it up with the one you mock.
I love it. I am a slave to Christ. All the apostles said they were slaves to Christ as well. Why dont you read about slavery in the bible.

Well you rationalize it anyway you want, the Word is the Word.
I think this verse expresses exactly how the relationship was to be after the fall and punshments were handed out.
Genesis 3:16.
King James Bible
"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
The husband will rule over the wife. This was a punishment that God gave Eve. As a result wives live with two consequences of the Fall. First, they would have a natural inclination to their husband which would in some occasions lead to conception. And second they would have increased pain in child birth.
God said......."he shall rule over thee". That mean he is the head, the responsible one for the family.
Shouldnt we do what Christ laid out for us? He said that the man was the head of the family that he shall rule over us. What is so hard to understand there?
It's not about living with a man that acts superior, because if he does that then he is an ungodly man. He is to follow the Word as well. He is responsible for his family in the eyes of God. I am just as capable as my husband in many ways, and in many ways I am not. But when a decision has to be made......most the time he makes it with regards to our home and the finances. There is no power stuggle in our home. We have had a few struggles but mainly over the kids and curfews.
It is sad that you say this being a Christian River because you seem to question God with every issue we talk about. It is sad that you would cast what God says is holy out the window in favor of your way. Is there anything in the entire bible that you would leave alone? Anything that you agree with? I think its sad that there are women that try to lead and boss their mate around. They feel superior and have to put him down anyway they can. That is the way the world is today. It is not how God intended it to be. And this is why God gave us the punishment that He did.
I am not so sure we are reading the same book.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Churchmouse, only a moron would assume I "only" read that one verse. I have read through Genesis many times, and read a paper discussing what I stated above, as well as participated in a discussion about it. I know what I'm talking about.

reply from: BossMomma

I don't get his 'metaphor'. Why on earth would someone piss in a sausage?!?!
I knew an inmate once who crapped on his clean clothes every morning and peed his bed from across the cell...some stuff just boggles the mind.

reply from: carolemarie

Churchmouse--
When God told Eve that now her husband would rule over her, he was not giving her a punishment. He was describing what sin would cause in the world, including men trying to rule over women. God wasn't for it then or now.
Women are equal to men in all respects. God created us both, male and female to have dominion over the entire world and all that lived on it. We were equal to each other in the Garden before the fall and God himself blessed us and said it was good. To claim that God's order is wrong is to say God was wrong.
He isn't. We are completely equal to men, in every way. It is a total misreading of scripture to claim we are to be under a sinful fallen man.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Some people are very selective. Do you have a carving knife that you use to carve out and discard the Scriptures you don't like?

reply from: BossMomma

What's stupid about defending my gender?
Get a grip.
No one insulted your gender in the first place.

reply from: carolemarie

Some people are very selective. Do you have a carving knife that you use to carve out and discard the Scriptures you don't like?
Sorry, but God's word is clear. I can't help it you don't like it.
Women were not created to be slaves to men. We are not less than men, we are equal. If you have an issue take it up with God.

reply from: carolemarie

In Genesis, God created men and women and gave them both dominion over the earth and all that lived on it. He told them to be fruitful and multiply and blessed them and called all that He had done good.
To say that men get to rule over women is to ignore God's word.
God did warn Adam and Eve that because of sin, man would try to rule over women.
And as for women in the OT, God ignored the idea that women were inferior and used them.
As for Isaiah 3:12 the word woman also translates as creditors, meaning that because of the dreadful treatment of the poor, Israel will be ruled by its creditors...

reply from: churchmouse

Post the scripture where He says this.......
Now Liberal be nice honey.....remember you don't namecall.
So I am a moron because YOU ARE THE ONE THAT DOES NOT GET IT?
If you know what your talking about then.....what do you think about the scriptures that I gave? Any comments?
I see you did not mention a one. Why?
Start with this one.
1. Genesis 3:16.

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
What was the punishment God gave Eve?
2. God said......."he shall rule over thee". True or false
So what does this mean Liberal and Carole?
3. "God gave different roles to the husband and wife and commanded that the husband was to, "love his wife as Christ loved the church" (Eph 5:25), and he is to "love his wife as his own body" (Eph. 5:28)."
Is that true or false?
4. God also said, ""likewise, ye husbands, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered" (I Peter 3:7)."
So who is the weaker vessel according to God?
5. The Bible says, "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it" (Ephesians 5:25). True or false?
6. A man must treat women with purity (I Timothy 5:2). He must avoid any thought of, or sexual activity, outside of marriage (Ephesians 5:3-4 and Hebrews 13:4).
So can he take advantage of her? Treat her terrible? Cheat on her?
7. The husband and wife are to mirror the union between Christ and his church (5:32).
So if Christ is the Head of the Church, who is the head of the marriage the family?
This shows there is order. We are equal in Gods eyes.......but we are still beneath the husband and God sees it this way.
8. "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ," (1 Cor. 11:3).
What does God say Liberal?
Who is the head of the woman?
Man is the head......not woman.
This scripture might disgust both of you guys......but its the Word of God.
9. "For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. 10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels," (1 Cor. 11:8-10).
God created us from man, for man. In Gods eyes we have an authority on our heads. It is our husbands. THAT IS THE WORD OF GOD.
This does not mean as I said that we are dirt and second class citizens. The husband has to follow Gods commands as to how he is to treat his wife.
God sees us equally. But he did create order and we were not created first.
Could you also address these scriptures Carol, I believe you are wrong.
Many try to find loopholes and ways to get around what God really says. But its plainly clear that God places man above woman in the order and the plan of the family.
Clear? Are we reading the same book? I dont think we are.
I just showed scriptures about Gods order. How can you deny what He said?
Arent you a slave to Christ? I am. I am a Jesus Freak and proud of it.
It is a privilege to "become slaves to God."
10. Paul even called himself, a "slave of Jesus Christ" (Philippians 1:1; Titus 1:1; etc.), and so did James, Peter, Jude, and John (James 1:1; II Peter 1:1; Jude 1; Revelation 1:1).
If we are to mirror Christ and His Church.......and the apostles all are slaves.....then we should in a holy sense, be a slave to our husbands. They in turn should be our slaves in the best sense of the Word.
Why would the apostles.......want to be slaves?

Don't you consider yourself a slave to Christ? You should rethink that one if you don't.
Your interpretation of this one is terribly wrong.
THIS IS WHAT GOD SAID AFTER HE
God asked Eve what she did in Genesis 3:16
11.To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."
Honey these are punishments. LOL
To the man he said,
12. " 17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."
This is punishment. First of all Adam listened to Eve, first mistake. The ground was cursed.......this is punishment for their actions.
Eve blamed the serpent and Adam blamed Eve. Sound familiar? So He PUNISHED ALL OF THEM, EVEN SATAN. He did it because they sinned. And God disciples his children. He held them responsible and they would face consequences for their actions. He reacted consistent with His perfect nature by PUNISHING THEM. THis should show is how serious God is about sin.
Adam is the father of the human race and the first person created in the image of God. He also was the first one to share a relationship with God.
Eve was the first wife and mother, the first female. God gave them co-responsiblity over creation.
But Gods punishments still stand today. And those punishments are quite clear.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Lie. I never said "I don't name call". In fact, I have been very clear over and over again to state that I do INDEED name call, because I am not perfect and I do get angry sometimes. I have said "I try not to name call", but that is a far cry from "I don't name call". I do not lie, Church. You do.

reply from: carolemarie

Lets start again Churchmouse.
In Gen 1:26, God said lets make man in our image, and after our likeness, and let THEM have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping ting that creepeth upon the earth, so God created man in his own image in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them. That says simply that God created men and women in His image and gave them both dominion over all the earth, not each other.
In Gen. 2:18, And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.
What the words mean in Hebrew are not what they mean in English.
the word for help is ezer and the word for meet is kenedo, ezer is used to refer to God 14 times and a woman 2x. Like in the Lord is my help.....obviously the help is superior to man getting it! In every other reference the word is used to mean God or military allies a greater strength than on your own. But God didn't make woman to be superior to men, so he modified that word with meet, which translates as to kenegdo which means equal to, or matching.
Because God added that word meet, He called women equal to men.
Genesis 3:16 isn't a punishment, rather it is a prescription of what will happen now that man and women are living in a fallen world.
1 Peter 3:7=likewise, ye husbands, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered, is simply stating women are physically weaker than men...a fact that is self obvious
that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ"
I think the above verse is where you are confused Churchmouse.
What Paul is talking about isn't an hierarchical order or God wouldn't be last on the list. He is referring to the point of origin for each. The source for man is Christ, and we know Christ was involved in the creating and forming of the world and mankind for scripture says, "Let us make man." We know that woman was taken from man (the rib from Adam) and that Jesus came in his incarnate form from the father. This is a relational order, not an hierarachical order.
Whenever Christ is described as "head" to the church, his ministry is that of servant-provider. Similarly, as head to his wife, a husband is a servant-provider of life, of fullness and growth, not one who exercises authority over her.
Do you really believe that God created women as a slave class for men? Do you believe He doesn't love us just as much as our brothers?

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

The Apostle Paul said it was a shame for women to speak in Church because they are usurping the authority of man. God set up a governmental system.

reply from: carolemarie

Paul was talking about that one church, not all churches, because in the earlier in the letter he addressed how women should pray and prophecy in church, so he wasn't saying women couldn't talk or pray or have public ministry.
Do you seriously and honestly believe God wanted to make women slaves, that He created us not as an equal to a man, but something less?
Do you really believe that all we are good for is procreation? That is no different than thinking we are just bodies, like pimps and pornographers do.
If that is true, why does God bother to give women spiritual gifts? We are just as much a part of the body of Christ as you are.

reply from: churchmouse

Carole
He created man first..... the woman second. And that was before the fall and punishments were given.
Like
There is a system, there is a plan. There is order to make things work more smoothly.

God punished Adam and Eve after the fall. I noticed that you did not bring up the scriptures relating to what God said to each of them. These in particular....could you address them?
1. Genesis 3:16.
"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
2. God said......."he shall rule over thee".
3. God also said, ""likewise, ye husbands, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered" (I Peter 3:7)."
4. The husband and wife are to mirror the union between Christ and his church.
So who is the head of the church?
Who is the head of the family?
5. "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ," (1 Cor. 11:3).
This spells everything out clearly. God, Christ, man, woman, in that order.
God and Christ are equal.....man and woman are equal, but God was first, man was first. There has to be order to have unity.
6. "For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. 10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels," (1 Cor. 11:8-10).

We were created for man. He is the head the authority.
All these scriptures say one thing. God created order for a reason.
7.. Paul even called himself, a "slave of Jesus Christ" (Philippians 1:1; Titus 1:1; etc.), and so did James, Peter, Jude, and John (James 1:1; II Peter 1:1; Jude 1; Revelation 1:1).
Is slave a bad term in this scripture? ARe you a slave to Christ? If this is a loving term......then what is so bad in saying that you are a slave to your spouse?
I would like to point one thing out. THE FALL OF MAN. Could you make comment on these? Why you dont think these were not punishments?
Genesis 3:16
8. To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."
9. " 17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."
Like I said, Gods punishments still stand today. And those punishments are quite clear.
You take "slaves" to be negative. Why did the apostles say they were slaves of Christ. What about the marriage relationship that mirroring that of Christ and the Church? God is the head of the Church, man is the head of the woman.
I think you look at slaves like the world does and not based on Gods view of slavery and order. God if anything elevates women.
I like this websites explanation of Gods design for women.
http://www.gracechurchofdupage.org/pdf_files/Women.pdf

reply from: carolemarie

I answered most of your questions. You should try reading what I posted first.
Here is some information on the word head in the NT.
The word "head" used figuratively in the English language refers to boss, person in authority, leader. It never has that meaning in New Testament Greek. There are hundreds of references in the New Testament to religious, governmental, civic, familial and military authority figures. Not one of them is ever designated as "head
Paul understood Greek. He could have used the greek word for boss, authority or leader if he had meant that. He didn't. He did in other places, but here he used kephale instead. But the greeks were very interested in the source (origin) of things. So Paul layed it out for them..Christ is the head (source of man) bcause in the begining Jesus agreed to create man, man is the head (source of woman) she was created from his rib, and God is the head (source) of Jesus in incarnate form sent by God.
This has nothing to do with authority but origin.
If was about authority, it would make no sense. God the Father is equal to Jesus and the Holy Spirit. God the Father isn't the boss of Jesus, and Jesus isn't under God, HE is God. The Godhead is all One, they don't have authority over each other because they are One.
In the begining, before the fall, God set up the perfect order. Man and woman together with God as their leader. In a marriage, we are suppose to be the body, and Christ is the leader.
I find it amazing that you think that God thinks women have to be under the authority of a man. Why do you think Paul says in Christ there is no male or female, no slave or free? Because God treats us all equally. The priesthood of the believer. Not the priesthood of men. Each of us, male or female believer can and is encouraged to approach God on our own....
FYI, Being a slave is not a good thing. The apostles used it as a figure of speech, since slaves act under complusion, not of their own violation. They act under orders without free will. Obviously, that was not the case with the apostles, they chose to serve Jesus. But this description mirrored how they felt, they had no choice because they knew the truth. It doesn't mean that being a slave is something to aspire to....

reply from: churchmouse

I have read what you posted and you did not address the scriptures I posted.
Take this one for instance.
Do you agree that God punished Adam and Eve for their sin?
8. To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."
Not a punishment to INCREASE PAIN?
Not a punishment in a way to have someone rule over you?
"But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ," (1 Cor. 11:3).
Thi scripture clearly states that the man is the head of the woman.
We just see Gods Word totally different. Its like we are reading a different book.
I wonder if you even think Jesus is the Only Way to God. I'm afraid to ask. LOL
You just seem to make excuses for what I believe God wants us to do and believe.
How does Billy Graham see this issue.
"The Bible teaches that the husband is the head of the home, but there is a considerable amount of misunderstanding over how that headship is to be expressed. While it is critically important that the husband shoulder the primary responsibility for leadership in the home -- especially spiritual leadership -- it is equally important that it be a leadership of love.
Mr. Graham has commented: "In Ephesians 5:23 it says that 'the husband is the head of the wife.' Now being the head does not imply superiority. But it means the role that you have in life. The Scripture says: 'Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church' (Ephesians 5:25, RSV). How did Christ love the church? He loved the church so much that He died on the cross for all of those who were going to become members of His body, the church, and He gave Himself up for the church that He might sanctify her and present her to Himself in splendor (see verses 26, 27). Now headship is seen in His care of the church, His sacrificial love for the church, His desire for her to grow into the fullness of her splendor."
Ephesians 5:28 also says that "husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself." So, once again, the emphasis of headship is not upon power or control, but upon love and care. Headship focuses on nurture and protection, not domination -- on self-sacrifice, not selfish demands. For the wife, submission to this kind of servant leadership becomes a joy, not a burden.
http://pages.prodigy.net/keith61/ask%20Billy%20Graham.html

reply from: scopia19822

"8. To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."
Not a punishment to INCREASE PAIN?
Not a punishment in a way to have someone rule over you? "
Does that mean that is a sin for a woman to have pain relief during childbirth?

reply from: carolemarie

Churchmouse, I have repeatedly answered this.
Genesis 3:16 is not the punishment. It is the result of the fall.
The punishment was being banished from God's presence. As a Christian that should be obvious to you. That is what we are trying to get back to, home with God....
I have in detail explained 1 Cor 11:3. You explain to me if you are correct, how God is the boss of Jesus! If this is a hierarchical order, the verse makes no sense! It only makes sense in a relational sense such as I have laid out for you.
Galatians 3:28
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
Show me where it says in scripture that women based only on their gender should be forced to be under a mans authority. What biblical reasoning could there be for this? In the light of Galatians, how can you justify that position?
The Trinity live in unity as one. There is no boss over the other two beings in the Trinity. Our marriages are suppose to reflect the same thing. The two become One, just as the Three are One.
You haven't answered or given any proof to dispute what I have said. Just because you were taught in a male dominated church that men were in charge of you doesn't mean it was true.... search the scriptures for the truth yourself and ask God to revel the truth to you....
It is quite liberating to be free in Christ.

reply from: churchmouse

Well that is a good question. I think no woman goes through pregnancy without pain of some sort, not just delivery. I think had sin not entered the garden, pregnancy and childbirth would totally not have been painful.
_______________________________

