The CBE Scroll

Comment by Janet

May 8, 2007 @ 11:23 am

Liz,
Good posting. I couldn’t agree with you more; we must start with the character of God and read the Biblical passages through Him.

When I was a young girl growing up in a mixed secular/church going family, my dad repeatedly informed me that everything about my life was in order to please a man. So, my weight had to be a certain weight or else a man wouldn’t want me. They were only sending me to university to get a BA in case of divorce, so I would have something to fall back on, in case a man didn’t want me. And then when I decided to do an MBA, my dad told me, you have too much education, no man will want you. Then there is the dating experience, where man after man tells you “don’t do that, it won’t fit in my career; my plans, etc, etc.”

Of course, I lived in constant turmoil for years and years, knowing somehow that what I was told wasn’t true, but not knowing why. I knew that I was ‘equal’; meaning that I could choose to make of myself wonderful things; I had skills and abilities that certainly a ‘good man’ [although I hadn't met one yet] would say, ‘Jan, you have got to develop your skills; you are good at that. God has a purpose for your life’.

Why is it, that so many men try to remake their women in their image? And then when they have done this, they leave them? [sometimes] It is a bizarre ritual that men and women engage in. I know it is due to the fall now because God got a hold of me 10 years ago. Being reborn I now know that everything I had been taught was a lie. I wasn’t on this earth to be recreated for a man in his image. God created me to be a unique individual made in the image of God, unique and valuable in my own way. And if I chose to be married, then my husband would benefit by the unique and valuable talents, passion, character, etc. that I would bring to that relationship. This is true equality in a marriage; a blending of the uniqueness of each individual both made in the image of God.

It is strange, as I have grasped the wonderfulness of this, I have become quite content. I watch others in turmoil at my contentness, always trying to make me feel like somehow I am incomplete. Even Christians: they say you are complete in Christ, but when it comes to women, they don’t really mean it. You try to get them to see that this belief is part of the fall, but it is just so ingrained in our culture and traditions, it is very difficult for most to overcome it.

But even if this is the case, as Liz said so well, we must still keep spreading the Good News that we are all complete in Christ, truly equal in the eyes of God regardless of gender, race or class.

Comment by Rob

May 8, 2007 @ 3:47 pm

…other gender specific typecasting, which ultimately can be used to ‘prove’ that God has made us differently and for different roles.

I understand what you’re getting at, but I’m not sure the conclusion you draw is really what’s at stake. For instance, I don’t doubt that God created both man and woman equally and that both were made in God’s image (i.e., in both maleness and femaleness). But God did in fact make us differently. A man’s body differs in some functions from a woman’s. I know this isn’t up for debate, and I’d also agree that these differences shouldn’t limit or valuate either sex.

It also gives occasion for the persistent view that man’s sexual ‘needs’ dominate their being which is another insult to God as creator.

I find this sentence to be a very odd leap from the previous. Nevertheless, I feel the need to respond, I being a man. Hypothetically speaking, let’s assume that for a certain number of men (perhaps 20%, perhaps 80%, whatever is a comfortable number without gender typecasting), sexual needs do dominate their being. Why would that be an insult to God? For that same sample group — and indeed for all women as well — breathing and eating dominate their being. Why would any need be an insult to God, simply for being a need? Or were your quotation marks surrounding the word intended to be satirical? Perhaps I’m sidetracking the discussion, but I just tripped hard over this sentence which was offered as evidence to support gender equality.

Comment by Craighton

May 8, 2007 @ 4:28 pm

My observation is that the attempted remaking of the spouse goes both ways. How many young women fall for the “bad boy” and marry him with full intentions of “improving” him? How many wives think their husbands are fashion plate disasters and set about changing what they wear? How many Christian men are stuck in jobs they hate because they pay well and there is family pressure to keep up a life style that is ungodly in its materialism or to avoid the perceived “failure” of going backwards economically.

Even in egalitarian marriages like mine, where appreciation of each other’s gifts and “unique and valuable” talents exist in strong measure, there may be areas that one of the spouses think are their gifts, but the other thinks are just a bother. Or strange mixes of odd upbringing and/or subcultural influences. Or just dead wrong.

