The bible and women

[Baron von Lotsov]

The BBC constantly go on about promoting women over men in business. Last night they were advertising women only venture capital firms for women to set up companies, and these companies believed in employing women. One comment from one of these American brainwasher types explaining it to the BBC said a company can have all women in it and then as soon as one man enters that kind of workplace, it changes the whole atmosphere. It then left the listener to conclude what atmosphere was meant, and what it was meant to change into, but you know what I was thinking. Imagine a women's rights meeting and a bloke steps in. He'd feel more alien than an alien would, like jumping into a pit of vipers.



Me thinks that if men just let this kind of thing proceed then perhaps they will disappear up their own arses.



I'll add a disclaimer here, in that none of my attitudes in the above post relate to normal women and it is not because I hate women. I know people have problems, so to be clear, we are talking about the subset of women known as feminists. Standard terms and conditions apply.

[patman post]

A good stiff-covered Bible is no doubt a great aid to women's posture if balanced on the head during deportment training...

[Baron von Lotsov]

I have no disagreements with the Bible but it is a mistake to take selected verses or even phrases out of context not only with what surrounds it but without reference to the historical and social climate at the time.The Bible reveals how God's laws were updated as time passed and as man became ready for it. We had Abrahamic law which was updated to Moses, and then again  with the coming of Jesus. To apply Old Testament laws to now is to misrepresent what the Bible teaches us. To take some of the teachings of Paul which often related to branches of the Church as it spread and grew and therefore applied specifically to those members is again too simplistic. The one major teaching throughout the Bible is God's plan and how the only way to guarantee an eternal future is to follow Jesus. Even the Old Testament prophesied His coming. Everything has been centred around Him and what would be His teachings then and in the future.

So you say the teaching of the bible, with one or two exceptions, is just relevant to the time.



I'll revert back to my original view then in that case, that you are cherry-picking the bits that suit your "lifestyle".

[T00ts]

I just think you have a disagreement with the bible.

I have no disagreements with the Bible but it is a mistake to take selected verses or even phrases out of context not only with what surrounds it but without reference to the historical and social climate at the time.The Bible reveals how God's laws were updated as time passed and as man became ready for it. We had Abrahamic law which was updated to Moses, and then again  with the coming of Jesus. To apply Old Testament laws to now is to misrepresent what the Bible teaches us. To take some of the teachings of Paul which often related to branches of the Church as it spread and grew and therefore applied specifically to those members is again too simplistic. The one major teaching throughout the Bible is God's plan and how the only way to guarantee an eternal future is to follow Jesus. Even the Old Testament prophesied His coming. Everything has been centred around Him and what would be His teachings then and in the future.

[Baron von Lotsov]

You just think I am wrong.

That's because you think I deny that  "The bible does say that women should give birth as a duty".

I deny that women are saved through childbirth, they are saved through Grace and Faith. Otherwise childless women would not be saved.Paul's verses have to be examined very carefully and in context with the whole chapter and the cultures of the times.



ALL MANKIND (including women) are saved by faith in Christ as Saviour by the Grace of God.

Regardless of whatever else it says, my point was what I had read, and I'm definite about that. I accept I can't recite it word for word, but give you the gist of the meaning.



It could well have been in the old testament. I know some semi-Christians have issues about the old testament, but I believe it is important. You see a lot of advice the old testament gives is in direct conflict with PC doctrine. Think it through though. If the truth will set you free, then something concocted by a  body whose whole purpose is the opposite is bound to be in conflict. This is why Jesus has so much trouble with the Romans. Jupiter was their god.



See what goes on now and you'll see the government is providing all of this contraception and abortion stuff.  They are fighting god's will.

[Barry]

 Barry is wrong in the first place. The bible does say that women should give birth as a duty. it's basically what god wants from them.

You just think I am wrong.

That's because you think I deny that  "The bible does say that women should give birth as a duty".

I deny that women are saved through childbirth, they are saved through Grace and Faith. Otherwise childless women would not be saved.Paul's verses have to be examined very carefully and in context with the whole chapter and the cultures of the times.



ALL MANKIND (including women) are saved by faith in Christ as Saviour by the Grace of God.

[Baron von Lotsov]

I do get cross at your 'could not be trusted' phrase. It is true that God said it is not right that man should live alone and he produced Eve as his help meet,  not his untrustworthy slave walking 2 paces behind. She was after all the Mother of mankind, hardly an untrustworthy position. She was a chosen and honoured spirit who faithfully fulfilled God's wishes.

I just think you have a disagreement with the bible. I was just trying to faithfully recall what it said. I was not making a value judgment about this or that or whatever else you wish to hang on it. Barry is wrong in the first place. The bible does say that women should give birth as a duty. it's basically what god wants from them. Stop trying to confuse the bible with what you think I think. I do not personally feature in the bible. I'm just trying to be honest. If you can point out a genuine mistake in my posts then by all means.

[T00ts]

No its not your reference. As I recall there is a whole passage on it, and it mentions the sin committed in the Garden of Eden as to why women start off sinful and can not be trusted. I think it is this bit which also talks about women being the helper of man, in that god provided women for that purpose, and finally if a woman gives birth she will be forgiven and in good standing. Clearly this makes logical sense because God's purpose is to populate the earth, and so without women doing their bit God would have a lot of trouble with his creation as it would die out. So that is the good that women can and should do. There is a bit of a belief though that with certain people god may want them for other things instead, so it is not an absolute, but generally the case.