Explain Carole the scripture where God says....... "Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."
Who rules over woman? How do you dismiss this carole?
I have three different Bible translations here, The King James, The NIV and the Amplified. The commentary in each one of them is the same. God punished Satan, Adam and Eve. God created order in the universe and with mankind. Man was created first and we were created FOR HIM. We are to be his helpmate, equal in Gods eyes but nevertheless second in the order.
The fall was sin carole. God PUNISHES SINNERS. When you are disobedient, there are consequences. And God gave consequences to Adam and Eve. Sin entered Gods perfect world and violated divine law and as a result man was ruined spiritually and will die physically. The only thing that can change this is the grace of God through the messsage of the gospel. Our spiritual birth guarentees us a resurrected body. That is why Christ came. Had Adam and Eve not sinned........there would be no need for a savior, we would be living in the garden.
Adams sin.
Roman 5:14
14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come."
Genesis is the story first of mans need of salvation and then of the early stages in the unfolding of Gods wonderful plan of redemption.
To many people today have a loose idea of all that took place when Adam sinned in the garden; they seem to have the idea that Adam suffered nothing more than a hangnail in the fall, and that he did not pass even this on to his posterity. But this is a great mistake; when Adam sinned, he did so as the covenant head of all his descendents, and his rebellion was theirs, and so the promised death came upon every one of Adam's descendents: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Rom. 5:12). In his original constitution, Adam was possessed of "free will" in the fullest meaning of the word, but by his sin he became possessed of a fallen and totally depraved nature, and it was this that he passed on to his descendents by natural generation, as well as the attendant curse of the broken law, so that every descendent of fallen Adam is possessed of the same apostate, fallen nature that he was after his fall. We believe that this is why almost every modernist denies the Genesis account of creation and the fall: in their carnal pride, they are unwilling to admit to a state of being which is beyond the ability of the natural man to remedy for himself, and so the modernist compounds the evil of his own nature by denying the reality of the fall.
Charles Spurgeon
carole said, "You haven't answered or given any proof to dispute what I have said. Just because you were taught in a male dominated church that men were in charge of you doesn't mean it was true.... search the scriptures for the truth yourself and ask God to revel the truth to you....
It is quite liberating to be free in Christ."
And I would suggest you read the Word and stop trying to find loopholes that get around the order God ordained. The Word is the Word. You might not agree with it.....but you have no right nor does anyone else to change it.
I have given you scriptures, even adding what Billy Graham said about it. He was not an author of the Bible but I would consider him an authority and a person who had a lot of influence on the Christians of his time.
Are you a UNIVERALIST?
I have searched the scriptures and take them face value. Do you? You dont seem to like the idea of a man over you and you try to find an out.
You say that I read into the scriptures what I have been taught. Well people have had an influence on me....but I can read for myself. And the scriptures are not that difficult to grasp. You do the same thing son't you? I believe however if you did a deductive Bible study on marriage trying it with creation you would see why man is over woman and the reason God did what He did. As I said it does not mean God does not think the woman is mans equal.
Eve was a gift from God to Adam.
"Houses and riches are an inheritance from fathers,
But a prudent wife is from the Lord" (Proverbs 19:14).
But you can not forget Gods Commandment.
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord."
- Ephesians 5:22
You cant take the word submit and insert any other word.
"Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control" (1 Cor. 7:3-5).
Who has authority over her own body?
Hey relate this to abortion. Who has a right?
This says it all.
"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Saviour of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that He might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband" (Eph. 5:22-33).
I do not know how you could get around this verse. It spells out God's plan perfectly about his love for us, the husbands love for his wife, her love for him and about submission to eachother. The man is head of the woman in God's eyes. This one needs no interpretation. As head of the family he bears first responsibility.
God elevates woman even though she is to submit. In fact the woman is the glory of man. God says we are the weaker vessel. BUT, we still are co-heir to salvation. A man however can NEVER MISUSE HIS AUTHORITY OVER HIS WIFE.
Peter 3:7 says, "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."
God used the woman, the glory of man, to bring the Saviour into the world.

Why were all the chosen disciples men? Why were all the Kings and rulers men? Why were the major characters that were to carry out Gods plan and write it down for the most part men? Why were the Rabbis and church leaders, men? Noah, Abraham, Issac, Peter, Paul, Jonah,,church leaders. I am NOT SAYING that God did not value women and put them in leadership positions and that they had no part in Gods perfect plan. He did favor women, but their roles were different. We are equal but God gave us different roles. The people that say God did this to keep us in our place dont know scripture. We are to be valued, revered, honored and loved.
1 Peter 1:6 says, "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement."
4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. Titus 2:4-5
OBEDIENT to their husbands. If they don't they have blaspemed God.
This says how much God wants woman to be happy. For the husband is to love his wife with as much love as God love His Church. Amazing. The husband is to give himself to his wife, like God did for us. Amazing. So is submitting bad? No way and never did God mean that it would be bad. He did it to maintain order.
"Husbands, love (agape) your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;" Ephesians 5:25
If he does not do this......he is worse than an infidel.
"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. 1 Timothy 5:8

"And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." 1 Corinthians 14:35
Why should she ask her husband? Why is it a shame to speak in church?
Because it says.......
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law." (1 Corinthians 14:34
Under obedience.
"Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing." Eph 5:24
"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Timothy 2:12
Upsurp authority over the man?
"but the woman is the glory of the man." (1 Corinthians 11:7)
I love this verse. Thank you Jesus.
Carole the bulk of scripture shows Gods wish for the marriage.

Randy Alcorn says,
http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/Christian_living_marriage/Bible_s_design_for_authority_in_marriage_printer.shtml

I like the questions he asks.
"To me it comes down to authority - who am I going to believe, and who am I going to follow. Am I going to embrace the teaching of Scripture, or find a way to get around it because I would have wished it was different? In other words, if Scripture said what I prefer in those passages, would I think them unclear or inaccurate or needing to be adjusted? Or do I think that simply because I trust my own judgment more than I trust the text? Will I accept Scripture when I like what it says, then reject it when I don't? If so, then Scripture is not my authority - I am my authority. The bottom line: who's going to be God?"
Who are we to believe? God or man? His way or ours? Should we reject or accept what He says whether we like it or not.....pray on it and do what we are commanded, or reject it because the world does not back Gods views up?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You've completely taken all of those verses out of context. Without an educated theologian, I can't even guess as to what those verses mean in context to the verses around them, and what the author was talking about at the time.

reply from: carolemarie

I have repeatedly answered this over and over. Once again----
This is God telling them what life will be like after the fall. Sin has now entered the world and one of the consequences will be that men will want to dominate and make women less than them. Women will desire a relationship of oneness and men will instead choose to oppress then instead.
The punishment is being driven from God's presence. The verses detailing what it will be like outside of Eden is God telling them the results of their sin, not punishing them extra....
Billy Graham is reading scripture the way he was taught. He also has at other times supported abortion before the first trimester...
As for the rest of your verses, they don't mean what you think. It has nothing to do with trying to edit scripture or make it say what I want. I am reading what it actually says.The bible wasn't written in English. We have great tools available to search scripture and find out for ourselves exactly what the words used meant in the orginal language.
God created women and men equally, as scripture bears out in Genesis Chapt 1 and 2.
The fall brought sin and corrupted God's original order as he told them in Chapt. 3.
In the NT church, we see women and men ministering together, as part of the body, equal parts. Women and men both were annointed at Pentecost, both received the gifts of the HOly Spirit, both had leadership roles in the church. Women were apostles(Junia) preachers-Phoebe, evangelist=Mary
There were no gender roles.
In Christ we are equal.
That is the Good News! Or as scripture says Christ set us free for freedom!
Each of us male or female can approach God on their own. There is no need for a covering other than the blood of Christ--that is the believers covering.

reply from: churchmouse

We read a totally different Bible Carole.
Could you provide proof for this? Quote Graham saying this.
And you also read scripture the way you were taught don't you?
You obviously were taught that you could change the meaning of Gods Word.
You are NOT READING WHAT IT SAYS. No I take that back, you read what it says and change it to mean something totally different.
Why won't you address the scriptures one by one.
Yes there are gender roles. God made us male and female. We base how we live on Gods laws.
Submission is a voluntary act of deferring to the wishes of an equal. That is what God commands Carole. submission is not so hard to do. Christians in the NT are urged to submit to governing powers (Rom. 13:1), to each other (1 Cor. 16:16), and to Christ (Eph. 5:24). The submission of a wife to a husband mentioned in Ephesians 5 is a voluntary submission or self-sacrifice that places one at the service of another.
You have a totally wrong take of the meaning of submit and how God intended it to be.
I stand on what the scriptures say. Wives are called to submit to their husbands in Ephesians 5:22. What the wife is being asked to do to her husband is no different from what believers are called to do to one another in v. 21. Do you not submit to Christ? He commands us to sumit to our husbands. I mean come on, that is easy to see. We base our marriages on the will of God not our wills. And the man is the spiritual head of the marriage.
You want to change Gods intent in the scripture to be more appealing to woman.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Family/Marriage/roles.htm

Yes we can. And we should go to God personally. I never said that was not true.
As for women preaching and holding office in the church....... I do not believe it is scripturally possible. Woman should preach and teach women not men.
ARe you a Univeralist carole?

reply from: Nulono

I wouldn't vote against anyone simply because of their faith. Not a Muslim, not a Christian, not an atheist, not a Hindu, not a polytheist, not a follower of the Athenian gods, etc..

reply from: carolemarie

You never answer my questions either Churchmouse. Especially since you are so hot to quote 1 Cor. 11:3
"But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ,"
If this is the ORDER God created, explain to me how God is the boss of Christ?
Under your interpretation that makes absolutely no sense! How can God be the boss of Christ? Since it makes no sense, the only conclusion is that you have been taught incorrectly.
We are suppose to be One as God and Christ are one. The relationship of the spouses is suppose to mirror that of the Trinity! The Trinity exist in perfect unity. The Trinity is equal and One. We are suppose to have marriages that are equal and One. You say to have unity we have to have order, well tell me, who is over the Holy Spirit? Jesus or God? Neither is OVER the others. You have order by walking in the path of Love.
As for who is the head of the Church, Jesus is. Head=Source and Jesus tells us who ever wants to lead must be the servant of all.
And it is outragous to suggest that women were created for men. We were created by God in His image for fellowship with God. We are NOT created to serve men. Cows and pigs and dogs were created to serve men, not women. That is a lie from the pit of hell to devalue women.
I am a evangelical Christian, not a Universalist. I am a conservative Christian, I am certainly not a slave! if you want to live as a slave, by all means go ahead....but know that your position is unsupportable.
And Billy Graham has held lots of wrong positions. What I admire about him is his willingness to change his position. He use to hold segretated revivial meeting, and God convicted him that it was wrong, so he tore down the ropes,

reply from: carolemarie

I would vote against someone who was a Satanist or who practiced Vodoo ....
I can tolerate somethings, but those would be bad...

reply from: churchmouse

I never said God was the boss. In the order of the Godhead He is first. He is the FAther. And what does the Bible say about how you treat your Father?
Jesus spoke to the Father did He not?
God is referred to as three distinct persons in Scripture, yet we are taught that they are ONE GOD. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each distinguishable from the other, yet everything that is true about God is true about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The members of the Trinity are equal in nature and distinct in person. The Father eternally begot the Son. (Psalms 2:7) The Son is submissive to do the work of the Father, yet equal in nature to the Father. John 17:4 says, "I have finished the work which thou gavest me today." Then the Father and Son send the Holy Spirit : The Comforter...whom I will send unto You from the Father" (John 15:26)
Therefore the FAther is the head of the deity, the Son is the revealer of the deity, and the Holy Spirit who preceeds from the FAther and the Son, is the agent that carries out the work of deity.
You accused Billy Graham of saying he was pro-abortion. Carole either provide evidence or say you were mistaken.
It is just unbelievable that you cant read what the scriptures really say. Adam was alone.........God created Eve for him. Proverbs 19:14 says, "A prudent wife is from the Lord."
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." ...."and he will rule over you."
You think the term slave is bad. Sad seeing how the apostles called themselves slaves to Christ. Or do you toss that verse out of the bible.
How about 1 Cor 7:3-5? Who has authority over her body?
How about Ephesians 5:22-33?
Who is head of the wife? Who should submit?
Peter says in Peter 3:7 that we are the weaker vessel. Do you also deny this scripture or have an excuse for that one too?
1 Peter 1:6 says, "Be in subjection..." It states here that Sarah OBEYED ABRAHAM. She even called him lord.
Titus 2:4-5 says, "obedient to their husbands."
1 Corinthians 14:34 How about that one? Women to remain silent in the churches.......THEY ARE COMMANDED TO BE UNDER OBEDIENCE.
Ephesians 5:24.......The church is subject to Christ. Who is subject to their husbands?
1 Timothy 2:12 says, "But I suffer a woman NOT TO TEACH, nor to upsurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."
I mean how do you not get this.
Like I said.......God said we were the Glory of man........how tender is that? How precious that He created us to be loved so dearly by our husbands. I do not see anything here in scriptures that make our God given role bad or demeaning. I think we are blessed. And God blessed many women in the bible with leadership roles.
He gave women the honor of seeing Him first. He gave Mary the honor of carrying Christ.
Read Proverbs about how gifted us. We are blessed and praised.
Proverbs 12:4 "A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband."
That does not change the Word and how we are to conduct ourselves in our marriages.
I am really curious about one thing.
Do you believe that Christ is the only way to the FAther, that people will go to hell unless they become Born Again?
Scripture is the final authority.

reply from: Nulono

But I thought Jesus WAS God? Trinity and all that...

reply from: Nulono

Again, I would still vote for said person if their stances were good.

reply from: carolemarie

I have repeated refuted your claims...you just refuse to acknowedge that there is another point of view.
If you want to be a slave and live as one, head on. Don't expect me or other Christian women to willingly give up our freedom and go back to being second rate Christians.
I am neither a cow or a dog and I was created to enjoy God and live with Him forever. I was not created for men.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Random factoid, but true Satanism is not actually about worshipping Satan at all. Emo goth punks in the 20th century have made it into that, but when Satanism first formed it was simply about the worship of ones self as God, instead of worshipping an external deity as God. They felt that this made them the "opposite" of Christians so they called themselves Satanists. A bad choice of a name imo. Personalists would be a better term. Churchmouse mentioned something where he said that all of us are Gods, we just aren't ready yet or whatever. That's what Satanism is based on I think. Your own body is God, we are all God.

reply from: carolemarie

That is cool...I never heard that before...personalist huh...

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yep ^^ I learned about it when I was part of Pangaia, a sort of new-age non-christian-spiritual group on campus.

reply from: churchmouse

I have taken nothing out of context. If you knew and had read the entire bible you would see that Liberal. You would see that man and woman are equal in Gods eyes but He created roles for them to follow. He specifically spelled out what submit meant. He specifically stated that man is the HEAD of Woman. We do not need some theologian to interprete this. If you read the scholars and the apologists out there today.....Zacharius, Coleson, Franklin Graham, Billy Graham, George Barna, Rick Warren, Kennedy, LaHaye, Strobel,Lucado, Geisler.......read Schaeffer as well. They all are in agreement about this issue. This has been the view for generations upon generations.
If you read this like God intended you to read it, you will see that God did not intend the man to take advantage of the woman in any way, shape or form. But to love her like Christ loves the Church. Now if you can comprehend how much God loves us.....you can see that in no way did God intend the husband to abuse his wife. He created roles for a specific reason. And like it or not as Christian wives we are to follow through with HIs commandments.
Let me ask you this.
Take this verse.
John 3:14. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
What does this mean to you? Who gets everlasting life? Does everyone go to heaven based on this scripture?
Take this verse
"I tell you the truth, unless a man is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God... unless a man is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God (John 3:3,5)."
What does this say? Who goes to heaven?
If you say that scriptures change depending on the culture......could these change as well.
Maybe we don't today need Christ? What do you think?
The TRUTH is the truth. God is the truth. The Bible is the Truth. The meaning, the intent never changes. Sin is sin and will always be sin. Homosexual sex, heterosexual sex outside marriage has always been and will be sin. Adultry, murder, rape, stealing, lying.......will always be sin. Denial of Christ does not mean living in Heaven for all eternity. Jesus is the only way to the FAther.....this will never change.
"Someone asked, 'Lord, will only a few be saved?' Jesus answered, 'Make every effort to enter through the narrow gate, because I tell you this: many will try to enter but will not be able to... For narrow is the gate, and narrow is the path which leads to Life, and few will find it (Luke 13:23,24; Matthew 7:14).'"
Jesus says here that all will not go to heaven. It is pretty clear dont you think? He said, Man is the head of woman.....that will never change. God said husbands love your wives like Christ loved His Church. That is awesome love.
Its not about what we think makes sense or is right.....its about what God thinks and commands us to do.