As I’ve said many times before, marriage is hard work, whether husband and wife are both complementarian, egalitarian or adherents to some other theological theory that stumbles across their paths. And every theological theory has its strengths and weaknesses, especially as it works out its implications and effects in real flesh and blood lives.

Comment by LMcC (was LJR)

May 8, 2007 @ 7:06 pm

Rob, let me see if I can explain it to you without getting too graphic:

There are some subgroups of Christianity that pervert 1 Corinthians 7:4. Instead of recognizing the mutuality in the passage, half of the verse is for all practical purposes left off to justify man’s sexual needs being more important than the woman’s needs for (fill in the blank, anything will work).

Of course, the people teaching this will never say that they leave stuff out. Instead, they say that since men’s sex drives are so much higher than women’s, women are more likely to say no to their husbands, and that’s sinful. Since these same people also believe that men must rule women, these men can’t have their marital rights denied, now, can they?

Not only is this verse misused to make women sinful for not wanting sex as much as their husbands, it is also used to justify making wives submit to sexual practices that they find distasteful or painful, and it has even been used to justify marital rape.

That kind of junk is what Liz describes. Instead of having a true Godly one-flesh unity in marriage, men are reduced to having to follow their urges without restraint, and women are reduced to nothing more than a means to satisfy those urges. One becomes an animal, the other an object. I’d say that obscuring the image of God in us in that way is an insult to Him.

I have had the misfortune to sit in Christian school classes that taught exactly this kind of doctrine, and it nearly scared me off of ever getting married. Fortunately for Mr. McC, I discovered this place and got deprogrammed.

By the way, without going too deep into TMI territory, a weird and wonderful thing happens when the wife is free to say no. The chances of her wanting to say it will often decrease dramatically.

Comment by Kathryn

May 8, 2007 @ 7:11 pm

Re: comment # 1:
I absolutely agree with what you are saying. After all, equality isn’t about making everyone to be the same; to me, equality means that no one has authority over others in the Kingdom because of gender, skin color or previous religious background (Genesis 1:27, Galatians 3:28). We are called to be like Christ. If anything, these “cookie cutter” gender roles force women (and men too) to think alike, act alike and look alike more than anything else I can think of. As I said on another post, “Stepford Wives” wasn’t totally fiction. Godly character, God-given callings, and spiritual giftings are qualities for leadership, and they don’t come in pink and blue. We are to serve the Lord according to our giftings (I Timothy 4:14, II Timothy 1:6).

Comment by Mary

May 8, 2007 @ 10:42 pm

Rob, I think it’s an issue of our being created in God’s image, for the purpose of glorifying God. We, unlike the animals, were not created primarily to reproduce. We ought not to define ourselves, nor attempt to define other people, by our reproductive functions.

That is one reason why it’s such an insult (one hopes unintended) when people claim that a woman’s “highest calling” is to bear children. A human being’s highest calling is to love God and neighbor, according to Jesus Christ (who, incidentally, did not marry and did not father children). Women, like men, are human beings and therefore women should attain first and most of all to be godly. (Godliness does not equal reproductive fertility!)

I don’t mean there is ANYTHING at all dishonorable about men fathering and women giving birth to children. That is a wonderful gift from God for the majority of people. But the potential to reproduce is common to all created, living beings. Human beings are uniquely able, being created in God’s image, to be godly; that is how we ought to be defining ourselves and one another and what ought to “dominate” our beings. We are to subordinate our desires and passions to the will of God, not permit them to dominate us. I don’t doubt that this is not easy; I know it hasn’t been easy for me much of the time. However, I agree that it insults God for us to define ourselves by our fertility or to allow sexual desire to rule over us. That is what the world teaches us, and so many people buy into it. What misery that has created throughout human history!