I do get cross at your 'could not be trusted' phrase. It is true that God said it is not right that man should live alone and he produced Eve as his help meet,  not his untrustworthy slave walking 2 paces behind. She was after all the Mother of mankind, hardly an untrustworthy position. She was a chosen and honoured spirit who faithfully fulfilled God's wishes.

[T00ts]

Jump in when you like, T00ts.  



Throughout the Bible women have been at the forefront, many women of faith. People decry Eve, but Adam was just as stupid and sinful in following on with eating the forbidden fruit.

Look at the list here:

https://lifehopeandtruth.com/change/faith/women-of-faith/">//https://lifehopeandtruth.com/change/faith/women-of-faith/



Remember the first people to tell of the resurrection were women, Mary Magdalen, Mary the mother of James and possible others, all women were the first to tell the Gospel of the Resurrection.

I think we have covered this before. God said be fruitful and multiply while saying at the same time eat of the tree of knowledge and you will surely die. Sorry guys but Eve was the first one to see through Satan and realise that they could not obey God unless they had knowledge. Satan was a bit miffed I should think. It's very interesting to study women in the Scriptures, there are more mentioned than we might imagine.

[Baron von Lotsov]

It's in 1 Timothy 2:15



So is your argument that females who die prior to giving birth to any children will go to hell?

What about Cesarean sections, do they count? I'm being silly now, but taking part of a verse out of context, as you did, needs to be brought to account.

No its not your reference. As I recall there is a whole passage on it, and it mentions the sin committed in the Garden of Eden as to why women start off sinful and can not be trusted. I think it is this bit which also talks about women being the helper of man, in that god provided women for that purpose, and finally if a woman gives birth she will be forgiven and in good standing. Clearly this makes logical sense because God's purpose is to populate the earth, and so without women doing their bit God would have a lot of trouble with his creation as it would die out. So that is the good that women can and should do. There is a bit of a belief though that with certain people god may want them for other things instead, so it is not an absolute, but generally the case.

[Barry]

Jump in when you like, T00ts.  



Throughout the Bible women have been at the forefront, many women of faith. People decry Eve, but Adam was just as stupid and sinful in following on with eating the forbidden fruit.

Look at the list here:

https://lifehopeandtruth.com/change/faith/women-of-faith/">//https://lifehopeandtruth.com/change/faith/women-of-faith/



Remember the first people to tell of the resurrection were women, Mary Magdalen, Mary the mother of James and possible others, all women were the first to tell the Gospel of the Resurrection.

[T00ts]

It's in 1 Timothy 2:15



So is your argument that females who die prior to giving birth to any children will go to hell?

What about Cesarean sections, do they count? I'm being silly now, but taking part of a verse out of context, as you did, needs to be brought to account.

Sorry to jump in but I believe there is some question about this. Something about the people there having a Temple to a god/goddess who they believed protected women from death in childbirth. I think the point here is that women will be saved (as long as they believe and obey) regardless of childbirth or not. I believe as many as 50% died then.

[Barry]

There's a specific place in the bible that says something to that effect, since I'm sure you refer to a comment I made yesterday about it.

It's in 1 Timothy 2:15



So is your argument that females who die prior to giving birth to any children will go to hell?

What about Cesarean sections, do they count? I'm being silly now, but taking part of a verse out of context, as you did, needs to be brought to account.

[Baron von Lotsov]

 Childbirth does not save women.

There's a specific place in the bible that says something to that effect, since I'm sure you refer to a comment I made yesterday about it. The trouble is I would have to go and hunt down the place I read it, and really can't be bothered.

[T00ts]

We'll have new bodies, won't we?

Anything is possible. I'd rather have a new one, this one is starting to fail!

I can't remember the quote at the minute but it says to the effect that not a hair from our heads will be left behind. Jesus showed us the way he was resurrected and then ascended, He was proving the unprovable to His followers and thus to us. Here is a theory for you to mull over.



If we go back to the Garden of Eden and the apple. Adam and Eve were told quite categorically that if they ate of it they would surely die. Now it follows, to me at least, via logic, that if they had not eaten it they would have continued to live in the Garden of Eden eternally and none of us would have arrived. Therefore it must be that their bodies - pre-apple - were not as ours, and therefore not as their's pre-apple. More than that God's plan for us would not have happened at all.



As they ate the apple something happened - a miracle - and the cells of the body lost their eternal quality and became perishable. Presumably blood/lymph etc arrived in the system. We know from the Bible that they could eat other things but perhaps food's action on the body system was different. If we read Genesis there are very definite ages of procreation and life length listed in 100s of years. So it was very different then until we had 'multiplied' sufficiently.



My belief is that at some point that will be reversed maybe at resurrection or maybe at judgement, but we will be us, with the same personality, the same knowledge, the same skills which we should all strive to increase while we are here. Eternal life means eternal growth in knowledge etc which makes it is so important to gain a good basis in the Gospel, it may also mean living together in a way that we wouldn't understand now because we will be in one of the Father's many houses which He has judged right for us.