It's one thing to say you love Jesus, but the real test is submitting to His Word, all of it. Trusting God gives us a different outlook on life. So if you trust God, believing what He commands makes sense.
John 8:31 says, " 31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
What is impossible with man is possible with God. Jesus is the Narrow Gate whereby we enter in and are saved. This much is obvious. So what is the Path? Is it being a good disciple..... Is it fasting and prayer...... Is it living a more holy life...... Is it attending church or doing great works for God? Not at all. For Jesus tells us, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life." The Narrow Gate is Christ, and the Narrow Path is Christ. This explains why the Gate and the Path are so narrow. There is no room for you at all. There is no room for self-effort. There is only room for Christ.
What is new age? What were your beliefs? Why cant you just be a Christian?
Carole I am still waiting for the quote from Graham saying he was pro-abortion. Please provide this, I would really like to read it.
God created Eve as a helpmate for the Adam. God said he shall be over her. It is to bad that you will not submit to God in ALL WAYS.
We were created not only as a helpmate but specifically to worship God.
And part of worshipping God is to submit to the Word.

reply from: carolemarie

We were created to be equal to men, they do not have authority over us.
God gave man and woman both dominion over the earth and over all the animals. Not over each other.
Perhaps you should do a word study on the word help and meet in Hebrew and find out what they actually mean....

reply from: ProInformed

Actually, I like Plain and did vote for McCain/Palin... but having lived in Alaska twice, and also having been there for business in the 80s, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it turned out to be true that Palin at some time favored Alaska being separate from the rest fo the the U.S., that is NOT an unusual POV amongst Alaska citizens.
AS to obama being muslim or not, we can watch what he actually does now witht he power he's been handed. What's said and done during a campaign isn't normally very revealing about a candidate's real beliefs and agenda.
During the campaign obama claimed he was not a pro-abort extremist, that he was a moderate, and would 'reach across the aisle'... too many citizens believed him (some even were so naive they thought obama was pro-life!). BUT obama is making it quite clear already that he is not pro-life, or even moderately pro-choice!
If obama is a muslim who was only claiming to be a Christian (which is BTW allowed in the muslim religion - muslims are instructed to lie and say they are NOT muslim if they are in a non-muslim country and by lying they can gain trust authority.
Let's see what he does now.

reply from: churchmouse

MC3 great post and so true, especially this.
Abortion, doctor assisted suicide, euthanasia.........
I dont think we can really tell what he is. His actions dont fit Christianity. His pastor uncle is good friends with Farrakan, whose ideals are opposite of Christianity. He had to hide his pastor so people would not hear what he listened to for over 20 years. The man is a master deciever. Time will show that he decieved the American Public and the American Public thhat did vote for him will regret it.
You think there are equal rights in Islam? LMAO
Have you ever been to the Middle EAst to see how woman are treated? Have you ever read the Koran to see the differences between what Allah grants men vs women?
Allah will reward faithful Muslims after they die with "fair ones with wide, lovely eyes." 44:54
Allah will reward believing men with "fair ones" (beautiful women) in heaven. 55:71-72
Believing women must lower their gaze and be modest, cover themselves with veils, and not reveal themselves except to their husbands, relatives, children, and slaves. 24:31
You don't have to be modest around your wives or your slave girls "that your right hand possess." 23:6
Here is a good one........
When it's time to pray and you have just used the toilet or touched a woman, be sure to wash up. If you can't find any water, just rub some dirt on yourself. 5:6
A man cannot treat his wives fairly. 4:129
Don't pray if you are drunk, dirty, or have touched a woman lately. 4:43
Men are in charge of women, because Allah made men to be better than women. Refuse to have sex with women from whom you fear rebellion, and scourge them. 4:34
A woman is worth one-half a man. 2:282
Have sex with your women whenever and as often as you like. 2:223
Menstruation is a sickness. Don't have sex with menstruating women. 2:222
Muhammad's wives need to be careful. If they criticize their husband, Allah will replace them with better ones. 66:5
Look these up for yourself in the Koran.
http://i-cias.com/e.o/koran.htm

So syrenity looks like you should do some reading.
What is extreme about loving your neighbor like god commands? Get off your high hourse. Its the people who do not live by faith in god that have committed the worst atrocities.

reply from: carolemarie

You think women are second rate Churchmouse, you agree with the Muslim idea that women are created for men, so on that, you and Muslims are on track.
Calling Obama a Muslim when he has repeatedly denied it is just being spiteful. Plenty of Christians vote for evil things, that doesn't make them not a Christian. It may make them wrong, or willfully sinning but it doesn't make them a Muslim.
If you must complain about Obama, then at least stay on things that he actually has done or is contemplating doing, but working up a Muslim conspiracy theory is a bit much.

reply from: scopia19822

"You think women are second rate Churchmouse, you agree with the Muslim idea that women are created for men, so on that, you and Muslims are on track."
Actually in 1st Corinthians Paul says the same thing. In true Islam the way it should be practiced women are considered equal to men. Islam teaches that men and women are equal, but different. Islam is the only religion I know in the world that in its sacred text grants women the right to property, support from her husband, right to education etc. What is practiced as "Islam " today is not Islam, but preIslamic tribalism. I have a copy of the Koran, does anybody need to borrow it?

reply from: churchmouse

I know what you are getting at. And I do love people even my enemy. I might think someones actions are horrible, that what they say is horrible, but that does not mean I hate them. Because you disrepect someone does not mean you hate them.
No, I do not think that we are second rate. In fact I think God lifts us up in ways he doesn't men. Our husbands are to love and cherish us, loving us as much as Christ loves the Church. Can't you comprehend this love Carole? Would Christ willingly hurt someone he loves? Our husbands should follow what is commanded of them to do. That does not mean that we are stupid and not as smart and savy as our husbands. I think you are having a hard time trying to comprehend Gods love for us. We have different roles. God said, man is the head of women. How can you just disregard this?
Do you think God is second rate carole? Because you certainly try to find loop-holes to fit what YOU THINK is Gods intention. You do this because it doesn't fit your idea of what is right.
I do not believe the Koran, I simply gave examples of the differences between Christianity and the Christian God and Islam and their god, Allah in relation to the woman. The Koran is not the truth. The examples I posted from it represent that.
Where did I say Muslims are on track? LOL
Carole I addressed this statement from syrenity.
syrenity said,
Running a country based on the holy book they believe would be horrible. Our freedoms would be taken away. I pointed this out particularly concerning woman. What would happen if we became a Muslim nation? You think nothing would change?
I do not exactly know what Obama is actually. We can not judge someones heart. That is why I look to Obamas actions. I don't think he has been honest and upfront about his true beliefs. I do know this. Obama did not go to a church that stood on the word of God. I do know that abortion is sin and ungodly and Obama voted even to allow infanticide. These are actions that do not back up the scriptures, in fact they defy them, they mock God. Didnt you see him squirm during the Saddleback interview?
Is he Christian? I think he pretended to be because he has planned since his youth to be president. He admits this. You do what you have to do to get what you want, and Obama did just that. His actions do not reflect what God commands.
The fact is he grew up around Islam. He went to school and studied the Koran. He lived life as a Muslim. How do you know underneath he isnt?
He cant lie?
Nixon lied, Clinton lied........."I did not have sex with that woman!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Do you think standing in a garage makes you a car Carole?
It's easy to just say that you are a Christian. The walk is what shows that you are.
No Christian could believe abortion is a godly act, because sin is sin. And sin seprates you from God.
What is true Islam? Isn't it believing the Koran as the final authority?
I have a copy also....but I use online look up like I do at Bible Gateway.
What do you make of the scriptures from the Koran I gave scopia?

reply from: carolemarie

Actually, Paul DOESNT say that. Rather than re-hash the meaning of words in the original language, go up and check out some of the previous post where that was addressed.

reply from: churchmouse

Funny carole how you avoid addressing scriptures.
You failed to answer these questions. Obviously I am not the only one that misses things.....eh?
John 3:14. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
What does this mean to you? Who gets everlasting life? Does everyone go to heaven based on this scripture?
Take this verse
"I tell you the truth, unless a man is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God... unless a man is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God (John 3:3,5)."
What does this say? Who goes to heaven?
If you say that scriptures change depending on the culture......could these change as well.
Maybe we don't today need Christ? What do you think?

reply from: carolemarie

I never once said that you didn't need Jesus! I am a born again Christian, not an unbeliever

reply from: churchmouse

Jesus is God.
You take slavery to mean something that God does not mean it to be. I am a slave to the Word. I am a slave to Christ. And my husband is the head of our household like God COMMANDS THE HUSBAND TO BE.
The scripture is there Carole.
I am not second rate bt submitting. You just dont get it.
I have no clue how you can dismiss scripture but you do just that. The man is head of the woman. You need to take your disaproval up with God.
I have provided scripture that you refuse to address. Why?
And where is that quote from Billy Graham over abortion. I have asked several times for it. If you cant provide it then you obviously lied.

reply from: carolemarie

I posted a whole thread on Billys statements just for you. And I will bump it again! Don't tell me that I am lying because you don't read the post on the board.
As for your statement that the man is the head of the woman, I have posted several times in this thread what that word means in the Greek. It doesn't mean authority, it means origin or source. And yes, the source of woman is the rib from the man. That has nothing to do with authority. You need to check out the Greek to have a proper understanding.
The word slave means you have no volition in the matter. You have no choice and you are under compulsion. Christ doesn't force anyone. He doesn't want us to be slaves, He wants us to be friends.

reply from: ProInformed

There were many who voted for Obama who were under the false impression that obama was NOT a pro-abort extremist. Those who tried to warn the citizens that obama was not only pro-abort, but the most extremely and radically pro-abort of all the presidential candidates, were called "liars" and accused of spreading a false rumor. The media went along with that pretense. Obama has wasted no time in revealing that he is in fact planning to impose sweeping and radical pro-abortion changes as one of his top priorities when he takes office.
I don't see the media and the 'moderates' catching on very quickly to the obvious fact that obama is NOT the 'pro-choice/moderate' it was pretended he was (let alone the even more ludicrous false rumor that obama is pro-life).
Also, there were many who voted for obama in spite of his staunch pro-abort stance, excusing it by saying there were more important issues like the economy... Well, then why is it OK for obama to flaunt the fact that as soon as he takes office the first thing he intends to do is give in to all of the abortion industry's demands? Shouldn't they have to wait until he takes care of all that more important stuff first? Shouldn't the voters who deemed abortion too unimportant an issue to affect their vote be at least slightly upset that the candidate they voted for is going to get right to work on the to-do list from the abortion industry when he should be taking care of more important matters instead?

reply from: sweet

exactly...Obama is deceptive...he has blinded many. and YES, he was born in Kenya.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

No, actually, he was born in Hawaii. Didn't you read the topic on here written by a CONSERVATIVE about this issue?

reply from: churchmouse

carole, I did not see anywhere on this board where you posted........Grahams quotes and the sources. Could you please post them again.
We read two totally different bibles Carole so we will have to leave it at that.
I believe there is a massive coverup over his birth place. If someone questioned where you were born, wouldnt you provide an original birth certificate?
He has not. He will not release his medical records or his educational records.
Why? Every other president has released their files. Obama is lying. And I totally believe one day, he will be exposed.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I don't think any other president has ever been asked this, so unless you can pull up proof on that comment, I'm calling your bluff.

reply from: churchmouse

Where does it say this?
You deny the Word the way it is Carole. The man is the Head of the woman. We are to submit to him.
I never saw a page with Billys comments on it. Give me the link.
If you posted it once you can do it again. Post where Billy is pro-abortion.
i still dont see the link or any quote.

reply from: yoda

Sometimes, it's just more fun to make it up.

reply from: carolemarie

Men are NOT the head of women. I fail to understand why you want someone to be your boss. If you are a believer, Christ is your authority, not a sinful fallen human being.

reply from: faithman

1Cr 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you.
1Cr 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.
Was the apostle paul lieing to the corinthians ole wise killer of 3?

reply from: carolemarie

.
What Paul is talking about isn't an hierarchical order or God wouldn't be last on the list. He is referring to the point of origin for each. The source for man is Christ, and we know Christ was involved in the creating and forming of the world and mankind for scripture says, "Let us make man." We know that woman was taken from man (the rib from Adam) and that Jesus came in his incarnate form from the father. This is a relational order, not an hierarachical order. It doesn't make sense if it is a hierarachical order. How can God be the "boss" of Jesus?
The word Paul uses for head means origin in Greek, it doesn't mean authority.
Whenever Christ is described as "head" to the church, his ministry is that of servant-provider. Similarly, as head to his wife, a husband is a servant-provider of life, of fullness and growth, not one who exercises authority over her. God created men and women to mirror the oneness that the Trinity have.
Do you really believe that God created women as a slave class for men?

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

The Bible is about Government. God is the top authority. The Christ is number two, he always obeys the Father. Humans can also become sons of God, they are number three in authority. The sons of God will judge and rule over angels, who temporarily are above us at this time. The man has been given top authority in the family, the woman is number two, and the children are subject to the parent's authority. We are to rule the Universe forever. Now would be a good time to learn to be subject to government, authority and law.
What are you carolmarie, a Satan follower? Like Satan, you repeat his accusations that man doesn't measure up. Like Satan, you do not want to be subject to a higher authority.
God says we MUST obey the judges. The Bible says great respect and obedience are to be given to the judges. Our destiny is to BE judges. God wants full cooperation. He says you should not speak ill of a ruler or judge over the people. But you have no problem slandering a person who has been put in authority.
I can share that I have a hard time giving respect and not speaking ill of the ruler of the people, something that we should put into practice now. Men and women were meant to be put in charge of the whole Universe and God expects respect for and obedience to the person making the decisions; even if they aren't the decisions you feel are best or that you yourself would make.

reply from: carolemarie

God made men and women in His image, and gave them both dominion over all the earth, not each other.
Women are not animals that a man has authority over them.

reply from: kd78

did you ever consider that maybe his religion was listed as muslim during those couple of years because his birth father is muslim? and and just because someone is muslim doesn't not make them a radical or a terrorist! do you even know any muslims? like actually know having become acquaintances and actually gotten to know them as people?

reply from: faithman

Great bunch of B S you posted here. But it has nothing to do with Scripture. As a matter of fact like most perversions, it does more to undermine than uphold the scripture and sound doctrine.
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.
Col 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. You don't get to rewrite the bible just because you don't like what it says. That is like killing three just because you don't want to be bothered with motherhood.

reply from: carolemarie

I don't really get what constantly reminding me that I have a past is suppose to prove...that was then, this is now...
God treat men and women equally. He created us as equals. He didn't create women to be a slave class to men.
Eph. 5 is all about both spouses submitting one 2 another. Men are suppose to submit to their wives as well.
I am not re-writing the bible. I can't help it you don't know how to study the Word for yourself. I would recommend that you get some bible software to help you. Esword is free....

reply from: faithman

I don't need your stupid advise on how to study the word. I have a strongs concordance, and several bibles that do just fine. And both tell me that your baby killing behind is most assuredly trying to rewrite the bible to justify your perverting of it. And I am not constantly reminding you of the past that you flaunt as some kind of pro-life one upsmanship. You are no hero like you try to portray yourself. You are a 5th colum degenerate that undermines the humanity of the womb child to justify killing three. If you continue to dishonor thier memory with your false doctrine, and pro-abort rhetoric, then some of us will honor the three little image bearers of Christ you threw away. You have stated several times that you are still for killing babies. That makes you an unrepentant baby killer no matter how many times you lie to your self, and others, to the contrary. You think you are superior in humanity and personhood to the womb child, and have stated so several times. You are not pro-life, but pro killer scank. But I guess birds of a feather take up for their own.

reply from: CharlesD

Yes, Paul wrote the wives should submit to their husbands, but it doesn't end there. You read on and it says that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. Hmm...I wonder what that means. Perhaps that a husband is to love his wife to the point where he would be willing to lay down his life for her. That doesn't strike me as the man lording it over his wife, but as a man who loves his wife to the point where he places her needs above his own. A woman would not struggle with submission to a man who loves her in that way, because what you have in that model is a kind of mutual submission. If a man is constantly seeking to meet his wife's needs, exactly what is she submitting to?

reply from: jujujellybean

perhaps you have forgotten that they ran a plane into two of our greatest buildings and killed around three thousand people? Is that a good enough reason not to like them? Personally, I know they aren't all like that, but still.

reply from: carolemarie

???? when did I ever say I was still for abortion? ??? I don't know what you are talking about, ????Prolife one upmanship? What is THAT....????
What on earth is a 5th collum degenerate and why on earth would I be in that category? For disagreeing with you?????
Does anyone agree with you????

reply from: carolemarie

Right, like the Trinity live in unity and relationship, each seeking the good of the other. Not an authoritarian model, but a equal relationship.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

perhaps you have forgotten that they ran a plane into two of our greatest buildings and killed around three thousand people? Is that a good enough reason not to like them? Personally, I know they aren't all like that, but still.
Native Americans slaughtered part of my family on a homestead during the early history of the United States. Is that a good enough reason not to like them? You're right, NOT all of them are like that so take your own advice and stop hating ALL of them!

reply from: churchmouse

God stated how it would be. The words and commands are there. If you have a problem carole with what He said and the fact that you think submission is so ungodly take it up with Him. He created all order in the universe.
The Bible does not become the Word of God; it already is the Word of God. It can not be changed. We have to have faith that what God commands us to believe and do are all for our own good whether we agree or not. The Scripture is the Word of God, whether or not anybody even responds to it. We have that choice. We can open our minds and hearts to the Holy Spirit or we can let our hearts remained closed. Scripture only becomes meaningful to individuals when their hearts are open and illuminated by the Holy Spirit.
Jesus asked Peter the question," Who do you say I am", and Peters immediate response was, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus then said," Blessed are you, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in Heaven" This scripture would mean nothing to someone who did not have the Holy Spirit inside Him. Nor would the scriptures have any meaning to someone who was not walking in the word.

reply from: carolemarie

I have no problem with what the Lord said. I even went and looked up what the words meant in Greek. That is when I found out that the word head has two meanings in greek. The Word Paul used meant origin, not authority. That makes a big difference in obeying God, (the words being translated acurately)
Paul knew Greek, so he knew the difference in the two words and he chose to use the word that meant origin.
Being open to the Holy Spirit means that you study to be approved, and you learn things...

reply from: faithman

SSSSSOOOO Christ has no authority over the church? Ephesians 5 makes it very clear that the relationship between husband and wife is supposed to mirror the relationship between Christ and the chruch Now twist in the wind, pervert the scriptures and explain that one away. If you spent more time simply believing the word, insted of rewriting and undermining it, your double mindedness would clear up.

reply from: carolemarie

We (in marriage) are suppose to become one, as the trinity are one.

reply from: faithman

More gobbledy goop that means absolutly nothing. We are just supposed to ignore the scripture, and take the word of a baby killer.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

A husband and wife are suppose to become one, just as the members of the Church are to become one (one body, many members), just as Christ and the Father are one. There is no difference between Church members becoming one body and Christ and the Father being one.
You are in left field with your trinity thing. Is this trinity invention of the Catholic Church also believed in by many Protestant denominations? Well, I guess they are the Mother Church's offspring (so says Revelation).

reply from: LiberalChiRo

A husband and wife are suppose to become one, just as the members of the Church are to become one (one body, many members), just as Christ and the Father are one. There is no difference between Church members becoming one body and Christ and the Father being one.
You are in left field with your trinity thing. Is this trinity invention of the Catholic Church also believed in by many Protestant denominations? Well, I guess they are the Mother Church's offspring (so says Revelation).
I'm Protestant/Methodist and I believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are all one thing. I actually have no idea what the "holy ghost" is supposed to be, but I believe Jesus and God are one and the same.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