Meanwhile, we’re called by God to bear fruit that will endure in God’s Reign. Even those of us who never bear children, can–indeed, must–bear bountiful fruit for God. While we may be called to marriage and family, that is not what ought to define us as human beings. It is tragic when little girls are taught that their value is in their attractiveness to boys/men. It would be equally tragic if little boys were taught that their value is in their sexual attractiveness. Adolescence brings with it more than enough preoccupation with our own and others’ attractiveness. Sooner or later, we ought to mature so that this is not the dominating aspect of our lives.

That kind of narcissisistic selfishness is to be expected of adolescents. Adults, however, know who they are in Jesus Christ and what strengths and weaknesses they bring to their human relationships, including marriage. Two unique, whole people who are secure in their own identities and supportive of their spouse, obviously have the potential for a much stronger marriage than one in which one dominates the other. I think Paul was correct to say that marriage reveals much of the mystery of Christ and the church. It’s a sick, weak Bride of the Lord that permits half of itself to dominate the other half (or tolerates the division necessary for such domination in the first place). The church is the body of its Head, who chooses to be one with her. We, in marriage and church, ought to be showing this unity to a cynical, sceptical world.

Comment by cokhavim

May 9, 2007 @ 5:22 am

I’m not a man, but as far as I know, sex is not essential for living as eating and drinking are. But aside from that, perhaps the point of Liz’s post was that nothing should dominate our being, not even eating or drinking. Rather, our bodily “needs” should be under the control of our spirit, which is submitted to the Holy Spirit (to take a principle from Watchman Nee). Applying this to sex, men cannot use their sexual needs as an excuse, for instance, to demand sex from their wives, or to control what women wear. In an era where men regularly blamed women for their own lust, Jesus put the blame squarely on the men themselves when he said that merely looking at a woman lustfully means adultery. The bottom line is that men need to control their own sexual needs, and have no right to control women. Of course, women also need to control their sexual needs, their needs for attention, etc. And of course, we all need to be considerate of one another’s needs. But I guess the point here is that male sexual “needs” are often confused with sin (such as lust), or often used as an excuse for sin (such as controlling women). It would be an insult to God to say that men were created with such a strong sexual need so as to justify such things.

As for the differences between men and women, yes they exist, but I think we emphasize our differences way too much. Note that when God created the first man and woman, not one word was mentioned about their differences. Not one word about woman’s beauty, or about man’s strength, or what have you. Instead, the creation account emphasizes their SAMENESS! (”bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh”) Now I know that people don’t like the word “sameness” and would prefer “equality,” but the fact is, sameness is emphasized in the creation of woman. Yes, we have differences, but we’ve emphasized those quite long enough in my opinion (all of history, in fact). It’s high time we celebrate our sameness as the first man did. Men are NOT from Mars, and women are NOT from Venus. We were created by the same God on the same planet. We are the same because we are the same species (something many ancients denied, to the detriment of women). We are the same because we were both created in the image of God, we were both mandated to rule the earth, we both share a sinful nature, and we both share (or have the potential to share) in the new life of Christ. These qualities that make us the same are far more important than those things that make us different. Furthermore, the things that make us different are not universal (ie, not all women are more ____ than all men - take your pick of stereotype), whereas those things that make us the same ARE universal. If we celebrated our sameness more, I think equality would be a natural outcome, because we’d realise that our differences are relatively too insubstantial to limit either sex.

Comment by TL

May 9, 2007 @ 1:53 pm

Rob, I would like to point out to you that the fact that male and female are physiologically different, to which no one in their right mind would disagree, has absolutely nothing to do with confining them to certain limited activities in life. Role playing is not a Biblical mandate. Each individual regardless if they are male and female can enjoy all kinds of skills and activities. The only thing that should limit us is our physical, mental, and emotional ability in the country we live in.

Comment by Liz

May 9, 2007 @ 8:39 pm

Hi Janet. Really enjoyed your explanations of people’s expectations of you in regard to relationships with men. You speak from experience which is ultimately where we all come from and this helps us put some of our views in perspective.
Thanks for your encouragement.

