If women are not giving truth, then we should correct them and if they still want to argue, we should make our case and if their minds are not changed, then we should tell them and if they still want to argue, ignore them. Arguing with feminists will never work out because many simply want to argue for the sake of arguing (go figure). A feminist will see a strong Christian male as the enemy - period. Weak males are fine though.
Correct and then ignore the evangelical feminists and we will all sleep better.
Now this advice is simply my personal opinion and I cannot cite a biblical verse to prove I am correct. I will not even read any comments by naysayers and of course I know who you are.
Just a Guy wrote: Seems right to me... Lip work is easy, free, and fast. But when it come to backing your believes with words, they become like Pres Trump signing a bill giving Planned Parenthood 500 million greenbacks... He probably posted a tweet the very next week proclaiming his defense of the unborn...
Yes, JAG, the only people that donâ€™t always seek to serve themselves are born again believers who simply want Godâ€™s will to be done. Our world is so sinful that sin is seldom even recognized anymore.
Jim Lincoln wrote: "John Carr, founder of Georgetown Universityâ€™s Initiative on Catholic Social Thought and Public Life, urged Democrats to focus more on their personal faith and avoid wielding religion as a political weapon." The above quote from the article; it's probably the most sensible one in the whole article âť—đź‘Ť I agree with many of your sentiments, QC, but of course both Democrats and Republicans have to be continually warned not to be acting like zealots.đź‘Ž
Of course all of us realize that your definition of Christianity is not the same as ours. You are simply saying our faith should be compartmentalized and none of us would agree with that. Either the Lord is Lord of our entire walk with Him or He is not Lord at all.
No Jim, the path to salvation is narrow and few be that find it. Repent of your sins and trust solely and completely in Christâ€™s sacrifice.
All politicians, including the ones that you troll for pick and choose when to serve our Lord and when not to.
Just a Guy wrote: We also have a fairly close relative who is a drug addict and homeless. He has been wandering the streets of New Orleans for almost two decades. He has broke every link of trust and support from his family and is now wandering the streets, all by his own doing.
I agree! Most drug addicts will primarily steal from those that love them. Loved ones are easy targets to them and even if they are remorseful, they simply do it until the faucet is shut off. Sorry you have had to experience this.
Brother JohnUK. Yes, the heart of the problem is the heart! Thanks for sharing Paisley's wisdom. You do realize that if you run for public office and say that, you won't be elected.
Now I know that the current trend is to say that alcoholism and drug addiction are diseases just like any other disease. I reject that thought. I also know that when many of the homeless are helped financially, they simply spend the money on more drugs. We actually have a homeless situation in our family, so I may be a little tainted? Anyway, the below verses have value when considering whether to help or not. Even though I admit I donâ€™t have all the answers, I think they are of course pertinent.
2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
1 Timothy 5:8 - 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.
The catholic church will accept anyone who simply pays outward homage for the RCC. They stand for nothing. I remember reading an article about Haiti and catholicism. Memory says that Haiti had a majority of voodoo worshipers and those same voodooists were accepted by the RCC.
And just think, in the U.S. catholicism is synonymous with Christianity. Try running for public office or being a media personality and not say that is true.
John UK wrote: This means another term of office, right?
I sure do hope so. As bad as the republicans are morally, the democrats are infinitely more immoral. At least Trump will pander to Christians which means some positive things will take place. The dems would probably make Christianity illegal. But, for sure socialism would be right around the corner.
I simply desire for my Lord and Savior to return and end this madness!
Years ago I attended a major homeless event in my area. I remember the leader of event telling me that 95% of the homeless are there by choice. IOW, alcoholism, drug addiction or just laziness. But, she said that in order to help the 5% who were homeless by chance; lost jobs or sudden expenses they couldnâ€™t handle, all of the people had to be helped. There was no way to determine which ones caused their own homelessness and separate them out.
Not sure of the point of this comment except to say there are lots of different ways at looking at this issue. Donâ€™t know if it is true, but the internet says a chronic homeless person costs the taxpayers 35,000 per year? Donâ€™t know what part of that falls to me, but that is all they are going to get.
John UK wrote: Good for you, bro. As for multi-monikers turning up to argue, I think you are probably right. There are some who just love to argue, thinking "to do God service", so all it would take is a quick email, and "Behold, here I am!" Now on to more important matters. I would like to know what you cooked for breakfast, Pilgrim. I think breakfast can be the most wonderful meal of the day.
We normally have the same thing; bacon, eggs and whole wheat toast. To be honest, my wife fired me from cooking the eggs because I always messed them up. So she does those now. And no one can prove that I did that intentionally.
John UK wrote: Good morning brother, and I wish you a happy breakfast. Did you say you were making breakfast?
Yes, I actually do 99% of all the cooking here. My wife always hated doing it, so when I retired I decided to do it for her. My dad was a chef, so I never associated cooking with women.
You know there are a lot of different monikers sort of espousing the same things. Usually when that happens in an argumentative sense the first thing that comes to mind is they are one and the same? But, I have never been good at things like that so I am probably wrong.
John UK wrote: My ignore list has increased, and I will not be reading posts by DD, DT, or L'bug. If I see the moniker I will not read what you say.
Good morning brother and fellow pilgrim!
It seems like you are handling this nonsense in a much better fashion than I am capable of. I put people on ignore, but then tend to read their comments anyway.