A husband and wife are suppose to become one, just as the members of the Church are to become one (one body, many members), just as Christ and the Father are one. There is no difference between Church members becoming one body and Christ and the Father being one.
You are in left field with your trinity thing. Is this trinity invention of the Catholic Church also believed in by many Protestant denominations? Well, I guess they are the Mother Church's offspring (so says Revelation).
I'm Protestant/Methodist and I believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are all one thing. I actually have no idea what the "holy ghost" is supposed to be, but I believe Jesus and God are one and the same.
The Bible says Christ and the Father are one. However, in the later part of the Gospel of John Jesus prays earnstly that the disciples may all be one, even as He is one with His Father. I understand the term one to be as related by the Apostle Paul, many individual members, but one body (Church). We each perform different functions; but we all benefit and do the one body's work (just as a foot, ear, eye have different functions, but all serve the one body).
A spurious verse was added to the Bible a few centuries ago saying the Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit are one. In my mind, alarm bells go off when someone fraudulently adds a verse to the Bible supporting the concept of a "Trinity".
Jesus testified that His Father was greater than him. Jesus said He always did what pleased the Father. Jesus said the Father declared that he would share his throne/authority with Christ. Christ likewise says he will share His throne/authority with us. Jesus said we are also sons of God.
Many believe in two present members in the God Family: Christ and the Father. Many believe the Holy Spirit is either a reference to the force of God or another name for the Father or Jesus. The Holy Spirit is often referred to as Him rather than it; however, a force from the Father could be the correct analogy.
There have been debates by theologians as to whether Christ has always existed with the Father. Others say Christ is the first of the firstfruits of harvest; that he did not pre-exist before his birth. We are required to follow his example, overcome as he did, and also be harvested in the harvest of firstfruits as sons of God.
Of course, all of this is blasphemy in the eyes of the Catholic Church. I believe Catholic theologians got things wrong in the early centuries. The Catholics and Roman Empire formed a Whorish partnership and those with contrary theological opinions were tortured and executed. Since the Reformation many people have been asking questions. They openly question whether the Catholic Church got things right, no longer fearing imprisonment and death.

reply from: churchmouse

Amen Faithman. But unfortunately today people try to find any loophole they can to deny the Word and what God commands. They can't put their trust and faith in God enough to believe God had His reasons for doing what He did. There is order in this universe and God created that order for a reason.
So you claim to be a Christian and have no clue who the Holy Spirit is?
Wow. I think ya better start by reading the Word.
You don't need to add any verses, the trinity is already evident.
Jesus Christ is God incarnate.
"BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "(GOD WITH US." Matthew 1:23
John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."
Jesus said this. Unless you believe I am God you will die.
"Neither is there salvation in any other (than Jesus): for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."
--Acts 4:12
If Jesus is not God......and Jesus saves, then what power does God have because "salvation... is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory."
--2 Timothy 2:10

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" John 1:1
Isn't Jesus the Word? "I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." Isaiah 41:4
God forgave sins and so did Jesus. They both are our redeemer. Isaiah 63:16 and Titus 2:13-14
"And they stoned Stephen, calling upon GOD, and saying, LORD JESUS, receive my spirit."
--Acts 7:59

"For unto us A CHILD IS BORN, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, THE MIGHTY GOD, THE EVERLASTING FATHER, The Prince of Peace."
--Isaiah 9:6
Jesus said........."I and my Father are one." John 10:30
God is "I am" and so is Christ.
"Hereby perceive we the love of GOD, because he LAID DOWN HIS LIFE for us...
--1 John 3:16
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD was manifest in the FLESH, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, BELIEVED ON in the world, RECEIVED UP into glory."
--1 Timothy 3:16
"But unto the SON he saith, 'Thy throne, O GOD, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom'...And, 'Thou, LORD, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands.'"
-- Hebrews 1:8, 10
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and THE WORD WAS GOD. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH, AND DWELT AMONG US, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
--John 1:1-4, 14

Philip saith unto him, 'Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.' Jesus saith unto him, 'Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me Philip? HE THAT HATH SEEN ME HATH SEEN THE FATHER; and how sayest thou then, 'Shew us the Father?''"
-- John 14:8-9
For in [Jesus] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."
-- Colossians 2:9
"The voice of him [John the Baptist] that crieth in the wilderness, PREPARE ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway FOR OUR GOD."
-- Isaiah 40:3
This scripture has trinity written all over it.
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: and THESE THREE ARE ONE."
--1 John 5:7
Why did the Jews hate Christ and for what reason was he killed? Because Christ said He was God.
"The Jews answered [Jesus], saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."
-- John 10:33
The Holy Spirits just some force but an actual personal being. Hes also ascribed the attributes of deity: eternity (Heb 9:14), omniscience (1Cor 2:10,11; John 14:26; 16:12,13), omnipotence (Luke 1:35), and omnipresence (Ps 139:7-10). He is even called God in many verses. (Acts 5:3,4; 2Cor 3:17,18) The logical conclusion is there is a third Person called God in the Bible: God the Holy Spirit.
But even though the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all called God, they are still always clearly distinguished from one another. The Fathers not the Son; neither is the Son the Father. And the Holy Spirit is different from both the Father and the Son.
The distinction between Father and Son is seen in such passages as Matthew 11:27; John 5:20, 22; 14:16; and Matthew 27:46. Luke makes this distinction in Luke 23:34,46, Stephen in Acts 7:55, and Peter in 1Peter 1:3.
My bible has some good notes about this very topic.
"That the Holy Spirit is a distinct Person from the Father and the Son is seen in Isaiah 48:16; Matthew 3:16,17; John 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:7-15; and Acts 1:4,5.
All three Persons of the Trinity are mentioned together in the triadic formulas of the New Testament (Matt 28:19; Rom 14:17,18; Gal 3:11-14; 4:6; 2Cor 1:21 22; 3:3; 13:14; 1Peter 1:2).'

reply from: BossMomma

More gobbledy goop that means absolutly nothing. We are just supposed to ignore the scripture, and take the word of a baby killer.
Uh, dude, that is scripture.

reply from: carolemarie

A husband and wife are suppose to become one, just as the members of the Church are to become one (one body, many members), just as Christ and the Father are one. There is no difference between Church members becoming one body and Christ and the Father being one.
You are in left field with your trinity thing. Is this trinity invention of the Catholic Church also believed in by many Protestant denominations? Well, I guess they are the Mother Church's offspring (so says Revelation).
I'm Protestant/Methodist and I believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are all one thing. I actually have no idea what the "holy ghost" is supposed to be, but I believe Jesus and God are one and the same.
it isn't "my" trinity thing, it's basic Christian Theology. One God, three separate persons.

reply from: faithman

More gobbledy goop that means absolutly nothing. We are just supposed to ignore the scripture, and take the word of a baby killer.
Uh, dude, that is scripture.
All I have seen is your opinion. Not much word at all to back it up. Does the Lord Jesus have authority over the church as it's head? Does the scripture say that the Christian marriage [ not a pagan new age shack up] is supposed to mirror the relationship of Christ and the church? Out of the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses. just tell us oh great wise one, just what does Ephesians 5:22, and Colosians 3:18 mean? Just what does it mean for wives to submit unto husbands as unto the Lord? What did Christ mean by this scripture? Luke 6:46. How can you say you are his when you only take the parts of His word you like and ignore the rest? Either you completely surrender your self will to the Lordship of Christ, or you are still selfwilled and hell bound. Hell is full of those who accepted a form of godlyness and christianism but actually deny His authority and power to govern their lives.

reply from: BossMomma

More gobbledy goop that means absolutly nothing. We are just supposed to ignore the scripture, and take the word of a baby killer.
Uh, dude, that is scripture.
All I have seen is your opinion. Not much word at all to back it up. Does the Lord Jesus have authority over the church as it's head? Does the scripture say that the Christian marriage [ not a pagan new age shack up] is supposed to mirror the relationship of Christ and the church? Out of the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses. just tell us oh great wise one, just what does Ephesians 5:22, and Colosians 3:18 mean? Just what does it mean for wives to submit unto husbands as unto the Lord? What did Christ mean by this scripture? Luke 6:46. How can you say you are his when you only take the parts of His word you like and ignore the rest? Either you completely surrender your self will to the Lordship of Christ, or you are still selfwilled and hell bound. Hell is full of those who accepted a form of godlyness and christianism but actually deny His authority and power to govern their lives.
It's in Genesis 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
As I said before, try reading your bible. It's getting sad that a baby christian knows it better than an old man. The Trinity is not just a Catholic concept, many revere the Holy Trinity including my church.

reply from: faithman

More gobbledy goop that means absolutly nothing. We are just supposed to ignore the scripture, and take the word of a baby killer.
Uh, dude, that is scripture.
All I have seen is your opinion. Not much word at all to back it up. Does the Lord Jesus have authority over the church as it's head? Does the scripture say that the Christian marriage [ not a pagan new age shack up] is supposed to mirror the relationship of Christ and the church? Out of the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses. just tell us oh great wise one, just what does Ephesians 5:22, and Colosians 3:18 mean? Just what does it mean for wives to submit unto husbands as unto the Lord? What did Christ mean by this scripture? Luke 6:46. How can you say you are his when you only take the parts of His word you like and ignore the rest? Either you completely surrender your self will to the Lordship of Christ, or you are still selfwilled and hell bound. Hell is full of those who accepted a form of godlyness and christianism but actually deny His authority and power to govern their lives.
It's in Genesis 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
As I said before, try reading your bible. It's getting sad that a baby christian knows it better than an old man. The Trinity is not just a Catholic concept, many revere the Holy Trinity including my church.
SSSSOOOO newbie. Why are you bringing up the trinity. Mind showing me the scripture that has that word in it? And the scripture you quopted does not refute the ones I have posted, nor answeres the questions I asked. the scripture also admonishes that the younger are to respect the elder. But I guess you can ignore that one as well huh?

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

BossMomma said:
It's in Genesis 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
As I said before, try reading your bible. It's getting sad that a baby christian knows it better than an old man. The Trinity is not just a Catholic concept, many revere the Holy Trinity including my church.
My response:
I thought you where going to use Genesis 2:24 to say man and woman make a binary, a strange a mystical thing beyond our comprehension: like Father, Son and Holy Ghost make a trinity, a strange and mystical thing beyond our comprehension.
A man and woman make a human family just as Father and Son make a God family.
We ourselves are referred to as sons of God and as gods, same as Jesus. Jesus was also called Son of God and God. Christ is as separate and distinct from the Father as we are. He is one with the Father in that they work in harmony. Jesus prayed that we also be one.
Like rapture, the word trinity is nowhere in the Bible; throw that term in the trash heap. There are only two members of the God family at present, Father and Son, so forget this three in one term. Besides, we also shall become members, then there will be many more than three.
When God says in the Bible that there shall be no other Gods created after Him he is referring to entities with a different nature than those being called to be one with God. God only has one nature; Love. We are called to be Love, part of the One and only true God (family).
Jesus was the first of the firstfruits of harvest and is the Son of God. We who are called at this early season have to follow in the example's footsteps and overcome in the same way to become sons of god whom will be harvested as part of the firstfruits of harvest .
Just as Jesus was called Son of God before His harvest, we also are already called sons of god before our harvest.
I am in the camp that believes Jesus pre-existed with the Father and Christ Himself was intregrally involved with the creation and Exodus.
There are some who believe Jesus did not exist until he was born to Mary. It would not be incorrect to call him Son of God because he had the Holy Spirit from the womb. We also, once given the gift of the Holy Spirit, are also called sons of god.

reply from: carolemarie

More gobbledy goop that means absolutly nothing. We are just supposed to ignore the scripture, and take the word of a baby killer.
Uh, dude, that is scripture.
All I have seen is your opinion. Not much word at all to back it up. Does the Lord Jesus have authority over the church as it's head? Does the scripture say that the Christian marriage [ not a pagan new age shack up] is supposed to mirror the relationship of Christ and the church? Out of the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses. just tell us oh great wise one, just what does Ephesians 5:22, and Colosians 3:18 mean? Just what does it mean for wives to submit unto husbands as unto the Lord? What did Christ mean by this scripture? Luke 6:46. How can you say you are his when you only take the parts of His word you like and ignore the rest? Either you completely surrender your self will to the Lordship of Christ, or you are still selfwilled and hell bound. Hell is full of those who accepted a form of godlyness and christianism but actually deny His authority and power to govern their lives.
Eps 5 is talking about both the man and woman submitting to each other. Not one party being the boss of the other!
I hate to burst your bubble, but in case you didn't know, God gave spiritual gifts to women as well as men. Why would He give spiritual gifts to women if He didn't intend for them to use them? Why would scripture say there is no male or female, slave or free in Christ Jesus? Why would the NT talk about the priesthood of the believer, that we now need no mediator between God and man other than Jesus. I don't need my husbands covering to approach God.
Pretty radical stuff, setting women free from the dominance and oppression of men!

reply from: faithman

More gobbledy goop that means absolutly nothing. We are just supposed to ignore the scripture, and take the word of a baby killer.
Uh, dude, that is scripture.
All I have seen is your opinion. Not much word at all to back it up. Does the Lord Jesus have authority over the church as it's head? Does the scripture say that the Christian marriage [ not a pagan new age shack up] is supposed to mirror the relationship of Christ and the church? Out of the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses. just tell us oh great wise one, just what does Ephesians 5:22, and Colosians 3:18 mean? Just what does it mean for wives to submit unto husbands as unto the Lord? What did Christ mean by this scripture? Luke 6:46. How can you say you are his when you only take the parts of His word you like and ignore the rest? Either you completely surrender your self will to the Lordship of Christ, or you are still selfwilled and hell bound. Hell is full of those who accepted a form of godlyness and christianism but actually deny His authority and power to govern their lives.
Eps 5 is talking about both the man and woman submitting to each other. Not one party being the boss of the other!
I hate to burst your bubble, but in case you didn't know, God gave spiritual gifts to women as well as men. Why would He give spiritual gifts to women if He didn't intend for them to use them? Why would scripture say there is no male or female, slave or free in Christ Jesus? Why would the NT talk about the priesthood of the believer, that we now need no mediator between God and man other than Jesus. I don't need my husbands covering to approach God.
Pretty radical stuff, setting women free from the dominance and oppression of men!
You can smear you feminist gobbledy goop over the word all you want, but it still stands true. the covering is not so you can approach God, but that the Christain home is in order, and mirrors the relationship between Christ and His church. It is obvious that you are out of order with both. SSSSOOOO blather on killer. You are the best bad example that we have. I get my revelation from the word, not a baby killer who walks in rebelion against it.

reply from: churchmouse

Carole if you replied to me in PM about this subject, I accidently deleted reponses when I cleared out my history. If you did could you resend. Thanks.
It is about order Carole and the order in which God created the universe. Like faithman said, he mirrored the husband wife relationhip with Christ and the Christ. If you make the relationship with husband and wife out to be nothing, you also must do the same with that of Christ and the Church.
As I said in another post.....I do not mind being a slave to Christ, or my husband because he respects me and loves me and has my best interest at heart. He isnt even a Christian. We discuss and argue at times.....but in the end I allow him to make the final decision.

reply from: faithman

Any "christian" who argues with the word insted of being subject to it, is in rebelion against it. Some spend more time explaining it away, insted of merely agreeing with it even if we may not completely understand it. It is also a lack of faith. If the Lord has spoken it in His word, then we trust Him to bless us as we yield to it. I guarantee that if there are more than one set of hands on the steering wheel, you are doomed to crash. It is also imposible to hear the instructions of a GPS, if a passenger is constantly yacking in your ear. For what ever reason [don't like it take it up with God] The Lord has place the man in the drivers seat. A christian woman should observe the "driving habits" of a potential mate. If they are not good, then she should not get into the vehicle of marriage with him. But they are most assuredly doomed to crash if she puts self willed hands on the steering wheel, and tries to usurp his God given position behind the wheel. It is also imposible for him to hear the GPS [God's Purpose Shown] if she is constantly yapping her complaints in his ear. Submission is as unto the Lord. We should trust each other to hear from God, and do as the Lord instructs. To do anything less is the evidence of unbelief.

reply from: carolemarie

I am free in Christ. Why would God set me free to put me back under the authority of sinful men?
CM I will pm you my responses. This isn't for the board since it is just you and me who care. I don't care what Fboy thinks about anything.

reply from: faithman

Any "christian" who argues with the word insted of being subject to it, is in rebelion against it. Some spend more time explaining it away, insted of merely agreeing with it even if we may not completely understand it. It is also a lack of faith. If the Lord has spoken it in His word, then we trust Him to bless us as we yield to it. I guarantee that if there are more than one set of hands on the steering wheel, you are doomed to crash. It is also imposible to hear the instructions of a GPS, if a passenger is constantly yacking in your ear. For what ever reason [don't like it take it up with God] The Lord has place the man in the drivers seat. A christian woman should observe the "driving habits" of a potential mate. If they are not good, then she should not get into the vehicle of marriage with him. But they are most assuredly doomed to crash if she puts self willed hands on the steering wheel, and tries to usurp his God given position behind the wheel. It is also imposible for him to hear the GPS [God's Purpose Shown] if she is constantly yapping her complaints in his ear. Submission is as unto the Lord. We should trust each other to hear from God, and do as the Lord instructs. To do anything less is the evidence of unbelief.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