Hi Rob. In answer to your question re ‘needs’. The word is in quotation marks because it is a word used in many books which promote hierarchy and to my mind endorse the notion that women were designed by God to help/support men and in particular, such books often suggest that men’s sexual drive is stronger than that of women which would bring its own set of issues. True equality in creation means that each person is unique and designed for fellowship with God without reference to gender, class, race etc. Once we start defining different groups of people we get away from the essence of true equality.
Breathing and eating are legitimate needs as without them humans don’t exist but sexual function is not vital for a person to be a whole person.
My use of the phrase ‘insult to God’ was the thought that God made men such that they always need sexual satisfaction (from a woman) and that ultimately that would be a woman’s main purpose in life - to be connected to a man. The previous post explains something of that dilemma very well I think.

Comment by Jackie

May 10, 2007 @ 5:42 pm

For me, the question of equality is a little different. See, I can understand why folks say that because the physical body is different, there are different roles and purposes. But I frankly, for me that doesn’t quite work. First, individuals within the two genders are so wideranging. Beyond sex organs, nothing is completely true of either gender because there will always be folks along the continum.

But more importantly for me is the issue of who we are in Christ. I struggle and rarely live up to my goal, but my goal is truly to die to self and live for Christ. I seek to be a slave to Christ, so that daily a little more and a little more when we people see me, they see Christ. When I act it isn’t because of me..that at some point when I act it will all be not out of my authority or power, but Christ.

And I see this as what we all want as Christians. The same Christ that is in me is in you, there can be nothing but equality when we succeed in dying to self and living for Christ because when we succeed it is “no longer I that lives”.

Comment by JLP

May 10, 2007 @ 10:27 pm

To Rob,

People whose “sexual needs do dominate their being” generally make others around them uncomfortable.

Additionally, if your sexual needs dominate your being you don’t have the freedom to put things that are more important than sex first. You need that freedom so you can have control over your life.

Comment by Janet

May 11, 2007 @ 1:48 pm

Another point that I think is valid: there has been a lot written about Greek/Roman society which our present day society mimics quite closely.

In this societies, there was a public/private separation in which women and girls were forced to stay at home and not participate in public life - that was considered for men only.

It is interesting that certain contemporary authors have identified that homosexual interests were at the root of keeping women out of the public sphere in the historic society. I wonder also, since it seems that there are so many homosexuals in society [also married and pretending to be straight] if they are not also at the apex of keeping women at home, silenced and out of leadership roles.

Then some straight men and some straight Christian men get caught up in this wrong way of thinking about how women should participate in our society; they are influenced by these worldly, ungodly attitudes about women.

Anyone have thoughts about this?

Comment by Liz

May 12, 2007 @ 5:55 am

Thanks Jackie - it is the true essence of Christian equality that we are ‘one in Christ’ and one with Christ as we allow the Spirit to work in and through us. Surely there is not a different Spirit for women and men.

Comment by Lori

May 12, 2007 @ 7:58 am

Lot’s of good points raised. Let’s see, where to begin?

Craighton in #3:

My observation is that the attempted remaking of the spouse goes both ways. How many young women fall for the “bad boy” and marry him with full intentions of “improving” him? How many wives think their husbands are fashion plate disasters and set about changing what they wear?

Excellent point. This is a huge problem for women. They let their maternal instincts get out of control and think that if only they could rearrange their guy to make him fit their vision, everything would be perfect. It never works. Ever. All you get is anger and frustration, and resentment on the part of the husband.

LMcC in #4:

That kind of junk is what Liz describes. Instead of having a true Godly one-flesh unity in marriage, men are reduced to having to follow their urges without restraint, and women are reduced to nothing more than a means to satisfy those urges. One becomes an animal, the other an object. I’d say that obscuring the image of God in us in that way is an insult to Him.

That’s pretty much what the Church taught for centuries. Sexual immorality was officially condemned for both sexes, but in practice, only women were punished. Since sex (according to the Church) was only for procreation, and since most marriages were arranged, most husbands had little sexual desire for their wives. Therefore, men were expected as a matter of routine to take mistresses or visit prostitutes. Sex was just another bodily function, so they had to relieve it somewhere. This was especially true since the Church taught that it was all women’s fault for tempting men to lust (hence they regarded celibacy as the highest virtue). With reasoning like that, it’s pretty easy to excuse or ignore women being taken advantage of.

Women, on the other hand, had to be extremely careful about their purity before and after marriage, or there could be severe consequences. There are famous historical examples of women caught in adultery having to do penance by passing through jeering crowds in the city streets, after having their heads shaved. Highborn women would simply be dispatched to convents and put away by their husbands. This gross double standard came from the husband needing to know that any children his wife bore him were his, and had nothing to do with biblical morality. What a shameful and broken witness the church leaves when it mixes its teachings with those of the surrounding culture! God’s true word invariably loses out.

Kathryn in #5:

After all, equality isn’t about making everyone to be the same; to me, equality means that no one has authority over others in the Kingdom because of gender, skin color or previous religious background (Genesis 1:27, Galatians 3:28).

The world would be a very boring place if we were all the same! As I type this, my husband is happily tinkering away putting together an excercise machine. He’s a very hands-on type of guy, while I’m more of an intellectual. So I certainly think we should celebrate our differences.

“Equality” to me means that, whether it’s in church or marriage or society, nobody has authority just because…because I’m male…because I’m white…because I went to a fancy college and have lots of money…because I’m a persuasive speaker…because I say so…because I say God says so. Equality means everyone imitates Christ and submits to one another. The Bible says that Behold, how good and how pleasant it is For brothers [and sisters!] to dwell together in unity! (Psalm 133:1). A united church, marriage, or society is a much more powerful spiritual force than one riven with conflicts over power structures and hierarchies.

Comment by Janet

May 14, 2007 @ 12:08 pm

Re: comment #14:

What a shameful and broken witness the church leaves when it mixes its teachings with those of the surrounding culture! God’s true word invariably loses out.

Why it is then, that many men in the church will not acknowledge that the Church is mixing with the ungodly culture, especially when it comes to teaching about women and men in relationship?

Most Christian and unbeliever men do exactly what some of the men responding on this web site are doing: “well women do this and this; and women do this too” and take the focus off of the men [and themselves]. They can’t just deal with the topic at hand and admit that what is happening is wrong. I guess it is like when Adam ate the apple and when God asks him ‘what did’ you do - he say, “well, the woman you gave me…”

Comment by Rob

May 14, 2007 @ 2:25 pm

Liz, my apologies for hijacking the discussion! :o But I appreciate the thoughtful replies and perspectives.

Liz wrote: The word is in quotation marks because it is a word used in many books which promote hierarchy and… that women were designed by God to help/support men

I see better now what you were getting at regarding the “insult to God”. There was some subtext there which I wasn’t picking up on.

Liz wrote: Breathing and eating are legitimate needs as without them humans don’t exist but sexual function is not vital for a person to be a whole person.

I would agree with you in the general sense. However, as it relates specifically to Christian marriage, I would argue that all the activities that instill intimacy between spouses (communication, affection, quality time) are in fact not only a need, but also coequal. Again, my reading of your post seems to be veering from what you were addressing, so I apologize for wandering. I just wanted to explain my take.

JLP wrote: if your sexual needs dominate your being you don’t have the freedom to put things that are more important than sex first. You need that freedom so you can have control over your life.

Good thoughts. I see how the words “dominate their being” are much stronger than I was originally reading. My mistake. “Dominate” can be somewhat relative. For instance, to a spouse who may be starved for verbal communication, thoughts of communication might “dominate their being.” But as Liz was intending it, I see now that the phrase was highlighting an unhealthy obsession.

Other favorite thoughts:

TL wrote: the fact that male and female are physiologically different… has absolutely nothing to do with confining them to certain limited activities in life.

Lori wrote: Equality means everyone imitates Christ and submits to one another.

Comment by JLP

May 15, 2007 @ 11:53 am

Rob,

Thanks for explaining what you meant by “dominate”. I misunderstood you, and thought you were referring to an unhealthy obsession. I’m glad you took time to communicate what you actually meant.

Comment by Liz

May 16, 2007 @ 3:14 am

Yes, it has been a good experience to hear from many people and get a better understanding of how people can perceive words and different expressions. It’s good too, that we all persisted and can now understand one another better.

Comment by JLP

May 16, 2007 @ 7:22 am

I find it painful when conservative men talk about a dominant role for themselves in the church and the family (and sometimes in society also) and then tell us women we aren’t second class citizens. If men are in authority over women, then women are second class citizens. Why tell us we aren’t when the position they assign is obviously one of second class citizenship?

I don’t understand it. Why don’t these same men just come out and be direct - why pretend that something is not what it is? Why do they expect us to believe them when they tell us we aren’t second class citizens?

And telling us we are equal even though they supposedly have authority over us - that is obviously not a position of equality. That’s a parent child relationship. Not one between equals. Or should I say that’s not a relationship between adults.

I’m tired of these men telling me I’m equal and assigning a position to me that in which the power structure is unequal.

Comment by JLP

May 16, 2007 @ 7:26 am

Please - to any conservative man reading this post, don’t tell me I’m equal to you if you believe in a power structure which gives you more power than me. If you feel God gave you authority over me because you are a man, we are not equal. Even if you tell me that you consider me equal, it will mean nothing to me as long as you hold to a hierarchal structure that puts men in authority over women.

Comment by Lori

May 17, 2007 @ 8:48 am

Thank you, JLP! You have exactly summarized the situation. In fact, I may use your post in future if anyone argues the point with me. :) I believe She-Who-Was-Known-As-LJR said in a post a while back that she actually prefers the “good old days” when she was growing up and the men just said they were better, period. God made them physically stronger and more prone to logic, so that meant He wanted them to be in charge of everything. None of this twisting around and trying to dodge the issue with talk of “yes you’re equal–but…” or “essences” or rewriting the doctrine of the Trinity. You believe women need to be subordinated and that you should have authority over them. There’s nothing equal about that, so why not just say it? What are you afraid of?

Comment by Exegetist

May 17, 2007 @ 2:00 pm

What many in the hierarchical camp of thinking do not realize is that when you put limits on a person’s entire life that are considered permanent, by reason of unchangeable conditions such as gender or race, you are speaking of their essence and speaking in prejudicial terms, a preference for something other. Thus when we say that African Americans should not be ____(enter any denial of freedoms), BECAUSE they are African Americans, then we are prejudically determining them to be inferior by reason of their race.

Anyone who is functionally limited without exception because of their essence (race, gender, etc. which cannot be outgrown or changed) is not equal at all.

Comment by LMcC

May 17, 2007 @ 6:03 pm

Lori (#21): Actually, I prefer Biblical equality to either hierarchal scenario :D

That said, if someone believes men are permanently superior to and meant to rule over women, he just needs to SAY IT and be honest with himself instead of all of the pseudo-equality two-stepping that goes on now. None of this “you’re equal but there are roles” stuff, “equal in being but not in function” stuff, or “right when men do X, wrong when women do it” stuff. It’s all double-talk, and a lot of people in and out of the church see right through it. Either men and women are equally capable of having and using God’s gifts as God wills, or they’re not.

Contrary to what the hierarchal crowd is saying to maintain their status quo, Biblical equality has nothing to do with “making everyone the same” or “blurring sex lines” or “making women rule over men” or… help me out, what am I missing here? If anything, it’s about setting free every man and woman in the church to be the person God meant him or her to be and to use his or her gifts as God sees fit. It’s about healing the unnecessary divisions in the church and bringing about true unity in Christ. It really is about a workable definition of equality that recognizes the church as one body while recognizing that we all have something different to contribute, with no nasty hidden motives.

#22: Right on.

Comment by JLP

May 18, 2007 @ 9:22 am

Re: comment #21:

Please use my post, I would be very happy if you did.

It’s time we start asserting ourselves with those who claim their view doesn’t make us second class citizens when their very definition of the female role is one of second class citizenship.