Proverbs 23:9 - Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
The types of haters that you are referring to are probably going to be just as satisfied even if we don't read their comments? Anyway, the best thing is certainly to not take anything they say as coming from the Lord. If we can do that, we will have peace.
Hang in there brother and I gotta go and make breakfast for the missus.
Lady_Virtue wrote: Pastors state those disclaimers because they're scared of the women in the church...perhaps chiefly of their own wives! Being an help meet to one's husband is a honorable thing. :-)
Thanks sister! And of course your comment as always is spot on when it comes to this issue. You are right about pastors being afraid of the women who attend; not all but most. Their success in the pew is normally reflected by the number of members or attendees. More women attend than men and most men have become so weak that they allow their wives to rule these types of things.
No one would ever say a wife was a helper in the sense that she was like a hired servant. But, Tim raised that issue. Nothing in your comment or mine should have resulted in some sort of parsing.
Reminds me of the below that I wrote years ago:
Why is it that when fundamentalist and evangelical Pastors preach against feminism and for the necessity of married women to be submissive and obedient to their husbands as unto the Lord, they almost invariably assuage their comments by interjecting the duties of married men to love their wives as Christ loved the church and to not treat their wives as inferior or as slaves or objects in response to their submission. The usual sentence goes something like this; â€śnow men this doesnâ€™t give you the right to be dictatorialâ€ť. Or worse than that is the comment that God didnâ€™t take Eve from Adamâ€™s foot, so Some would say these folks are simply teaching the whole council of God. If that is true why is not the converse also true? Why when they teach about the roles of men do they not normally interject the roles of women in any assuaging fashion. Men are to love their wives as Christ loves His church and women are to obey and be submissive to their husbands as unto the Lord. See that wasnâ€™t hard at all!
John UK wrote: Good morning Frank. I am understanding this more and more as each day goes by. Here in the UK, it is grievous to see what is happening regarding this. Women are determined to do everything that men do, and they are now in top positions everywhere, and ever increasing. Men are no longer men but wimps, and even this is a cause of great jollity, as is testified by comics and accepted by the public as being a funny thing. The women who come on here posing as men, at least half know that what they do is ungodly. Yet they still do it, because they are basically rebels against God, "which is as the sin of witchcraft".
Yes, here in the states it used to be referred to as "Women's liberation" and they related it to being synonymous with the Civil Rights Movement. That really sells well to many. I simply call that having itching ears.
Men and women are spiritually equal; but God designed us to have different roles. And like Eve, they don't like that.
John UK wrote: The majority of the population will not understand this because they do not understand the purpose of God in creation. And they never will understand this until they read and study the word of God. And they will never read and study the word of God until they have a desire to read it and a capacity to understand it. And they will never have a desire to read and study the word of God and a capacity to understand it unless they are quickened by the Spirit of God. And God will never quicken them by his Spirit unless they are part of the covenant he made with his Son before the world was made. And God made them a part of the covenant with his Son because .... because .... I don't know why because.
Absolutely perfect brother!
Genesis 2:18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
1 Corinthians 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.
The world somehow says if a woman was created to assist and not lead then that means they are somehow inferior in some way. But, as we all know Christ wasn't inferior to His Father in the slightest and look at 1 Cor. 11.3.
Neil wrote: Not just Bolshies, though: Famously anti-Communist Ronald Reagan, who terrified Europe with his anti-Soviet militarism, as Governor signed CA's Family Law Act of 1969, which legalized No-Fault Divorce there. No surprise that Reagan himself was divorced, which is S.O.P. in the film biz. A consequence: A relative had a adulterous husband, but because she earned more money than he did at the time, he got more money in the settlement. How do you like that, Feminists? BTW, he also got away with Federal Income Tax evasion.
Good post Neil! Yes, many are not aware that no-fault divorce had Reagan as its source. Supposedly he didn't want others to suffer like he did during his divorce.
I wonder why the fortune tellers didn't give him a better understanding of that.
Adultery or if the unbelieving spouse wishes to depart.
Feminists now have their own source of income; their own retirement and even though they can survive on their own, they still receive more than their fair share. Since they are running our society, that will never change.
Jim Lincoln wrote: John Arono, a writer for the Anchorage Press, may or may not know it, but he has an excellent article on Dominionism The governor is not pro-life he is at anti-abortion. It is shown by the number of pro-life programs he vetoed funding forâť—đź‘Ž
Jim, no one is fooled by your attempt to pretend to be simply anti-abortion. Anti-abortion really means that at no time is it moral to intentionally target an unborn life for murder. It does not mean, safe, rare and personal or for the so-called life of the mother. Shame on you for your attempt at subterfuge! Here it is again:
"When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the motherâ€™s life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the motherâ€™s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary."
Well, we donâ€™t live in a theocracy. If we did the penalty for homosexuality would be death by stoning. And as an aside, there are no more religious courts like the Sanhedrin to try immoral behavior.
So, I have always been of the mindset that I should tolerate these types of sins. By tolerate, I mean that I will do nothing illegal to stop them. (the issue of legality is vague and can change) But, I will never accept that behavior. To me acceptance is when I say it is okay and I actually do and say things to promote it. Just think of Jim Lincoln and his abortion stance.
But in a church setting I truly donâ€™t understand how a church or a church leader can accept this behavior in the slightest. This pastor should be removed and shunned.
Only 77% voted to remove him? I would leave this denomination in a heartbeat.