It is about order Carole and the order in which God created the universe. Like faithman said, he mirrored the husband wife relationhip with Christ and the Christ. If you make the relationship with husband and wife out to be nothing, you also must do the same with that of Christ and the Church.
As I said in another post.....I do not mind being a slave to Christ, or my husband because he respects me and loves me and has my best interest at heart. He isnt even a Christian. We discuss and argue at times.....but in the end I allow him to make the final decision.
So you admit being a slave to your husband. There's a book series you'd probably love then. Freakishly enough many people are emulating the book in real life. All women are slaves to men in these books, and if they are not slaves they are considered pariahs; supposedly they are exalted as slaves, but that doesn't change the fact that they are not free. They do not have personal names. They do not say "I" or "me", they say "this one" almost like robots. If their man is "good" he will of course never do any harm to her, but if he is bad, she must submit to him anyway. So REAL men and women are emulating this relationship (a sad excuse for a REAL relationship, which is based on EQUALITY) in real life.
What if he said "Go kill yourself"? Or that he wanted to kill you? As a proper slave, you must submit.

reply from: carolemarie

I think it is an obvious misconception to think that God who loves me would want to make me live under the authority of a man. If that was what God desired for women, why give them a brain or gifts and talents?
Jesus came to set the captives free, not to make slaves!
I love my freedom in Christ and have no desire to give it up to suit your view of scripture.
A marraige is suppose to be a partnership of two equals. In that context you seek the good of the other and both submit to each other. That is common sense.

reply from: churchmouse

AMEN FAITHMAN.
I yield to the Lord, I yield to the Lord and I YIELD UNTO THE LORD.
I am free in Christ too Carole.....but I yield unto the Word which is Christ. I am unclear about a few things in the Bible and I have a lot of questions that I one day, hope to ask God personally. But I have faith that everything God tells me to do, even if its unclear and seems unfair, is for my own good. HE is in control, not me.
When I first got married, my hands were all over the wheel like Faithmans example. In fact I continually would remind my husband that I was the one in control the one driving the car. I didnt have to say anything, may actions were loud. I am sure I made him feel inadequate at times because I like to be in charge. I was not a godly wife. I was a wife with a mission and the mission was to make most the decisions of our family. He was busy with his practice and gone a lot and well.....it was easy. We argued and fought and we almost divorced years ago. He got sick of it, I got sick of it and we almost threw in the towel. When I accepted Christ and started acting, started living like God commanded me to live, we had less fights, arguements and we treated each other with more respect. I not only gave my life to God but I recommitted my faith in my husband who I then acknowledged was the Head of our family. I took my hands off the wheel and sit now as co-pilot. I love him more than ever today and have complete faith that he will make the right decisions. And if he doesnt.......God has our backs. We have been married over 28 years. Thank you Jesus !!!!!!!!!!!!
Liberal I am not a slave, like the slaves in the South, that is not what I mean. I have given everything up to serve Christ first. Being a slave of Christ is so much more fulfilling than being a slave to self. I am faithful to God in everyway. I do not serve my old master, sin. Paul called himself a "slave of Christ Jesus in Rom. 1:1.
He also considered himself a slave to those to whom he ministered (1 Cor. 9:19; 2 Cor. 4:5) I minister to my husband in the same way. This image of the master and slave is important for the way Paul describes our relationship to God through Christ Jesus. Its not an image that should make us think of a horrible existence.
As a slave of Christ I owe Him everything. And under his commands for me as a Christian wife, my husband comes second to Christ. I serve him also, AS hE SERVES ME, BY LOVING ME LIKE CHRIST LOVES US.
A slave owes service to his master. I owe God service and worship and I owe service to my husband. My body is his and his mine. We are one and we serve eachother.
The book you describe is probably of this world and full of sick things, no thanks I dont need to read material like that, thank you. You do not understand what I am talking about, you have no clue who the Holy Spirit is for crying out loud, and you call yourself a Christian.
It's you who need to read and read the WORD.
Comments like this show your lack of knowledge of the scriptures, you just dont get it. I hope you do one day, but on this day, YOU CLEARLY DONT.

reply from: carolemarie

Once again, I don't think God is telling women to submit to their husbands and that men are in charge over women.
That is a total misunderstanding of what God asked us to do. He asked the husband and wife to both submit to each other, considering the other above themselves. Our husbands are not our daddies or our masters. They are co-heirs to Christ! It is not a matter of struggling for being in charge, it is a team thilng....
And I bet that those who believe women should be under a man also belive that women should stay home and raise children and keep house and support her husband and not teach in church or all that.
Not all of us want to live that way. God didn't call us to do that. Your insistance that we do, is trying to put us in slavery. WE are not cookie cutter people. Each is unique and has a special call on her life. It may not be the same as yours.
On a side note, I have noticed that the women teachers who want women to submit and stay home, like Nancy Lee DeMoss, don't do it them selves. They write books and do radio and run a company.

reply from: churchmouse

He is Carole because the scriptures say so and Paul confirms this. And we are talking about the marriage relationship. Its only a misunderstanding if you dissaagree and do not submit to the Word and what Christ commands. He does not make this an option, a suggestion. He commands. Yes both should submit to one another but the husband is still the Head. Adam was head of Eve and was the one ultimately responsible for the sin. If they were both equally responsible, Adam would not have been called out as the one who blew it. We only have one master, Christ, but as the scriptures say....Christ is the Head of the Church and the husband is Head of the wife, the family. It is a team thing.......but every team usually has a leader. Every company usually has a President a CEO. It's not that God sees the leaders as morally better than anyone else. He does not love them more......but they are there to make things run more smoothly. God gave men that authority.
Why carole is there something wrong with that? LOL I am getting the impression here that you think there are absolutely no differences in men and women. that anyone can raise a child, that the childs circumstances are not important....
What does God say carole? Why do you contantly question the Word?
1 Corinthians 14: 24: Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35: And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
36: What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37: If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38: But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
1 Timothy 2: 11: Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13: For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14: And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful MEN, who shall be able to teach others also.
THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE ARE INFERIOR CAROLE OR THAT GOD DID NOT USE WOMEN OR WANT US TO BE A PART OF THE GREAT COMMISSION.
Why do you think Christ never appointed any women apostles? He did not appoint even ONE. Who did He choose? He chose twelve MEN. They then picked seven deacons who also chose men for leadership roles. Why?
Women had a role and many women were even prophets. Miriam the sister of Moses. (Exodus 15:20) Deborah. (Judges 4-5) to name a few. But they still did not preach in the temple. Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:34 states that women are not allowed to teach or preach in the churches. "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law."
The fact is that men are given more responsibility in church. They will be held more responsible. However qualified God did NOT GIVE WOMEN THAT RESPONSIBLITY. Whatever those reasons are is good enough for me. It is to bad that you have a problem with it.
I do a lot in my church. I have taught a few womens bible studies. I have taught Sunday School to our youth. I headed the childrens choir for years.
That is sad. The Word is the Word and God has given us commands carole. You need to take it up with Him, the things you dissagree with.
We are all unique......but God created order and Eve was created second. It's ok to question the Word....God wants us to seek Him. But His Word is not changing just because a few feminists dont like what He says. You either submit to the Word or you reject it.
There is nothing wrong with Christian women writting books. I adore Beth Moore and her Bible Studies. I went in November to A Woman of Faith Weekend. Sandi Patti was there.....Nicole Mullins....Christian speakers all women all weekend. It was fabulous. None head a church and they witnessed to woman.

reply from: faithman

He is Carole because the scriptures say so and Paul confirms this. And we are talking about the marriage relationship. Its only a misunderstanding if you dissaagree and do not submit to the Word and what Christ commands. He does not make this an option, a suggestion. He commands. Yes both should submit to one another but the husband is still the Head. Adam was head of Eve and was the one ultimately responsible for the sin. If they were both equally responsible, Adam would not have been called out as the one who blew it. We only have one master, Christ, but as the scriptures say....Christ is the Head of the Church and the husband is Head of the wife, the family. It is a team thing.......but every team usually has a leader. Every company usually has a President a CEO. It's not that God sees the leaders as morally better than anyone else. He does not love them more......but they are there to make things run more smoothly. God gave men that authority.
Why carole is there something wrong with that? LOL I am getting the impression here that you think there are absolutely no differences in men and women. that anyone can raise a child, that the childs circumstances are not important....
What does God say carole? Why do you contantly question the Word?
1 Corinthians 14: 24: Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35: And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
36: What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37: If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38: But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
1 Timothy 2: 11: Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13: For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14: And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful MEN, who shall be able to teach others also.
THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE ARE INFERIOR CAROLE OR THAT GOD DID NOT USE WOMEN OR WANT US TO BE A PART OF THE GREAT COMMISSION.
Why do you think Christ never appointed any women apostles? He did not appoint even ONE. Who did He choose? He chose twelve MEN. They then picked seven deacons who also chose men for leadership roles. Why?
Women had a role and many women were even prophets. Miriam the sister of Moses. (Exodus 15:20) Deborah. (Judges 4-5) to name a few. But they still did not preach in the temple. Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:34 states that women are not allowed to teach or preach in the churches. "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law."
The fact is that men are given more responsibility in church. They will be held more responsible. However qualified God did NOT GIVE WOMEN THAT RESPONSIBLITY. Whatever those reasons are is good enough for me. It is to bad that you have a problem with it.
I do a lot in my church. I have taught a few womens bible studies. I have taught Sunday School to our youth. I headed the childrens choir for years.
That is sad. The Word is the Word and God has given us commands carole. You need to take it up with Him, the things you dissagree with.
We are all unique......but God created order and Eve was created second. It's ok to question the Word....God wants us to seek Him. But His Word is not changing just because a few feminists dont like what He says. You either submit to the Word or you reject it.
There is nothing wrong with Christian women writting books. I adore Beth Moore and her Bible Studies. I went in November to A Woman of Faith Weekend. Sandi Patti was there.....Nicole Mullins....Christian speakers all women all weekend. It was fabulous. None head a church and they witnessed to woman.
The scripture talks about elder women in the church. They have the responcibility to teach the younger women, and younger men are to respect them as mothers. I believe that this authority has been usurped in the church as well by male pastors. A man has no busuness ministering to a woman if there is an elder woman who is qualified to do so. They are to teach by example as well as in word. I believe that the doctrinal content is still the direct responcibility of the elder men. They are to watch over content, but it is the job of "mothers" in the church to raise good daughters. If it is mixed company, then men have the responcibility to teach. Woman are not to teach men, nor usurp their place in mixed company. Once again, this is an evangelist expression more than anything else. It is to mirror the relationship of the bride church, to the husband Christ. To be out of ballance with this scripture, is to be out of ballance with the One who inspired it. To be self willed is to be in rebellion against God. I have pre-formed a couple of wedding cerimonies. I tend to be a little unorthodox. [fancy that] I first have the man declare " I confess before God and man, that Jesus Christ is the Lord of my life, I surrender my will to His. I thank you for the gift of my mate [name of person], and vow to lay down my life for her, as Christ laid down His for His bride the church." [he can add what he wants to then] I then have the woman say: " I confess before God and man that Jesus Christ is the Lord of my life. I thank you Lord for the gift of my mate [name of person], And as the church is subject to Christ, I submit myself to [name of person] as head of this home as unto the Lord. [say what ever they deside]. If they won't do it, I won't marry them.

reply from: churchmouse

My Pastor won't marry unequally yoked couples. They must be walking right and on the same page spiritually.
Authority has been upsurped you are right about that Faithman.
If you put your faith and hope in Christ.....submission is not hard at all......its a blessing. God has blessed my life in so many more ways.

reply from: carolemarie

I don't agree and I don't think scripture backs you up.
Yeah, I don't want to have 30 kids and homeschool them.
My talents lay in different areas.

reply from: churchmouse

What dont you agree with?
That my pastor wont married unequally yoked couples.

reply from: 4given

Indeed it is. I don't think that many here understand the point though. It isn't "slavery" as I saw it referred to, but mutual respect and honor.

reply from: carolemarie

Indeed it is. I don't think that many here understand the point though. It isn't "slavery" as I saw it referred to, but mutual respect and honor.
Mutual respect and honor comes from both parties submitting to each other. Only an unequal relationhip does one party have to do all the deferring.

reply from: 4given

Indeed it is. I don't think that many here understand the point though. It isn't "slavery" as I saw it referred to, but mutual respect and honor.
Mutual respect and honor comes from both parties submitting to each other.
Exactly. As unto the Lord.

reply from: carolemarie

Like Chip and Dale...it isn't a matter of authority but relationship.
I always think of love is patient, kind, not seeking it own way,......
that is how being one works,
If there is a disagreement, then you debate and pray about it. Eventully you will become of one mind about it.

reply from: faithman

SSSSSOOOOO the church ought to aurgue with Christ until He gets it right? The scripture point blank says that the christian marriage [ not pagan civil union] should miror the relationship of Christ and the church. Is Christ head of the church? All you do is seek your own way. SSSSSOOOO that actually makes you the unloving one here, not anybody else. All your "good works" does not cover that reality.

reply from: churchmouse

This does not always happen. So when it doesnt then how does it get solved?

reply from: Cecilia

Faithman, you want to talk of Ephesians? Oh that is rich:
4:29 Let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth, but such as is good for building up as the need may be, that it may give grace to those who hear.
4:31 Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, outcry, and slander, be put away from you, with all malice.
4:32 And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving each other,
just as God also in Christ forgave you.

reply from: Cecilia

Amen!
We can even agree, those are good life advice.

reply from: BossMomma

Amen!
We can even agree, those are good life advice.
A message spoken with love travels much further than one spoken in hatred. That is why the message of love that Jesus left us continues to thrive.

reply from: scopia19822

The man is to be the spiritual head of the home. He is to be the provider and protector of his family. Both husband and wife should discuss and make the major decisions of the home/family, but if they disagree and cannot reach an acceptable compromise than the final decision rests with the husband. I firmly believe in traditional male and female roles. The man is to be the provider, while the wife is to be the keeper of the home (Titus 2, Proverbs 31) A wife does not have to unquestionably obey her husband in all things, particularly if what he asked her to do is contrary to the Word of God. Which means if a man asked his wife to commit adultery, murder, theft etc she is to obey God not him. That does not also give means she has to take physical or mental abuse. Husbands are supposed to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. A man is supposed to lay his life down on the line for his family if need be. Just like Christ laid his life down on the cross for the sins of the world.

reply from: BossMomma

Here's another reason I will never marry, I will always be the spiritual head of my home.

reply from: churchmouse

Why is it so hard for you to submit to God?

reply from: carolemarie

Here's another reason I will never marry, I will always be the spiritual head of my home.
God is the spiritual head of all homes or at least should be....
We have never had a problem about what we want the kids to do because we take it to the Lord. We just want them to know Jesus and His word.
Our only conflict has been over things like which church to go to, for years we did separate churches. He was into the spirit filled type and I use to hate it. I liked the Baptist churches and he said they were dead and lifeless. So we went to different ones. I picked ones that had kids programs and I took our boy.
As I grew in Christ, I changed and now am into the spirit filled type and we attend together.
Our son goes to a Baptist church for VBS and Awanas and to our Church for the Children's Ministry.

reply from: carolemarie

This does not always happen. So when it doesnt then how does it get solved?
You press on in prayer until it is resolved.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Why can't a woman do all of that?
She can.
It is only in a sexist, backwards, man-driven world that a woman is considered incapable of being a spiritual leader, provider or protector.

reply from: 4given

Why can't a woman do all of that?
She can.
It is only in a sexist, backwards, man-driven world that a woman is considered incapable of being a spiritual leader, provider or protector.
Yet you are not married. This is a conversation between married women. Sadly many women are placed in that role. Most not by choice. Many men aren't driven spiritually and a lot of them aren't financially driven either. I would have loved if my SO was able to provide for us financially and otherwise. Truth is he was only spiritually awakened weeks before he became physically challenged. I don't think you could ever understand, but I hope and pray that you will find another man that can and will inspire your faith (or lack thereof) as well as provide for your every need and also want.

reply from: churchmouse

And do they deny that the husband is Head of the family? Do you deny sex outside marriage is sin?
I highly doubt that if your going to a spirit filled evangelical church they dont have woman preachers and they know that God created woman second under the Headship of Christ.
Because God said the Headship is with the husband. Again read your bible. But first find out who the Holy Spirit is......sorry but what you say is not credible. You clearly do not know what the scripture says.
Man Driven? We are a secular society run by people who try to live without God. And it shows. The husband is the Head and he should also live by Gods commands to love his wife like he loves himself.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Why can't a woman do all of that?
She can.
It is only in a sexist, backwards, man-driven world that a woman is considered incapable of being a spiritual leader, provider or protector.
Yet you are not married. This is a conversation between married women. Sadly many women are placed in that role. Most not by choice. Many men aren't driven spiritually and a lot of them aren't financially driven either. I would have loved if my SO was able to provide for us financially and otherwise. Truth is he was only spiritually awakened weeks before he became physically challenged. I don't think you could ever understand, but I hope and pray that you will find another man that can and will inspire your faith (or lack thereof) as well as provide for your every need and also want.
When I marry, I will be a provider. I will be a protector, and I will be a spiritual leader. But guess what? My husband will be my EQUAL in those things. Not my superior.

reply from: scopia19822

"Here's another reason I will never marry, I will always be the spiritual head of my home."
The Apostle Paul did say in 1st Corinthians that it is best that some follow his example and not marry. Some people can serve better by not being married.