In order for one group of people to be first class citizens, they need to make another group second class citizens. Notice that it is mostly those who would fall into the “first class” citizen group who are arguing that the traditional female roles are not “second class citizenship.”

Comment by Lori

May 18, 2007 @ 4:28 pm

Exegetist in #22:

What many in the hierarchical camp of thinking do not realize is that when you put limits on a person’s entire life that are considered permanent, by reason of unchangeable conditions such as gender or race, you are speaking of their essence and speaking in prejudicial terms, a preference for something other. Thus when we say that African Americans should not be ____(enter any denial of freedoms), BECAUSE they are African Americans, then we are prejudically determining them to be inferior by reason of their race.

The late Thurgood Marshall really did sum it up best: “Separate is not equal.”

Notice that it is mostly those who would fall into the “first class” citizen group who are arguing that the traditional female roles are not “second class citizenship.”

Those in power always have to convince the subordinate class that it’s good for them, otherwise those without power will rise up and demand it. Religion is usually the most powerful way to keep the subordinated class docile and submissive. You only have to look at history to see this principle at work. Slave owners taught their slaves that they, the owners, would take care of them because it was their Christian duty. Where would the poor slaves be without a white master to provide them with housing, food, and clothing?

In Victorian times, the Church of England taught that people were born into certain classes, and that it was sinful to try and rise above your place in society. However, it was also the job of the aristocracy to take care of the lesser folk working their land, hence the concept of noblesse oblige. The Russian church taught the same dogma to that country’s peasants during that time. They were encouraged to see the Tsar as a kindly, fatherly figure who cared about their needs. That’s why Marx said, “Religion is the opiate of the masses.”

Comment by Exegetist

May 19, 2007 @ 12:18 pm

Re: Comment #23;

“That said, if someone believes men are permanently superior to and meant to rule over women, he just needs to SAY IT and be honest with himself instead of all of the pseudo-equality two-stepping that goes on now.”

So true.

As well, hierachalists need to prove that Miriam was not a leader in Israel of any kind, that God did not send her or choose her to stand before His people. They must prove that Deborah was not called of God, that she did not judge Israel for 40 years by God’s directions. They must prove that Huldah was not a prophet of God and did not lead the nation back to God by her instructions on the meanings of the discovered scrolls. They must prove that Priscilla did not actually teach Apollo. They must prove that Phoebe was not really a minister of the church of Cenchre, was not given authority, and certainly would not be entrusted with the epistle to the Romans since that responsibility carried a certain authority with it. And then they must actually prove that Junia was not a woman, rather than trying to say “she just couldn’t be.”

Oh, I forgot, they have tried to claim all that although they haven’t actually proved it. :)

http://exegetist-theberean.blogspot.com/

Comment by HalsAngels

May 26, 2008 @ 1:36 am

I stumbled on your post when looking up the word “Apex” which was told to me in a dream I had.I am not a nut or anything I promise..But i do have many dreams that come true. I was a little kid when people started walking up to me and my mom saying I was called and that I have the Gift of prophecy, discernment and healing..I am confused about my latest dream and as i have researched it lately I have been coming up with many sites about a womens equality.Perhaps i should share the dream so you will understand.I can’t tell my whole life story here but believe me when I saw I know when to pay attention to my dreams.I’ve posted some stories on my blog if your interested..halsangelsonlife@blogspot.com

I saw in my dream two Egyptian Sphinx facing each other nose to nose and their backs to their heads formed a Pyramid. Then a Voice said when the Planets align over Stephenville Texas it will usher in the End of days for Israel. Then the voice repeatedly said the word “Apex.” Why the Planets align over Stephenville ,Texas? You got me there. I have no clue.(I do know there was recent major U.F.O sightings there and apparently all the way back before we had airplanes.I don’t believe in aliens but I do believe that demons appear as many things in order to take peoples eyes off Jesus) Anyway when the Planets align it will usher in the End of days for Israel(why it didn’t say the world I don’t know) When the Voice repeated the word Apex over and over again it was obvious it was a word this voice wanted me to remember..I had no idea what it meant..

I woke up and talked to my grandma(the one who has spent half her life casting out demons) I asked her to look in her dictionary and see what it meant..She did and it means the highest point or peak..Which reminded me of the top of the pyramid. As I am writing I remember a verse I think in Prophecy(Revelation,Daniel or somewhere ) About there being a sign in Egypt during the end of days. According to someone I read abouts theory, the Pyramids are a symbol of heaven..the kings chamber and the world,the ante chamber or hell..Also something about it’s shafts being aligned with Orion belt.
I put in on a shelf in my mind and about a week after having the dream I was watching a show call Egypt Decoded: Deities and Demons and then another called the In Pagan Christ. The previous was about a priest who wrote a book about ow he noticed similarities in the story of Jesus and the myths of Ancient Egyptian gods.He believed in shows that Jesus wasn’t a historical person. I on the other hand believe that as the Bible says He was and always will be. Anyway he found in Egypt the same stories such as a man who turns water in to wine,has twelve apostles,is killed and raised again. Almost all scholars do not agree of course but what I noticed was the similarity in the story of Osiris and Isis. Osiris was killed by his brother Seth. Then Isis his sister and wife used her magical powers to put him back together.She then makes a phallus from gold (I believe) and conceives a son named Horace.This Horace is who this priest compares Jesus to and Mary to Isis.
I then decided to look up the word from my dream that the Voice said and over, over, “Apex.”on Wikpedia. Aside from the meaning my mother had read to me the morning after the dream it also stated that Apex is the name of the Solar Apex or the way or direction that the sun travels in our universe. Not the way the Earth travels around the Sun but the direction that the sun travels. It is in the direction on a space near the star Vega in the constellation Hercules. Vega by the way is the most well known star.It was the 1st to have many tests done on it.it has a planet that rotates it as well..Ok here is the Greek story…Athena obtained the seed of Hephaistos to conceive Erichthonios the Earth born one, who represents the reborn line of Cain out of the ground after the flood according to theparthenoncode.com and dancingfromgenesis.com..Just as the Egyptian story represents the same story of Cain and Abel and then Noah and the flood and the reborn seed of Cain after his death and the death of the Earth during the flood.

I am a a single mother with three kids. My husband who seemed to have a real amazing gift to tell others about the Lord cheated on me when I was 5 months postpartum.The combination of stress,having 2 babies in two years,and Depo Provera as well as NuvaRing caused me to have a physical breakdown.My thyroid and endocrine system just quit working pretty much and i have been home a lot as this has now developed into Fibromyalgia and Chronic fatigue.I chose to keep my Vows to honor God and have stayed single 5years now.(our divorce was finalized a month ago)So all this time alone has renewed interests I had before I became Mrs. Lewis,Jimmy’s wife. One being the Biblical beginning of what today is now changed.

Learning about anything or any insight into real Biblical things like the real reason God made astrology, astronomy, and Ancient religions than you probably understand all this and maybe it means something to you? If so please let me know.

The final touch is I told my ex husband about the dream, he’s a skeptic but has seen my dreams come true..he said he just changed his password to Apex!! A word he never uses..Nor do I! I got excited of course saying it was conformation and he said no it’s not! It’s a coincidence..I said it’s a pretty darn big one! If anyone could help me understand I am absolutely fascinated.And I decided to look up the word Apex as related to the Sphinx. What I found was different posts on how the Sphinx represented a women I believe. I need to re read that as my 4yr old was not helping when I needed quiet but the point was that women where equal with men. Then I stumbled on a site tonight right before this one about how the Greek word kephalos is not translated a “Authority over.” and that using it that way is a mistranslation..And Apex is also the head,it’s the top of a religious hat,it’s the top of the pyramid, and so much more..I am getting the though that with the Sphinx facing each other nose to nose and with them together only does a pyramid form that my dream may have more to do with my feelings of sub-servance to my husband and his call or my feelings of not being able to raise my kids without a father,or who knows maybe it means me and my husband should get back together before the End of days..As you can see I really need some help or insight here. My email is halsangels@live.com for any who could help..Thank you