reply from: scopia19822

"When I marry, I will be a provider. I will be a protector, and I will be a spiritual leader. But guess what? My husband will be my EQUAL in those things. Not my superior."
Liberal, you dont get it..... It is not about men being better than women. It is about the role that God wants us to play in marriage. If it were a company the husband would be president and the wife vice president. Both have a say in matter of the affiars of the home and of the marriage. All major decisions should be discussed between man and wife.If they cant agree on a matter both should talk and try to come to an acceptable compromise. If however the compromise cant be reached then the final decision rest with the husband. Like a board of directors coming to a stalemate on a corportate decision, the chairmen of the board case the deciding vote. In the Senate if they are at a tie on a bill , the the VP cast the deciding vote.

reply from: CharlesD

My wife and I have different roles in our home. In some areas, she has better judgment than I do and in some areas I know better than she does, but we always talk about every major decision that has to be made and come to an agreement. I understand the Biblical idea of headship, but that doesn't give me the rights of a dictator. My wife respects me in that role, but I would be stupid to make any decisions without her input and advice. "Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church." In a proper household, the husband and wife are both submitting to the authority of Christ.

reply from: lukesmom

Thank you Charles, the voice of reason as usual. These last few posts remind me of my "submissive" female German ancestors. Their favorite saying was "behind every good man is a good woman". There is more than one way to be "submissive". LOL!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

No man will EVER have the final say over what I do in life. If I want to do something, I am going to do it. Period. No person has the right to tell me no, and no MAN has the right to do so just because he has a penis.

reply from: Rosalie

I'm tempted to spam every single hateful Faithman post with this particular part of Bible which he, for some reason, ignores...

reply from: Rosalie

Every intelligent person is aware of the fact that this obsolete text you worship is filled with misogyny, you don't really need to post more examples of that.
My fiancé and I have never had problem with that, either, because we consider ourselves equals and we agree on the issues that are most important in our lives.
Nope, that's just your sexist opinion. Being able to take care of yourself and your family is not something that is exclusive to men, nor should it BE only exclusive to men. Every single adult should be able to take proper care of themselves.
Both my fiancé and I are able to take care of our family. We are EQUALS. It's NOT a bad thing.
That's extremely sexist.

reply from: BossMomma

Why is it so hard for you to submit to God?
It's not hard for me to submit to God, I refuse to submit to a man.

reply from: BossMomma

What I mean is that I will never step aside and let a man rule my home or my life. I am perfectly capable of protecting, providing and, educating my children. If I never have a husband I will have no one but God to submit to.

reply from: churchmouse

Gee you dont even need a husband honey, you can do it all. You dont even sound like you need God. You deny the Word and you dont need it. Not all of it. You pick and choose what you like and toss the rest out. You have no clue who the Holy Spirit is.....and you say you know the Bible. Please.
No, you will wear the pants in your family. LOL
You are right, she does not get it. She wont accept the roles God has given men and women. We see here people that do not have enough faith in God to do what He commands. They put what they want ahead of what He commands.
Of course not....you want to run the show. You wont even submit to Gods Word. You wont submit to Him, so why would you ever submit to your husband. This is about what God says Liberal. It is sad that you do not understand that. Your will is stronger than your faith, that much is obvious.
No you refuse to submit to what God commands you to do. And God said and spoke clearly to sumit to your husband.
If you submit to God you follow the entire Word. You dont take or excuse the parts you dissagree with out.

reply from: 4given

Nope, that's just your sexist opinion. Being able to take care of yourself and your family is not something that is exclusive to men, nor should it BE only exclusive to men. Every single adult should be able to take proper care of themselves.
Both my fiancé and I are able to take care of our family. We are EQUALS. It's NOT a bad thing.
I was referring to a spiritual head. Clearly not one that you are familiar with. Many women of faith have spouses that are not Christians or even adhere to an appropriate standard. In that case it is a mother's responsibility to guide her children and pray for her husband. (Nevermind the other needs a family faces and many women do alone due to a lack of a father's presence. Financial, emotional, spiritual strength and security)
Again you clearly do not understand, nor desire to. It isn't sexist by any means. I am blessed to have a spouse that inspires me emotionally, mentally and spiritually. We both feed off of eachother. We both grow together. Both contribute to a household and share in parenting responsibilities. Would it be sexist to suggest that you should be providing for your SO's every need and also want? What about your child? (I am talking about whatever is within reason) Why wouldn't you want to? Why would you not want him to do whatever he could to ensure your happiness and security? Why wouldn't you do the same for him?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Gee you dont even need a husband honey, you can do it all. You dont even sound like you need God. You deny the Word and you dont need it. Not all of it. You pick and choose what you like and toss the rest out. You have no clue who the Holy Spirit is.....and you say you know the Bible. Please.
No, you will wear the pants in your family. LOL
I love pants actually, and I see nothing wrong with being a strong woman who is capable of standing up for herself. I'd never stay in a relationship where I was being forced to have sex even if it hurt me, for example.
You pick and choose too, so don't even try to pull that crap. Stoned anyone to death lately?

reply from: BossMomma

No you refuse to submit to what God commands you to do. And God said and spoke clearly to sumit to your husband.
What husband? God never commanded me to marry.

reply from: Rosalie

I don't beleive in it, no.
I don't find this too nice, actually.
And how is this connected to Christianity?
Unfortunately, I understand completely and that's why I find it sexist.
Yes. I don't want him to provide for every single need and want. I don't want to be stuck at home for the rest of my life. I don't want him to be gone all day long just so he could provide for my every want.
I'd rather both of us are working and provide for our family unit together. That works for us.
We are both providing for her. Why is it such a problem for you?
Because I'm not damsel in distress. And because this is not 1920.
I'm a capable woman, I'm his equal. I don't want the entire financial burden be on him and I don't want to be a housewife all my life. That would not work for either of us.

reply from: carolemarie

Churchmouse:
My church has women and male pastors. We don't think that God only annoints men. He annoints women as well.
And nobody has ever said God didn't create women second. We just are telling you the order makes no difference since we were created as equals.
Men are not suppose to rule over women. We are suppose to joinly rule over creation.
God is our head.

reply from: carolemarie

I am not sure what to think about your post on this.
You have really a terrible time with your husband, he is abusive to you and I think part of it is that he thinks he has the right to tell you what to do. If you really believe what you posted, and that he had the final authority over you, you wouldn't be posting on this board because he doesn't want you to, and he has told you to get over the abortion, and you haven't. In fact you have said that you are unhappy with him.
It doesn't sound like the man in charge thing is working out for you two.

reply from: Rosalie

I don't see it working for anyone, to be honest.

reply from: carolemarie

True, but if you believe that they are suppose to be in charge, then you should live that belief. If you will not obey over posting on a board, which I don't think he should be able to tell her to not do it, then you don't really believe that women are to obey their husbands.

reply from: scopia19822

"I am not sure what to think about your post on this.
You have really a terrible time with your husband, he is abusive to you and I think part of it is that he thinks he has the right to tell you what to do. If you really believe what you posted, and that he had the final authority over you, you wouldn't be posting on this board because he doesn't want you to, and he has told you to get over the abortion, and you haven't. In fact you have said that you are unhappy with him.
It doesn't sound like the man in charge thing is working out for you two."
Things are getting better slowly CM. I think that was because I was trying to be a control freak and dominate every aspect of our lives. I just decided to back off and see how he acts and things are slowly starting to change. I explained to him that I cannot just "get over" the abortion, ever. I will need time and space to come to terms with my grief. As for me posting on this board, he has relented and allowing me to do so as he sees that it helps me to vent if I need to at times. Not to mention the priest of our parish sat down and had a long talk with him on what it means to be a godly husband. I also printed off some literatue about Post Abortion Syndrome and pregnancy loss. But the two things I thinked that helped are me just backing off and the priest setting him straight on a few things.

reply from: carolemarie

I am glad things are getting better, I really am. But your relationship with your husband and how you two set up your relationship is your choice.
My huband and me choose to live a equal.

reply from: 4given

I don't beleive in it, no.
I don't find this too nice, actually.
And how is this connected to Christianity?
Unfortunately, I understand completely and that's why I find it sexist.
Yes. I don't want him to provide for every single need and want. I don't want to be stuck at home for the rest of my life. I don't want him to be gone all day long just so he could provide for my every want.
I'd rather both of us are working and provide for our family unit together. That works for us.
We are both providing for her. Why is it such a problem for you?
Because I'm not damsel in distress. And because this is not 1920.
I'm a capable woman, I'm his equal. I don't want the entire financial burden be on him and I don't want to be a housewife all my life. That would not work for either of us.
Which is fine. You don't understand. I have shared the financial responsibilty and even carried it for a great number of years. For 4 years I worked an average of 56 hours weekly to provide for my family. I have continued to work secondary to the income my spouse contributed. The only difference in the past 2 years is that I left my job to care for our various foster children. None were day-care material. I chose to make whatever sacrifices I could, aware that it may and likely would have an affect on how freely I could spend both money and time with and on our children and selves. At one point, when I was out working and he was caring for my three, I did resent the various woman that I knew that would complain about it and there spouse not being around enough. I gave and lost a lot of precious firsts. It was inconvenient, but I did what I could when we needed it.

reply from: carolemarie

I resent the whole vision forum type of thing. Biblical Womanhood movement, which is slavery for women cloaked in pious talk.

reply from: BossMomma

That is true and no where in the bible does it say women must marry. I shouldn't have had kids out of wedlock according to Gods word and I've asked forgiveness for my fornication. All I can do now is raise my children to be good children and guide them as Christ guides me.

reply from: scopia19822

"That is true and no where in the bible does it say women must marry. I shouldn't have had kids out of wedlock according to Gods word and I've asked forgiveness for my fornication. All I can do now is raise my children to be good children and guide them as Christ guides me."
We all sin Boss, I sin every day and so does everyone else. Nobody is perfect. So what are your thoughts on premarital sex?

reply from: BossMomma

I really don't know to tell the truth, I can't rightly judge someone for it as I've had premarital sex and children outside of marriage. I don't really have an opinion on it, it's kinda like gay marriage, I'd rather just stay out of that can of worms. I can say though that I will teach my daughters to wait for marriage and to be sure that the love is true before giving themselves physically.

reply from: scopia19822

"I really don't know to tell the truth, I can't rightly judge someone for it as I've had premarital sex and children outside of marriage. I don't really have an opinion on it, it's kinda like gay marriage, I'd rather just stay out of that can of worms. I can say though that I will teach my daughters to wait for marriage and to be sure that the love is true before giving themselves physically."
Fair enough. I am a sinner a major sinner. I am a fornicator, adulteress, a "sodomite" as I have been attracted and intimant with men and women. I struggle with the same sex attraction on a daily basis. I however know that God ordained sex in the confines of marriage between a man and a woman. I will teach that to my son and try to guide him to wait until marriage, but if he doesnt it is not an unforgivable sin.

reply from: BossMomma

You were those things, if you asked forgiveness and don't commit those sins anymore I'm pretty sure your square with the lord..though I'm not sure how Catholics handle sin. I was a witch, a bi-sexual, a fornicator and, I've broken just about every commandment save murder and, while I know one day I will have to face judgement for those sins, I don't dwell in them. I move forward towards a brighter more Christ like future.

reply from: carolemarie

The thing is that when Jesus forgave you, He took the penelty. There is no judgement to come for your past sins. God promises to not remember them.
So it is like it never happen.
I think that is so cool....that God just wiped out the past and tells us to live in freedom now. How could you not love Him?

reply from: JRH

Sucks for people who were born in Japan in 200 ad who never heard of Jesus doesn't it? It also sucks for people raised in Muslim countries. Oh well, those people burning in hell forever does not really matter does it?

reply from: carolemarie

God doesn't hold people accountable for what they dont know.

reply from: churchmouse

And I am blessed to have an unbelieving spouse that inspires me emotionally and spiritually. He wants me to pursue my beliefs. And I think God is really working in his life. I strive to be that light to show my husband what loving and adoring God can lead to.
I love God so much, I adore Him, I give Him credit for EVERYTHING GOOD IN MY LIFE......He is my Rock, the air i breathe.......it is easy to do what he commands by allowing my husband the final authority. He blesses me because of it. I am happier, we are closer and my marriage is stronger.
I am a strong woman but I get my strength from God.......not from anything that i do. Because I have allowed Christ to be my savior.....everything falls into place. And my husband is the head of our family. I am more than proud to give him praise and honor as well. And because I am so loving towards him........he throws it back my way.
You certainly show your ignorance Liberal as you usually do when it comes to the Word. You have not read it and as it seems here have never been convicted by it. Do you know yet who the Holy Spirit is ?
Let me know when you find out and maybe we can discuss this further.
You obviously go to a very liberal church. Where in the scriptures does he annoint women to be teachers of men? Why didnt he ever appoint one female disciple? There are influential women in the bible......but not in a pastorial position. Why do you think He never did that? Was he sexist because he did not ask any woman to be disciples? If he though women were equal to men in this capacity dont you think he would have picked one?
It is futile to even discuss this. We read a different Bible. I take it literally and you clearly do not.
Scopia I agree with you 100% your post is right on. I believe this entire power struggle has to do with faith and loving God so much that you trust what is asked of us. They have a power struggle with God we do not. The Word is the Word and it was written as a guide for us to live by. The Word is God breathed.......and I accept every word of it. It is sad that others try to manipulate it for their own benefit. They have not given it all to Him, that much is obvious.
Boy was it meanspirited on your part to say the things you did to Scopia. No marriage is perfect. Scopia has put her faith and trust in God. You should try it, you might be blessed because of it.
I can only imagine what other things you compromise that come from scripture.
It is our choice..........but the command, the rules are set up by God.
Boss said
If you have asked Gods forgiveness then you have every right to judge anothers actions. If you dont, how do you protect yourself, your children from the unrighteous. God says you can judge actions......but you cant judge someones heart. As a Christian you are commanded to spread the Word. COMMANDED. Jesus did not suggest it, HE COMMANDED IT. He wants you to tell people about what he did for you. He wants you to tell people about sin. He does not want you to mind your own business and hide under some rock. If you love and adore Him.....you should want people to know him. If he saved you he can also save others.....the lost. Dont you want others to know what His forgiveness can do? In order for people to repent.....they have to know that their actions are sinful.
I am a sinner too. But today I try to act and think like Christ. I wear Gods armor and he helps me be strong against evil.
Isn't Gods armor wonderful?
God does not keep track of your sins if you are saved. If you ask forgiveness, he washes them away. Of course He really knows what is in your heart and if you really mean it. If you willingly sin on a regular basis and then think that by simply saying I am sorry, he might forgive.....you are going to get Gods hand against your backside. He does this to those who are saved but sin. You cant expect God to bless you when you are sinning against him.
Example: A christian couple who are living together are sinning.

reply from: BossMomma

If you have asked Gods forgiveness then you have every right to judge anothers actions. If you dont, how do you protect yourself, your children from the unrighteous. ?
I choose not to judge someone for things I myself have done. No one brought me to Christ, I brought myself and repented of my own sins. It was the judgemental self rightiousness that made me turn away from Christ in the first place. People are in charge of their own actions and spiritual destination and do not need me shaking my finger at them.

reply from: carolemarie

Churchmouse,
Lets see where do you begin when you make these giant diatribes?
First, my church isn't liberal. We are evangelical Christians. I get the impression you are a Baptist, probably a Southern Baptist, and you are interpreting the bible through your doctrine, rather than learning your doctrine from the bible. Loving God has really very little to do with obeying the rules, it has everything to do with having a relationship with him
I take the bible literally, when it is literal. I know that Jesus is not a literal door, and I can understand the use of metaphores.
And if Scopiea is going to post that she hates her husband and that he has told her not to post on this board, and all of you "Obey the husband people" claim he has no right to tell her to do that, I find it rather amazing she can post that we should obey our husbands when she doesn't do it.
I love God and I have no problem doing what He ask me to do.

reply from: scopia19822

"And if Scopiea is going to post that she hates her husband and that he has told her not to post on this board, and all of you "Obey the husband people" claim he has no right to tell her to do that, I find it rather amazing she can post that we should obey our husbands when she doesn't do it.
I love God and I have no problem doing what He ask me to do."
I have said that things are getting better CM and I have found that instead of being a control freak and just by backing off and giving him the lead things are getting better. He knows that I am not going to "get over" the abortion. He knows that posting on here is a form of threapy for me. He sat down and talked to our parish priest and got a good lesson on what it means to be a Godly husband. I dont think wives should unquestionably obey their husbands and if he asks her to do something that is contrary to the Word of God or can endanger their health or life she can say no. Like if asked me to commit adultery I would say no, if he asked me to do illegal drugs I would say no. Both need to talk about ALL major decsiions and if they cant agree come to a compromise. If that isnt possible then the final say then rests with him. I have said in the private forum that I feel like I am coming to hate him, but alot of people say things when angry. I have just backed off and go with the flow.

reply from: carolemarie

I just don't think you really believe this stuff. You think it is church doctrine, when while it may be CHURCH doctrine, it isn't what God says.
If your husband is in charge of you, then why should you even be allowed to vote? Do you believe you are a child who can't reason and make decisions without his guidence?
The fact is that you are not chattel. You are not an animal that is controlled. You are a person that is valuable and precious to God. You are to obey God, not men.
You are not a slave.

reply from: scopia19822

"I just don't think you really believe this stuff. You think it is church doctrine, when while it may be CHURCH doctrine, it isn't what God says."
Whom are you to tell me what I do and dont believe? It is not just Church doctrine it is in the Scriptures. Read Paul's letters, especially 1st Corinthians. Also read Titus 2 and Proverbs 31.
"If your husband is in charge of you, then why should you even be allowed to vote? Do you believe you are a child who can't reason and make decisions without his guidence?"
You dont get it all CM. It is not about him being "in charge" of me. It is about the roles that God has designed for husband and wife . The man is to be the spiritual leader, the provider and the protector. The wife is to be his helpmeet and keeper of the home. It is more about equaity than the so called equalty that is preached today. Each is equal in the eyes of God, just different.
"The fact is that you are not chattel. You are not an animal that is controlled. You are a person that is valuable and precious to God. You are to obey God, not men. "
I am quite aware of this. I am obeying God by backing off and letting my husband take his rightful place as head of the family. I have said things in the recent past that I regret because I wanted to be in control of everything and everyone in my house. I have have went to confession, repented , been absolved and did my penace. All I can do now is move forward and live the way God wants me too.

reply from: carolemarie

God designed husbands and wives to live in harmony, as a team. Each considering the other better than themselves. I am not under the authority of a man like a good little dog.
The bible talks about the proper behavior between a slave and his master. And people justified slavery because of that. Do you believe slavery is okay according to the bible? This is the exact same thing!

reply from: BossMomma

Some women are more comfortable letting the man lead. I'm not a follower of men hence I will never marry and will likely avoid men like the plague. It's a matter of to each their own.

reply from: carolemarie

If that is your personal choice, cool. If your church imposes that view on women, then that is not cool. My issue is with them claiming that God said that is how He wants it and that the rest of us are disobeying God by not doing it.
And while some men are jerks, some are really great fathers and husbands.

reply from: scopia19822

"God designed husbands and wives to live in harmony, as a team. Each considering the other better than themselves. I am not under the authority of a man like a good little dog.
The bible talks about the proper behavior between a slave and his master. And people justified slavery because of that. Do you believe slavery is okay according to the bible? This is the exact same thing!"
And I am not under my husband like a good little dog either. But the bible says the man is to be spirtual leader of the home, the provider and protector of his family. Marriage is not the same thing as slavery although at times it may be feel so. Slavery was apart of the customs of the times, marriage however is a timeless institution and the standards for marriage stand. Just like the qualifications for the clergy still stands. Women are not to be in the priesthood or the pulpit.

reply from: carolemarie

If slavery, forcing one person to serve another is wrong, then it is wrong in a marriage as well.
Not every woman wants to stay home.

reply from: churchmouse

boss said,
That is not what Christ commands us to do. In order for a person to know they have sinned they have to know they have broken something. They need to understand what the law says. As Christians if we love people, we want them to know they are sinning against God.
I killed my child by abortion. I believe God would want me to witness my sin to others to show them how God can change people. I can judge those that kill. I cant judge their hearts......God does that, but their actions are fair game.
It's not being self righteous.......it's being a loving person that cares enough to tell others about Christ. God commands us to witness his Word.
If you think that woman can head a church, if you deny the trinity, you are liberal IMO.
I belong to a non-denominational bible believing church that answers to know one but God. We are simply a family of believers that take the Bible literally. We believe it is the absolute authority. Doctrine? We believe the Word. I have quoted scripture many of which you dont think should be taken literally. In fact most I quote you deny and think I am interpreting it wrong. Is there anything you take seriously? I mean what CArole do you think should be take literally?
I would bet if you deny giving Christ complete Lordship....that you also think there is no literal hell. Right? I would bet you think gays are not sinning. I would bet you think God will not send unblievers to hell.
Scopia dont listen to carole. You are interpreting the Bible the way God wants you to. The husband is the head. You got that right. She has problems submitting to the Lord. It doesnt make sense for her so she denies it. Hold fast to what you believe and you will be blessed. It is not hard to understand what God is talking about. Carole does not understand the love part of the Bible. That a husband would never ask his wife to do something evil or ungodly. He is commanded to love his wife with great love.....just as Christ loves the Church. God loves us equally this is not about that. This is about doing something we are commanded to do, whether it makes sense or not. If you love God with all your heart you give him the wheel. We dont have a problem doing that.....they do.
You are on the money when you said this Scopia.
But to them we are dogs if we take that role. They see it as a curse not a blessing. They are feminists. They dont get it and they never will until their power struggle ends.
The husband is the head of the household..........GOD SAYS THIS WE DID NOT MAKE IT UP.

You are right in what you said here.

reply from: carolemarie

I don't deny the Trinity! Where do you get these ideas? It is like if I don't agree with you, then I am this terrible heretic!
I believe in hell, I believe in the Lordship of Jesus and I think homosexuality is a sin. I disagree with you over the idea of women having to be under the authority of men and I have told you why and shown you why. I can't help it you refuse to research it for yourself.
The bible tells slaves to submit to their masters. Does that mean slavery is okay with God? Paul doesn't set slaves free and neither did Jesus. Does that mean slavery was ordained by God?
I find your ideas to be a slavery. Jesus came to set the captives free. Not to turn over the keys to another master.

reply from: scopia19822

"If slavery, forcing one person to serve another is wrong, then it is wrong in a marriage as well.
Not every woman wants to stay home."
Husband and wife serve each other. The husband serves his wife by providing and protecting her and the family. The wife serves her husband by keeping his home and by being a helpmate to her husband. I see no reason why a woman cant work outside of the home as this day in time ecomony factors demand it. In Proverbs 31 the Virtious woman engaged in buiness transactions outside of the home both buying and selling. However the husband is to be the breadwinner if he is able to work.

reply from: BossMomma

These days unless your really smart with your money it takes 2 breadwinners.

reply from: scopia19822

"These days unless your really smart with your money it takes 2 breadwinners."
It can be done on a single income one has to be frugal, but sometimes both has to work outside the home. If one cant do without the cable TV , the cell phone, and other luxeries than it takes 2 incomes coming in.

reply from: Rosalie

I'd rather be alone than in this kind of relationship.
A 2,000 year old book for which you have no proof that it was written/inspired by God, a book which was edited heavily and much was lost in translation says this. But of course, you're the type of person who will blindly follow even something like this.
Lukcily, our society has outgrown these outdated, anti-women "standards" for the most part.

reply from: Rosalie

I happen to think it's extremely sad and harmful for your sexuality and confidence to think these things are wrong.
Then again, you're doing this to yourself. You won't listen until you, yourself, realize that this is harmful to you.
What does all this have to do with your original claims? It's like you're suddenly saying something completely different.

reply from: scopia19822

"A 2,000 year old book for which you have no proof that it was written/inspired by God, a book which was edited heavily and much was lost in translation says this. But of course, you're the type of person who will blindly follow even something like this.
Lukcily, our society has outgrown these outdated, anti-women "standards" for the most part"
It is called faith but since you dont have it you wouldnt understand those who do.

reply from: scopia19822

" I happen to think it's extremely sad and harmful for your sexuality and confidence to think these things are wrong.
Then again, you're doing this to yourself. You won't listen until you, yourself, realize that this is harmful to you. "
That once again is your opinion. I was doing more harm to myself by being promiscious than I am now.

reply from: socratease

Sucks for people who were born in Japan in 200 ad who never heard of Jesus doesn't it? It also sucks for people raised in Muslim countries. Oh well, those people burning in hell forever does not really matter does it?
Most Christians do not believe this.
No one will be faulted for what they did not know or could not have known.
They will be judged by whether they lived according to their consciences.

reply from: nancyu

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j214/yodavater/IamaPerson2.jpg

reply from: carolemarie

I'd rather be alone than in this kind of relationship.
A 2,000 year old book for which you have no proof that it was written/inspired by God, a book which was edited heavily and much was lost in translation says this. But of course, you're the type of person who will blindly follow even something like this.
Lukcily, our society has outgrown these outdated, anti-women "standards" for the most part.
x

reply from: 4given

What claims? I stated my opinion, that men are called as spiritual leaders of a Christian home, unless the spouse is not saved. Then it is a woman's responsibility to rear her children in faith and pray for her spouse to become awakened. Men should care for and provide for the family as well. You were the one that apparently didn't understand my point. You continue to read what you want to, as opposed to what is actually there.

reply from: faithman

What claims? I stated my opinion, that men are called as spiritual leaders of a Christian home, unless the spouse is not saved. Then it is a woman's responsibility to rear her children in faith and pray for her spouse to become awakened. Men should care for and provide for the family as well. You were the one that apparently didn't understand my point. You continue to read what you want to, as opposed to what is actually there.
Yeah. Its called selective reality. Death scancs, fetus killers, and false pro-lifers all seem to suffer from it. They just get to project what ever they think on everything, no matter if it is true or not. I am beginning to think that it is an incurable condition.

reply from: 4given

Have faith. A new generation has been awakened. Justice will come.
Deuteronomy 19:10
Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land, which the LORD your God is giving you as your inheritance, and so that you will not be guilty of bloodshed.
Deuteronomy 19:13
Show him no pity. You must purge from Israel the guilt of shedding innocent blood, so that it may go well with you.
Deuteronomy 21:9
So you will purge from yourselves the guilt of shedding innocent blood, since you have done what is right in the eyes of the LORD.
1 Kings 2:31
Then the king commanded Benaiah, "Do as he says. Strike him down and bury him, and so clear me and my father's house of the guilt of the innocent blood that Joab shed.
2 Kings 21:16
Moreover, Manasseh also shed so much innocent blood that he filled Jerusalem from end to end - besides the sin that he had caused Judah to commit, so that they did evil in the eyes of the LORD.
2 Kings 21:15-17 (in Context) 2 Kings 21 (Whole Chapter)
2 Kings 24:4
including the shedding of innocent blood. For he had filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the LORD was not willing to forgive.
2 Kings 24:3-5 (in Context) 2 Kings 24 (Whole Chapter)
Psalm 106:38
They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood.
Psalm 106:37-39 (in Context) Psalm 106 (Whole Chapter)
Proverbs 6:17
haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood,
Proverbs 6:16-18 (in Context) Proverbs 6 (Whole Chapter)
Isaiah 59:7
Their feet rush into sin; they are swift to shed innocent blood. Their thoughts are evil thoughts; ruin and destruction mark their ways.
Isaiah 59:6-8 (in Context) Isaiah 59 (Whole Chapter)
Jeremiah 7:6
if you do not oppress the alien, the fatherless or the widow and do not shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not follow other gods to your own harm,
Jeremiah 7:5-7 (in Context) Jeremiah 7 (Whole Chapter)
Jeremiah 22:3
This is what the LORD says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the alien, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place.
Jeremiah 22:2-4 (in Context) Jeremiah 22 (Whole Chapter)
Jeremiah 22:17
"But your eyes and your heart are set only on dishonest gain, on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion."
Jeremiah 22:16-18 (in Context) Jeremiah 22 (Whole Chapter)
Jeremiah 26:15
Be assured, however, that if you put me to death, you will bring the guilt of innocent blood on yourselves and on this city and on those who live in it, for in truth the LORD has sent me to you to speak all these words in your hearing."
Jeremiah 26:14-16 (in Context) Jeremiah 26 (Whole Chapter)
Joel 3:19
But Egypt will be desolate, Edom a desert waste, because of violence done to the people of Judah, in whose land they shed innocent blood.
Joel 3:18-20 (in Context) Joel 3 (Whole Chapter)
Matthew 27:4
"I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood." "What is that to us?" they replied. "That's your responsibility."
Matthew 27:3-5 (in Context) Matthew 27 (Whole Chapter)

reply from: churchmouse

Then I apologize if I thought you denied Jesus was God.
I have researched this topic and posted scripture after scripture to which you will make no comment on. You make the general statement they are wrong.....but you post nothing to counter the scriptures I give.
Jesus said what he did......and I submit to His commands. I believe the overwhelming evidence in scripture says that husbands are the Head.......
Why dont you address the scriptures that i gave?
I never said or implied woman could not work. I said the husband was head of the household. Christ said this. How do you toss those scriptures out?
I realize everything does not center around me, me, me. When you stop doing that you might learn to serve others.
Outgrown? Our society is rejecting the Word and it certainy shows. The basis for the Christian worldview of course is God revelation in scripture. Many believers fail to understand that Scripture is intended to be the basis for all life. Genuine Christianity is more than a relationship with Jesus, as expressed by personal piety, church attendance, Bible study, works of charity. Its more than discipleship, more than believing a system of doctrines about God. Genuine Christianity is a way of seeing and comprehending all reality. It's a worldview. All truth is Gods truth. People like you reject this....you have no moral center because it changes daily. Truth for you is in the eyes of the beholder. You pick and choose what is right and wrong.....in fact there is no absolute morality. And look at the result of that kind of a worldview.
Just as certain physical actions produce predictable reactions, moral behavior produces predictable consequences. Take a look around Roslaie. Adultery in might be glamorous but what in real life does it produce? Broken families, relationships, anger rage, even violence. Defiance of moral laws may even lead to death. The speeding car driven by a drunk that kills a mother coming home from the grocery store,, the sexually immoral person who though his sex infects an innocent person with AIDS. Look at society today...
Bullhockey.
So if someone rapes someone and has no remorse and their conscience tellls them their actions were right.........its ok and acceptable.
We will be judged on the Word of God. We will be judged on who we think Christ is. We will be judged on whether we accepted Christs free gift of salvation.

reply from: socratease

You took my comment out of context.
I was referring to those who have never heard the Word of God.
Most people in the world will never learn about Jesus as we know Him.
They will not be condemned for igonance that was not their fault and will be judged by their consciences, and they would know by their own consceinces that rape is wrong.

reply from: carolemarie

I have, over and over!
That is the problem! You think Christianity is a world view. it is not a world view. You can have a world view, but that isn't what Christianity is.
It is a relationship with Jesus.
A worldview is a grid to look at things through, and the "christian worldview" isn't necessarily right.
A relationship is between people.
God doesn't want us to have a worldview. He wants us to have a relationshipp with his son Jesus.
Jesus told us to LOVE one another, not to condenm and judge them. We are to tell the truth in love.
A male as head violates that. You can't have a relationship of equals if one has all the power. That is called slavery.

reply from: BossMomma

I never said or implied woman could not work. I said the husband was head of the household. Christ said this. How do you toss those scriptures out?
By not getting married, duh..If there is no husband in the house and the house belongs to me, I am the head of the house. No man is welcome to live in my house, I am not seeking relations and wont for many years to come. How am I tossing scriptures out?

reply from: micah

Where exactly is this in the Bible?

reply from: scopia19822

"By not getting married, duh..If there is no husband in the house and the house belongs to me, I am the head of the house. No man is welcome to live in my house, I am not seeking relations and wont for many years to come. How am I tossing scriptures out?"
The apostle Paul said that it is wise that some dont marry as they can focus their attention on serving Christ. You clearly to me seem to not be meant for marriage, but then only God really knows that. The best way you can serve the Lord is to live as Christ like as possible and raise your children in the faith. However if a Godly man does come into your life and is willing to love you and your children dont dismiss him so quiclky because of what men have done in the past too you. I have did that with my husband and am paying dearly for it.

reply from: BossMomma

I don't trust men, they are like time bombs waiting to go off. My husband was a 'Godly' man, church going, tithe paying, a believer in the faith; right up until he started using me as his own personal punching bag and using that bible to justify it.
My boyfriend of 2 years was loving, respected my choices, let me practice my paganism and even joined in. But at the very idea that I would bring forth a child of his that wasn't absolutely perfect he turned his back, leaving me to grieve my dead son and raise our two daughters on my own. A heart can only take so much pain and betrayal, to me it just isn't worth it. I can raise my children in the way Christ teaches and keep them safe and happy on my own, I prefer being alone anyway.

reply from: Rosalie

Do what feels best for you. It's the only way you can be really sure that you are living your life the way you chose it. We are all individuals and we are best suited for different things.
And I'm sorry you have been treated so horribly. I don't think they were that way because they were men but because they were poor human beings in general but you couldn't have known that, as so many people only show their true colors when the bad times come.

reply from: Rosalie

I do not and will not pursue blind faith. You have that correct.
Of course it is my opinion. What else would it be?
What claims? I stated my opinion, that men are called as spiritual leaders of a Christian home, unless the spouse is not saved. Then it is a woman's responsibility to rear her children in faith and pray for her spouse to become awakened. Men should care for and provide for the family as well. You were the one that apparently didn't understand my point. You continue to read what you want to, as opposed to what is actually there.
Your claims about men being a spiritual head of the household. We were exchanging our opinions on that and then you suddenly started talking about providing for your family. I just don't see the connection here. That previous commenf of yours felt absolutely out of context.
And like I said before, I strongly disagree with that entire concept, it's just playing into the patriarchal view of roles of men and women and that's something I'll never agree with because I think it's wrong.

reply from: churchmouse

Yes it is a personal relationship with Christ......but it is a worldview in a sense. This is an awesome study to do. This is a good description about worldviews.
http://www.thetruthproject.org/about/culturefocus/A000000042.cfm

One can claim to be a Christian but not have a biblical worldview based on the scriptures.
"It is important to remember that a worldview is comprehensive. It affects every area of life, from money to morality, from politics to art. True Christianity is more than a set of ideas to use at church. Christianity as taught in the Bible is itself a worldview. The Bible never distinguishes between a "religious" and a "secular" life; the Christian life is the only life there is. Jesus proclaimed Himself "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6) and, in doing so, became our Weltanschauung / worldview."
http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-worldview.html

Of course Christ is the CENTER OF ANY PERSONS CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW. And it is the relationship with Him that shapes all views about the world.
This might explin it further.......Ravi Zacharius is awesome. This is a wonderful video.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=what+is+a+worldview+beliefs&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-105&fr2=rs-top&rs=0&xargs=0&pstart=1&b=21&xa=mZTs3bCZRzoQc6xlpqnQGQ--,1231085543

"The believer's challenge is to build a worldview based in the truth found in the Scriptures. But that project begins by first understanding that we all have worldviews, whether we realize it or not.'
We as believers build our worldview based in the truth found in scriptures. And when we do that and live what we have come to know as the TRUTH...... we see how other worldviews differ from our own. They lack the one thing that holds us together that makes us who we are.......JESUS CHRIST.
Being a Christian is even more than just having a personal relationship with Christ. Its putting into practice His Word and allowing the Word to affect our interaction with our world. Its like putting on special glasses. The Word affects how we interact, how we witness, how we live in all ways with the world......including unbelievers.
The glassses I put on are Christ centered......I see everything and base everything on HIm and how He wants me to interact with people. Like Zacharius said in that video......everyone has a worldview.
On judging. Where Carole does God say we should give everyone a free pass by not judging their actions?
If we did not judge people according to their actions, how would we protect ourselves. We have every right to judge people. God wants us to judge people fairly. He said marry someone equally yoked which means that you be the same faith. A christian should never marry an unbeliever. To do that you have to judge, that someone does not measure up.
If we did not judge then any Christian should be able to walk in a strip club, or subscribe to a porn magazine or go to ungodly places. Would you let your child go to a friends home where you knew the father was abusive to the mother? Would you take your car to a place that you know did crappy service?
We judge every day of our lives.
Any Christian can make (righteous) moral judgments and say that the actions of someone were morally wrong, and that the sins will have eternal consequences. I love what Chuck Colson has to say about this...he said, "True tolerance is not a total lack of judgment. It's knowing what should be tolerated - and refusing to tolerate that which shouldn't."
1 Corinthians 5:11-13, says
"I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people, not at all referring to the immoral of this world or the greedy and robbers or idolaters; for you would then have to leave the world.
But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person.
For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within?
God will judge those outside. "Purge the evil person from your midst."
What is he saying here? Outsiders are unbelievers....Insiders are believers..........Is it not YOUR business to judge insiders?
Paul is saying we are not responsible for judging unbelievers, but WE ARE REQUIRED TO JUDGE OUR FELLOW BELIEVERS. Plain and simple.

Now read 1 Corinthians 6:1-4

1 "It is widely reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of a kind not found even among pagans--a man living with his father's wife.
2 And you are inflated with pride. Should you not rather have been sorrowful? The one who did this deed should be expelled from your midst.
3 I, for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced JUDGEMENT on the one who has committed this deed,
4 in the name of (our) Lord Jesus: when you have gathered together and I am with you in spirit with the power of the Lord Jesus,
5 you are to this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord."
Leaders are expected to judge those whom they lead. Hebrews 13:7 and 13:17....it is clear church leadership is expected to exercise authority and maintain discipline. If a leader sees a member in sin......you think he should do nothing? Or protect those who remain?
WE ARE TO HELP THOSE IN SIN, SO THAT THEY MIGHT SEE THEIR ERRORS.........SO THAT THEIR SPIRIT MAY BE SAVED......of course like you say this all should be done with love and kindness. Just like I ministered to my daughters friend. She had to know the truth.
You assume CArole the primary function of judging is to punish the wicked. Its NOT, that's secondary. The primary function of judging is to PROTECT THE RIGHTEOUS. It is NEVER in line with Gods will to deal with righteous as with the wicked.
We as Christian have every right to judge believers behavior and actions. We are not however responsible for the final evaluation of anyones character, including our own. (1 Corinthians 4:4)
God alone has this authority. We are responsible to judge conduct and relationships. We are not to base this on our feelings, or by the opinions of society or even by our own estimation of ourselves. We are to judge conduct and relationships by the CLEAR TEACHING AND STANDARDS REVEALED IN THE WORD OF GOD.
____________________________


I never said that if you did not have a husband that you were not the head of your home. I am talking about married couples. Do you agree that the man is head......in a marriage? If you dont....then that is where my comment comes in because I think scripture is pretty plain about the fact that he would be the spiritual head.
Like scopia said,

reply from: BossMomma

I never said that if you did not have a husband that you were not the head of your home. I am talking about married couples. Do you agree that the man is head......in a marriage? If you dont....then that is where my comment comes in because I think scripture is pretty plain about the fact that he would be the spiritual head.
I feel that a man should have to earn and qualify for that title, if the man is an idiot he has no right to be the spiritual head of anything. If the woman is the one with her head on straight and is guiding the family down the right path I feel she should be the head of the family. A penis and a set of testes does not a good leader make.

reply from: scopia19822

"I don't trust men, they are like time bombs waiting to go off. My husband was a 'Godly' man, church going, tithe paying, a believer in the faith; right up until he started using me as his own personal punching bag and using that bible to justify it."
I have some trust issues with men as well given all that I have been through. Your husband was not a Godly man, a Godly man loves his wife as Christ loved the Church and would lay down his own life for her if need be. Not use her as his personal doormat and punching bag.. Dont think all men are the same they are not, although at times it does seem like it. There are good ones out they are a rare jewel today. Your children need a good postive male role model in their lives it can be a family member you trust if you have them around or someone from your church. I understand your anger at your ex for abandoning you when he found out his child wasnt flawless, but hopefully in time you will be able to forgive him. Not forget what he did, but forgiveness is a core beleife in Christianty and faith is journery. As I heard it put once if one cant forgive others than how can you expect others to forgive you. I have finally forgiven my ex for what he did to me, and believe me it feels so much better than to carry all of that anger and bitterness.

reply from: BossMomma

Why? I never had one in my life and I did just fine. I'm aware that their are good, loving, decent men out there..unfortunantly they are all either married, or gay.

reply from: scopia19822

"Why? I never had one in my life and I did just fine. I'm aware that their are good, loving, decent men out there..unfortunantly they are all either married, or gay"
I agree with the last part, the good ones dont stay available for long. I dont know if you have a son or not, but I learned in Developmental Psyc in college that for children there primary role model is the same sex parent and usually it is recommended for single moms to make sure there children, especially boys have a postive male role model, it can be a family member, a family friend or someone from church.

reply from: BossMomma

I have a six year old son whose father is still in his life, the two are nearly inseperable. My ex-husband treated me like crap but after a reality check he shaped out to be a good dad. My daughters have a grandfather and uncles to look up to so I guess they aren't devoid of male rolemodels.

reply from: scopia19822

"I have a six year old son whose father is still in his life, the two are nearly inseperable. My ex-husband treated me like crap but after a reality check he shaped out to be a good dad. My daughters have a grandfather and uncles to look up to so I guess they aren't devoid of male rolemodels."
Than you have it covered! Sadly there alot of single moms that dont have family or friends they can trust to be good role models for their kids.

reply from: BossMomma

That is true, I never did. I never really had a role model; as a kid I idolized strong women in movies like GI Jane. I wanted to be a Navy Seal and joined ROTC just to get a taste of military life and it was there my childhood dream was crushed; I was coldly informed that females could not join that elite group because we were weak.
I still tried for the Army and would have gotten in had I passed the ASVAP, not sure if it was the math section or the engineering section that killed me. After that I decided on prison guard, I do my job well and put foot to criminal ass as well as any man. I was satisfied.

reply from: scopia19822

"That is true, I never did. I never really had a role model; as a kid I idolized strong women in movies like GI Jane. I wanted to be a Navy Seal and joined ROTC just to get a taste of military life and it was there my childhood dream was crushed; I was coldly informed that females could not join that elite group because we were weak."
I personally dont like the ideas of women in a combat situation and I dont support the idea of women being drafted at all. As a general rule men and women are different in both physical strength and emotionally. There are exceptions to the rule and I would say you would be an exception.
"I still tried for the Army and would have gotten in had I passed the ASVAP, not sure if it was the math section or the engineering section that killed me. After that I decided on prison guard, I do my job well and put foot to criminal ass as well as any man. I was satisfied."
Do you work in a maximium security prision? I could not be in such close proximty to dangerous sex offenders and the like. I am also very clausterphobic

reply from: BossMomma

I work in a medium to minimum security prison, all the max units are in Huntsville which is a good 4 hour drive from where I'm at. Sex offenders are actually some of the most physically harmless offenders, they keep a low profile. It's the gangs that are our current problem children, currently we have had a lot of heat from MS13 and the Puro Tango Blast. They are still classified as cliques as they are unorganized, unlike the Texas Syndicate, the Aryan Brotherhood or other well established gangs.
I've got lots of stories about the gangs I've butted heads with but the scariest part is that a gang member that is locked up can put a hit on you with connections on the outside if they manage to correspond with outside connections.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I fully support the female draft. I think it's incredibly prejudiced that we are not included. If war ever broke out, I'd draft myself! Then again I'm really patriotic. I might not be able to physically fight on the front lines, but I have other skills to contribute. Other women can fight, and should have the right to do so.

reply from: scopia19822

"fully support the female draft. I think it's incredibly prejudiced that we are not included. If war ever broke out, I'd draft myself! Then again I'm really patriotic. I might not be able to physically fight on the front lines, but I have other skills to contribute. Other women can fight, and should have the right to do so."
I dont. I am a wife and a mother whos husband is disabled and a 5 yr old son who needs his mother. Who would take care of my son and husband if I was drafted? It is one thing to have a man go off and fight for his country as men are generally better equipped emotionally and physically to handle combat. I am a Catholic who does not believe in an unjust war , should I be forced to violate my religious beliefs and go to war killing people? During WW2 us women did our part in the war effort by working in factories and doing what we could to help our troops overseas fighting. We have enough men to draft if the need arose, but women should not be drafted or forced into combat. We will be needed here to take over the jobs the men who are fighting have left behind.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

There are exceptions to the male draft, and there would obviously be exceptions to the female draft as well.

reply from: carolemarie

We do not have a draft in America right now.
I don't think I could kill or hurt another person. I would make a dreadful soldier.

reply from: BossMomma

I could kill to protect myself or my children..especially my children, but invading another country and killing others over some political disagreement? I don't think so.

reply from: faithman

A little to late on that one. ?Unless you were lying about killing three.

reply from: 4given

May God bless and protect our service men and women! Return them safely to their families Lord In Jesus Name, Amen.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yes we do. Every male must register for it at age 18 or he is not allowed to vote. It hasn't been activated but the list is there.

reply from: churchmouse

Bossmomma said,
Wow You are around some dangerous people. Cant you find something safer to do? Don't you worry about your children?
Carole said,
I am not sure I could either, unless they were physically hurting someone else and I was witnessing the act. I probably would shoot them in their legs or arms so they couldnt use them......then go get help. You never know what you would do in a situation like that.
Boss said,
So do you think it was wrong to take Hitler and Sadam out?

reply from: BossMomma

Wow You are around some dangerous people. Cant you find something safer to do? Don't you worry about your children?
Carole said,
I am not sure I could either, unless they were physically hurting someone else and I was witnessing the act. I probably would shoot them in their legs or arms so they couldnt use them......then go get help. You never know what you would do in a situation like that.
Boss said,
So do you think it was wrong to take Hitler and Sadam out?
To answer your first question, no I would not seek other employment, I'm not afraid. Police officers, firefighters, soldiers are parents too, they risk leaving children behind as well but they perform a very important role for the American people. I do not fear the gangs as I have learned from them how to handle them.
Do I think it was wrong to take out Hitler and Sadam? First off we didn't take Hitler out, he committed suicide. Sadam however was not our problem, our fight was with Afganistan but Bush Jr. wanted Iraq's oil and so invaded under the false belief that they were manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. A war waged to protect ones country and people is not the same as one waged in greed.

reply from: churchmouse

Why did he commit suicide? We took his forces out and he knew it was the end and if he was ever captured he would get the ax.
I do not believe it had anything to do with it. Bush had reliable evidence that there were WMD's. We did not go to war on false pretenses. He was not the only one that examined the documents.
Not only did we and allied intelligence agencies assert that the weapons were there, Hussein played a game of convincing enemies such as Iran, and even his own generals, that he had such weapons, all while protesting to United Nations inspectors that he did not.
Bush was not the only one who thought there were weapons there. This was one year after the towers came down. The congress the house looked at the evidence. The big Democrats approved, Tom Daschle and Richard Gephardt, John Edwards.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

In fact this is what Gephardt said.
He wasn't sure he even had them......but voted to go to war. Even John Kerry said that if Sadam didnt have them he still would vote to go.
To blame Bush is a cop out. Its funny how liberals, democrats want to run and pretend as if the Iraq War is someone else's mess.
All these liberals think that what we did in Iraq was so wrong. We brought down a dictator who was killing millions of his own people, we liberated an oppressed people while putting to rest any doubts that their party could be trusted to maintain national security. This is bad?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I don't actually think the war in Iraq is wrong, and I'm liberal. I think we need to end it properly too.

reply from: scopia19822

We had no right to interfere in the affairs of a sovereign nation. I think the Iraqi people like the people of IRan who overthrew the Shah would have eventually been able to do the same with Saddam.

reply from: churchmouse

Well we did and we helped the nation rid themselves of a Hitleresque dictator.
And as Martha Stewart says, "Thats a good thing."

reply from: LiberalChiRo

If the French had not helped us during the Revolution we would not have won.

reply from: scopia19822

"Well we did and we helped the nation rid themselves of a Hitleresque dictator."
No we just got involved in another nations civil war. Didnt we learn from Vietnam?

reply from: scopia19822

"If the French had not helped us during the Revolution we would not have won."

Maybe, maybe not. My family fought for the British as many South Carolina planters did.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yes, and that's part of the reason why we needed the French's help. There were many key battles that were won only because of French aid.

reply from: BossMomma

Why did he commit suicide? We took his forces out and he knew it was the end and if he was ever captured he would get the ax.
I do not believe it had anything to do with it. Bush had reliable evidence that there were WMD's. We did not go to war on false pretenses. He was not the only one that examined the documents.
Not only did we and allied intelligence agencies assert that the weapons were there, Hussein played a game of convincing enemies such as Iran, and even his own generals, that he had such weapons, all while protesting to United Nations inspectors that he did not.
Bush was not the only one who thought there were weapons there. This was one year after the towers came down. The congress the house looked at the evidence. The big Democrats approved, Tom Daschle and Richard Gephardt, John Edwards.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/
">http://archives.cnn.com/2002/A.../10/11/iraq.us/
In fact this is what Gephardt said.
He wasn't sure he even had them......but voted to go to war. Even John Kerry said that if Sadam didnt have them he still would vote to go.
To blame Bush is a cop out. Its funny how liberals, democrats want to run and pretend as if the Iraq War is someone else's mess.
All these liberals think that what we did in Iraq was so wrong. We brought down a dictator who was killing millions of his own people, we liberated an oppressed people while putting to rest any doubts that their party could be trusted to maintain national security. This is bad?
I'm a republican first off, I do not feel that we should have wasted billions waging war with a country that hadn't done jack crap to us while our economy fell apart. It was sad what was going on in Iraq but I feel that America should come first, take care of your own first and then worry about outsiders. I do blame Bush Jr. as the whole reason we are in danger of a second Depression is because he felt the need to show his balls to the wrong country and got thousands of our troops killed in a needless war.

reply from: churchmouse

We shouldnt have stopped Hitler either, right? Vietnam was totally different.
The World does not help us anyway. We are supposed to help the World. We owe it to them. LOL
I believe as the worlds superpower we need to keep our foot in the door. If the foot ticks off people, so be it. I do not feel this was a needless war. We liberated that country. And stopping The Butcher of Baghdad was a bad thing, right?
How do you think he got that name?
http://www.webloggin.com/report-about-an-hour-until-judgment-time-for-saddam/

To bad Sadam is not alive to keep adding to his graveyard. Is that what you guys think? Every soldiers death to stop this manic was for NOTHING?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=akl_qUpCJNmk&refer=top_world_news

I think you have lived in a free country to long. Take a hike over there and try living the way those people had to live.

reply from: BossMomma

We shouldnt have stopped Hitler either, right? Vietnam was totally different.
The World does not help us anyway. We are supposed to help the World. We owe it to them. LOL
I believe as the worlds superpower we need to keep our foot in the door. If the foot ticks off people, so be it. I do not feel this was a needless war. We liberated that country. And stopping The Butcher of Baghdad was a bad thing, right?
How do you think he got that name?
http://www.webloggin.com/report-about-an-hour-until-judgment-time-for-saddam/
">http://www.webloggin.com/repor...ime-for-saddam/
To bad Sadam is not alive to keep adding to his graveyard. Is that what you guys think? Every soldiers death to stop this manic was for NOTHING?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=akl_qUpCJNmk&refer=top_world_news
">http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...=top_world_news
I think you have lived in a free country to long. Take a hike over there and try living the way those people had to live.
I wasn't born over there, I was born over here where my countrymen and women died for a cause not their own. Saddam didn't add to his graveyard, we did it for him and added to our own. I think you have lived with your head in your rectum for too long, pop it out and breathe deep the smell of a country facing financial ruin just so we can 'liberate' every third world country too stupid and divided to do it themselves.

reply from: scopia19822

"Yes, and that's part of the reason why we needed the French's help. There were many key battles that were won only because of French aid."
We asked for the French's help, they did not offer or interfere with our war. The Iraqis did not ask for us to interfere, we took it upon ourselves. Bush did not care about the Iraqi people, all he wanted was to avenge his father and get a hold of those vast oil feilds. Saddam only said he had WMDs to scare off Iran which Iraq had been at war with through most of the 80s, but there were no WMDS

reply from: LiberalChiRo

There is the primary difference; but the general citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq couldn't exactly ask for help.

reply from: lycan

The Taliban have been gaining the upper ground in Afghanistan, partly because we've had something like eight times as many troops in Iraq. One difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is that in 2001 Afghanistan under AlQaeda really did attack us. Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons, is vulnerable to an AQ takeover partly as a result of this. Our actions in Iraq have also made it harder to address the possibility that Iran might get the Bomb.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics