*timidly ventures a post*
I’m going to start by saying there is a lot about women’s role in the church / family I don’t understand or not sure of. To me anyway, the Bible seems rather unclear. (Yes, I do know that probably has to do with my understanding of it).
I found this commentary on men and women in worship. It is confusing at times, but it presents both sides of the argument.
Some things I do know:
1. Jesus treated women well. (The examples that were already given and that he told Mary to tell the others that he was risen.)
2. The early church allowed women to be educated (which was a lot different than the Jewish practices).
3. Women were important in starting the early churches and made up the majority of the congregations.
4. Although there are women in the Bible that do bad things, there are also women that do good things. (Debra (a judge, wife, mother, prophetess), Ruth, Esther, etc.)
5. The female pastor at my church often gives better Biblically based sermons than one of the male pastors.
I have seen articles / research that shows that the feminist moment has done damage to the males. In schools, the focus has been on trying to get the females to succeed and now the males are beginning to have problems.
No matter how hard we try to pretend differently, there are differences between males and females. There are some general personality differences (I’m not saying that they are black and white and that they can’t cross lines but that they would be noticeable in a large sampling). I’m agreeing with Shadowlander on this point, I believe.

Yet lots of Christians do assume that normally He does directly press someone into a specific career field, and so they just sit there, waiting for a direct word from the Lord, some sort of sign or “inner peace,” before they go to college, take a job, etc. It takes a lot of the Bible way out of context — turning accounts, such as Elijah hearing the voice of God, into specific examples — and trust advance knowledge, and not God, before making a move. Unfortunately many Christian authors (such as the Blackabys) push this mindset and contribute to panicked Christians worried that they may have made some misstep even in a small way. …
While they say it is up to man all the way to decide to get saved, they act downright hyper-Calvinist and fatalistic when it comes time for them to freely choose a job, career, or even what kind of car to buy. I have never seen this attitude in Reformed Christians. So far, I’ve only seen that they just go right out there and, as long as it’s not forbidden in the Bible, make a decision and do something. If they did it successfully, and it happened, it was God’s will — not spelled out in advance via the Bible or some kind of “inner peace” sign, but God’s will nonetheless.

I’m confused (I know, so what else is new ). I sure didn’t wait for some sign as to what car to buy or when to buy it. Now as I sit here unemployed and filling out job applications, I have been thinking along the lines of “God has a plan for me and has picked out a job for me,” and I pray every night asking for help finding it. I thought that was showing faith and trust, but now I’m not sure if I’m going about it the wrong way. I also have tendency to worry about having made some misstep (although I at the same time tend to believe that God can turn any mistakes I make in to something good and /or correct them in someway). Clarification would be helpful.

Yet lots of Christians do assume that normally He does directly press someone into a specific career field, and so they just sit there, waiting for a direct word from the Lord, some sort of sign or “inner peace,” before they go to college, take a job, etc. It takes a lot of the Bible way out of context — turning accounts, such as Elijah hearing the voice of God, into specific examples — and trust advance knowledge, and not God, before making a move. Unfortunately many Christian authors (such as the Blackabys) push this mindset and contribute to panicked Christians worried that they may have made some misstep even in a small way. …
While they say it is up to man all the way to decide to get saved, they act downright hyper-Calvinist and fatalistic when it comes time for them to freely choose a job, career, or even what kind of car to buy. I have never seen this attitude in Reformed Christians. So far, I’ve only seen that they just go right out there and, as long as it’s not forbidden in the Bible, make a decision and do something. If they did it successfully, and it happened, it was God’s will — not spelled out in advance via the Bible or some kind of “inner peace” sign, but God’s will nonetheless.

Sounds pretty familiar, Dr. Ransom. I went through a period like that in high school where I was sitting around waiting for that burning bush moment in which God would miraculously show me what to do with my life. Then I realized that I'm good at science, I'm interested in forensics, it tied in with my interests and abilities, and there was a forensics program at the local college. So now here I am, three years later, almost through with my degree and still convinced it's what I want to do with my life. Never got my message from God, but I've come to think God doesn't bash people over the head with giant neon flashing road signs to get them to go into a certain career.

Going back to Shadowlander's earlier post, I didn't read that as an attack on the women's rights movement, which I guess is how wagga took it. My impression of his post was that he was upset by the ridiculous amount of pressure from society today for men to act more like stereotypical women, getting emotional and weepy over cute widdle animals dying on nature programs and stuff. It's ironic that the people who scream the loudest that there's no such thing as gender differences and that women are just men with different body parts are the ones pushing hardest to force men and boys to act like a stereotyped view of women. It baffles me how a movement that's fought for women's right to be who they want to be instead of being forced into pre-selected slots can mutate into a female version of what they fought against.

Well, actually Bookwyrm that is just how I took Shadowlander's post. Not only as an attack on women's liberation, whatever that meant in USA, but also on myself. I've no quarrel with Warrior 4 Jesus, who rightly pointed out a historic injustice directed at men. I can't understand Shadowlander's reaction to women being truly equal to men. By the way, Dr Ransom, as nice as I accept you meant to be, I'd really prefer not to be called Kiddo by anyone so young they should be advised not to teach their grandmother how to suck eggs, as the saying goes.

I am not a person of one idea just because I think it should be possible to believe in both Evolution and the Salvation of Jesus, or that I uphold the principle that where a career structure exists, as can and often does in the church as well as among the rest of the working population, that women who have had the calling to serve, should be formally enabled to do the job and be paid and promoted equally to men according to merit, and their capacity to do the job.

I found Shadowlander's attitude to my degrees downright offensive, as I was already married when I got my degrees to bolster existing pre-marriage work qualifications and work experience up to professional expectations, so that I could return to work to help support my family until they were old enough and qualified enough to support themselves. This was necessary. Being 'from another culture' I have long understood the uncertainties of life.

Australia was one of the first countries in the world to give women suffrage and to recognise women's labour. And necessary it was when much of its able-bodied menfolk were away from Australia for years at a time, in some cases for the entire length of World War 1 or World War 2. Those who served then were often lucky to come back alive. Even those that did survive the wars plus the Great Depression in between - and men died in peacetime as well as wartime - came back damaged and ill, which not only affected their chances of getting and keeping a job but also of maintaining a harmonious family life. During that time women had to work to keep the place going, and nobody either here or overseas would have said that was wrong. And I have already mentioned the plight of children left in orphanages etc. I'd hate to have left my own children in such places if my husband was retrenched, as sooner or later he would be, sacking workers being the one-idea method of firms to cut costs and preserve CEO salaries.

If you like to call me cherry picking to query the details, rather than the who of the Tanakh account of the very beginning of time, what would you say of churches who have traditionally based their whole administrative structure on St Paul's dictum "I suffer women not to teach" (1 Timothy 2 ) whilst assiduously ignoring the following chapter you advised me to read, Dr Ransom? Isn't that the one that details the qualities St Paul would have liked to see in men that are called to service? According to that chapter a bishop 'then must be blameless, the husband of one wife', sober, vigilant, of good behaviour'... (it does say something about such men being hospitable and able to teach).

Does it look like that verse has been adhered to? I doubt it.

Pattertwig's pal is right to say that in many cases women form the majority of church attendees. If I had insisted on marrying within the Church I would never have been able to marry at all, since there was a ratio of something like twenty young women for every single male attendee at one church I went to as a youngster while the Vietnam war was in full swing. That was not including the visiting youth leaders who preached so patronisingly about giving up the sins of the flesh and repenting of our sex lives. As if!

I'm not sure how Southern Baptist churches are run. Maybe those who have such time on their hands might occupy themselves elsewhere with more useful tasks, and leave the pastor to do the entertaining. But then USA is a strange place, I hear. In yesterday's paper it was reported that male fertility was affected by performing household chores involving exposure to electromagnetic fields, as if men don't get exposed to electromagnetic fields from televisions, computers, mobile phones etc.

I agree I feel as frustrated by the all or nothing attitude of some Christians, just as I feel equally frustrated by the attitude of the likes of Richard Dawkins who doesn't believe in any God. And I would like to be more supportive of men's role in life, but then I have no brothers or sons to support. Only a retired husband and myself. I had no choice in that either.

If you discard large segments of the Bible it just doesn't work. Either you have to accept that the whole thing is from God, as it says, or that none of it is. There is no middle ground, no compromise. And if none of it is true then that would make it rather worthless as a whole and essentially you and I and everyone are all basically living one big lie. ... Take the Bible as a whole or take it as nothing at all. Taking only some of it in consideration allows "cherry picking", meaning you can dismiss parts you don't like or feel are scientifically unprovable, while sticking only to the parts you do like. You can harp on all day long, kiddo, but the fact remains you're cherry picking and I'm calling you out on it. And you can throw your degrees in my face all you want and turn blue in the face from shouting at your screen at me but at the end of the day you're still cherry picking. ... You're also basically saying that God is incapable of keeping His Word together through the ages. I mean, when it comes down to brass tacks, that's your argument, yes? God has had no control over the Bible since its earliest days and basically it just sort of drifted around whimsically, subject to nothing but Chaos Theory, until it ended up in its current form. ... When I find a conflict between what I see in the world around me and the Bible, experience has taught me to trust the Bible, and it has never failed me.

Agreed!!!

I know that for some of you, the Bible is All or Nothing. But it doesn't have to be that way. Slavery was implicitly condoned in many parts of the Bible, yet I know everyone at this forum accepts that it is Immoral and UnGodly today. So clearly there are some aspects of the Bible that even to many of you, have been reinterpreted to fit a more "enlightened" Age .

I find this grossly offensive. "The Bible IS All or Nothing." And it definitely has "to be that way"! Slavery is partly a cultural issue. It was more acceptable then than now. But God cared then, and He cares now, how slaves are treated. The Bible doesn't change. We do. The Bible doesn't conform to us. We conform to it. The Bible shouldn't be "reinterpreted to fit a more 'enlightened' Age." Whoever said we're more enlightened? We've degenerated in countless ways! Do you think people today know everything and people in ages past were stupid?! The Bible is timeless. It is God's written Word for EVERYONE, the very words of God. And HE does not change! "For I am the Lord; I change not" [Malachi 3]. "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever" [Hebrews 13].

But like the Jews, the Catholics and others, who exercise prudence about Evolution, I do think that Darwin actually stumbled upon something quite tremendous. I'm not dissing the Scriptures if I point out that in days gone by neither the authors of those Scriptures nor their heathen opponents, sometimes with highly similar Creation myths, had any idea of how the world came to be, and at best the authors of Genesis, who based it on the 'Book of Jubilees', 'saw through a glass darkly'. ... I am not a person of one idea just because I think it should be possible to believe in both Evolution and the Salvation of Jesus.

Genesis 1-2 is not a Creation myth. No part of the Bible is myth, whatever you choose to believe. Wagga, I strongly recommend you read the following book: M. R. DeHaan, Portraits of Christ in Genesis, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1966. The quote below is taken from pages 16, 23, and 24.

This attack upon the veracity of the historical account of creation as given in Genesis ... is more than an attempt to discredit the written record, it is in reality an undermining of the incarnate Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. If the record of the five books of Moses, as well as the rest of Scripture, is not fact, then Jesus Christ becomes either a deliberate imposter, or an ignorant fool. ... Jesus Christ while here on earth quoted from all the five books of Moses. ... If there are errors in the Bible, among many historical truths, then who is going to be the infallible judge who can tell us which is fact and which is fable? It is either all or nothing! Either the Bible is the infallible Word of God, or it is not. And if you can point out one error in the record, then we cannot trust any of it, since we do no tknow how many other errors it may contain. ... The Bible, therefore, is all the infallible revelation of Jesus Christ, or it is a worthless piece of silly literature for gullible fools. It is all or nothing! It is all true or it is false.

It can be difficult for women sometimes to find a sense of worth in the Bible because of some of the more uncomfortable moments, such as Lot offering his daughters and wife to be raped by the mob, or because they feel they can't find role models in the Biblical women.

What?! I have a sense of worth! I am crucified with Christ! [Galatians 2] I am a member of His bride the church! My Creator died for me! He bore my sin on the cross, the greatest act of love! Jesus loves me with an everlasting love! [Jeremiah 31] He calls me "beloved"! Lot's offering his daughters [not wife] "to be raped by the mob" was stupid and sinful, and I think he was rewarded by being raped later by those same daughters [read Genesis 19 carefully]. But I find plenty of role models in the Bible: Ruth, Hannah, Abigail, Esther, Mary.

Was Jesus human? Because Jesus was not a sinner. It seems that being human does not necessarily entail sinfulness. I too agree that Mary was sinful, but your response compromises the humanity of Christ--which is necessary for the atonement.

The equation would be better Human = sinner, except when Human = Jesus. Not sinner = not human, unless Jesus = Not sinner.

Thank you for the clarification.

Yes I truly believe that the Virgin Mary was preserved from original sin and that she chose not to sin during her life. While its true its not explicitly stated in Scripture it can certainly be inferred. Not only from the Angel Gabriel's greeting, but from common sense. ... Natural human perfection is possible, and this does not mean that you are God. It simply means you have natural perfection as Adam and Eve were before the fall. ... By God's good grace Mary was preserved from original sin. Surely you believe that if God wished it it could be done.

What you are saying about Mary is not inferred from scripture nor from common sense. Common sense says the opposite, that she was born in sin--like the rest of us. Is it possible for God to preserve Mary from original sin? NO! Why?

1. God states explicitly in His Word that no one is righteous, that all have fallen short of the glory of God, that everyone born of Adam [and Eve] is a sinner worthy of death [Romans 3:10 & 23, 5:12, 18-19]. Saying Mary was born without sin, for which we have zero biblical evidence, directly contradicts the Word. And it makes God a liar. It means the Bible cannot be taken at face value. But God never lies for He cannot lie. His Word never lies. And we cannot divorce the two! [quote="DeHaan, Portraits of Christ in Genesis, 22":2pphd9mv]The Bible as the Word of God is the only source of information which we have of Jesus, the Living Word of God. The reverse is also true. No one can understand the written word of God, the Bible, without knowing the Living, Incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ. The two are inseparable. Destroy one and you destroy both.

2. If Mary was supposedly born without sin, why didn't God do the same for the rest of us?! Why make Mary special? Except for being the mother of Jesus, for which God graciously made her a vessel, Mary was a human being, a sinner, like the rest of us. We have no record of Enoch, Isaiah, Daniel, and a few others [mostly prophets] in the Old Testament sinning, and yet we know they did. Why? "There is none righteous, no not one" [Romans 3]. They still needed the atoning work of Christ. "Only by the blood of the Lamb..."
3. If people [not including Jesus] can be born without sin, why would He have to come to this earth at all and die for us?! The "possibility" of being a descendant of Adam and Eve and still born sinless makes the cross unnecessary. It means Jesus died for nothing!

Christ had no sin nature and no original sin because He was divine and His father was God Himself.

This is the key, JBC. Take it or leave it.

JBC and Lucy P, consider the following...
Jesus Christ is the head of the church [Ephesians 1:22, 5:23, Colossians 1:18], “which is His body” [Eph 1]. What does this mean? The church must submit to the authority of Jesus Christ – and by extension, His Word. Christ has revealed Himself in Scripture. If we want to know God, we go to Jesus. And if we want to know Jesus, we go to the Bible. We can’t time travel. Besides, “though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more” [2 Corinthians 5]. We know Christ through the Spirit, through the Word.

What is our foundation? Jesus Christ [1 Corinthians 3]. He alone is the rock of our salvation. God would never build His church on the shifting foundation of man. He built it on something solid: Jesus Christ.

Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock. But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.

Deuteronomy 32:4, 15, 18, 30; 2 Samuel 22:2-3, 23:3; Psalm 31:3, 40:2, 61:2, 92:15, 118:22; Isaiah 8:14, 17:10, 28:16, 32:2, Matthew 21:42-44, Romans 9:32-33, 1 Corinthians 10:4, and 1 Peter 2:4-8 ... in these passages, God alone is the “rock.” Why make Matthew 16:18 mean something it doesn’t? “Upon this rock [petra]”: a pun, as some have noted. Petra: Christ ... not Peter [petros], a small stone like the rest of us.

Well, actually Bookwyrm that is just how I took Shadowlander's post. Not only as an attack on women's liberation, whatever that meant in USA, but also on myself.

wagga, I'm a young female living in the US. And I agree with Shadowlander to the extent that the manhood of the male species is at jeopardy in this country, especially in pop culture. US television shows and movies [Hollywood, etc] are full of strong women but you rarely see strong men. Fighting for equal rights in the workplace [which I fully agree with] is one thing. Ridiculing our God-given manhood or womanhood is another.

I found Shadowlander's attitude to my degrees downright offensive, as I was already married when I got my degrees to bolster existing pre-marriage work qualifications and work experience up to professional expectations.

So you take pride in your degrees? At one time, so did I. I stupidly thought working toward a doctorate in English gave me bragging rights. It gave me an inflated head, something for which I now hang my head in shame.

For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence.

Christ is my wisdom [1 Cor 1]. That's enough. And I need wisdom more than I need knowledge. Why? "Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up" [1 Cor 8]. The love of Jesus Christ surpasses knowledge [Ephesians 3]. And the only knowledge that counts with God is knowing Him [Philippians 3:8-10]. If we don't know Jesus Christ and His Word, we can have a hundred academic degrees [or a hundred Oscars], but we're still stupid fools.

(edited)

My impression of his post was that he was upset by the ridiculous amount of pressure from society today for men to act more like stereotypical women, getting emotional and weepy over cute widdle animals dying on nature programs and stuff. It's ironic that the people who scream the loudest that there's no such thing as gender differences and that women are just men with different body parts are the ones pushing hardest to force men and boys to act like a stereotyped view of women. It baffles me how a movement that's fought for women's right to be who they want to be instead of being forced into pre-selected slots can mutate into a female version of what they fought against.

Actually, the "women are just men with different body parts" argument makes the feminist movement into a push for women to act like the stereotypical male. "Men are just women with different body parts" has never been a strong argument in the movement.

I don't think young or teenaged boys are being pressured to act like stereotypical women at all! If anything, our current societal perception of an ideal man is what is boxing in boys of today and not allowing them to be who they want to be, just as they are with today's girls. The double-standard problem that has arisen, especially in the education system, is that girls are given heaps of attention while boys, mostly the energetic ones, are labeled as "trouble makers" and "lost causes" and left by the wayside. I once saw this happen while student teaching in an 8th grade English class:
A very arrogant 13 year old girl wearing a skirt that was barely legal waltzed up to the (female) teacher and announced that she was leaving class now because she had to go be in the drama club year book photo. She was politely excused from class. Not a minute later, a 13 year old boy raised his hand and asked to be excused for the same reason. The teacher's response? A sneer and "You're in drama club?" and he was not allowed to go. The girl was not even a member of the club, as I learned later, but the boy was. This boy was very intelligent and always polite, but because he was energetic and so enthusiastic that he sometimes spoke out of turn, he was labeled by all his teachers as being a "problem student", and was never given the chances he deserved.

People don't want to believe that girls and women can do bad things intentionally. Despite the "women are embodiments of Evil and need to be controlled" argument of the 1600s and earlier, the Victorian era swapped it out for "Women are pure and good while men are crude and lecherous. Women must be protected at all costs because they can't think for themselves", and that's the cultural frame we haven't broken out of yet. A woman can get off scot free with something by batting her eyelashes at the right man or by playing the "dumb blonde" trick (which, as a blonde, I despise) while a man will be instantly reprimanded. On the flip side, though, a man can have as much premarital sex as he wants and be congratulated while a woman who does the same is shunned as being "ruined" or "slutty" by men and women alike. The double standard works both ways, and it is not balanced.

😮 What?! I have a sense of worth! I am crucified with Christ! [Galatians 2] I am a member of His bride the church! My Creator died for me! He bore my sin on the cross, the greatest act of love! Jesus loves me with an everlasting love! [Jeremiah 31] He calls me "beloved"! Lot's offering his daughters [not wife] "to be raped by the mob" was stupid and sinful, and I think he was rewarded by being raped later by those same daughters [read Genesis 19 carefully]. But I find plenty of role models in the Bible: Ruth, Hannah, Abigail, Esther, Mary.

Then I congratulate you on being very fortunate in that regard. It's not so easy for everyone.

What if you are called to service to the Lord to become a Minister or Priest? Surely this is of gravest import to a man, as well as a woman?

This is actually one of the main struggles I've found myself up against with Christianity. I know I have much more study to make on the matter, but the apparent God-commanded exclusion of women from the Christian ritual process is not just about feminism vs. patriarchy or submission, it carries a strong sense of abandonment for women. There is a sense that men are the spiritual leaders and women are not allowed to be because there is something either not good enough or inherently wrong about being born female that is especially displeasing to God, so much so that He would shun our honestly given service as priests. But this doesn't jive with the idea that men and women are spiritual equals...in which case, why the separation?
The only conclusion I can come to for the moment is that it was a clever bit of instruction on God's part based on the society He saw we had built. Men were in charge, so the rule was easier for society to swallow. But what about now that times have changed and we are closer (even if it is only a teensy bit) to recognizing that state of equality?

EDIT:

Felt I ought to point something out before what seems to be an already touchy area becomes more irritated:

I found Shadowlander's attitude to my degrees downright offensive, as I was already married when I got my degrees to bolster existing pre-marriage work qualifications and work experience up to professional expectations.

So you take pride in your degrees? At one time, so did I. I stupidly thought working toward a doctorate in English gave me bragging rights. It gave me an inflated head, something for which I now hang my head in shame.

There is a HUGE difference between taking pride in one's hard-earned accomplishments, as WWW is professing, and allowing those accomplishments to give you a sense of entitlement, which WWW is not professing, and I highly doubt 220 intended to insinuate that this was the case.

Then I congratulate you on being very fortunate in that regard. It's not so easy for everyone.

Jesus did the same thing for you! You're no different from me or anyone else on the planet! Jesus died for everybody! He loves you just the same as me! He died for YOUR sins! This is love, "not that we loved God but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins" [1 John 4]. This is truth, Draugin. Take it or leave it. I pray you believe it!

We've got some interesting comments but we must be careful to not let this go into flamming or a shouting match. I have a few comments to make on the above posts that will hopefully put things into persespective.

Slavery: The Bible neither condemns nor condones it. I see the Bible's view of slave/master as employee/employer. In a strict sense, if you work for a boss, while you are on the clock, you can be considered a slave of your boss. We have had such a negative connotation of slavery to where we instantly think of brutal, harsh conditions, minimal wages, physical brutality, and the like. This has been common thread throughout history, but not all slaves were under these conditions. But those were brought out by those who abused the slaves. Paul explicitly tells master to treat their slaves fairly. The same goes for any employer. He also tells slaves to respect thier master and do thier duties. The same goes for any employee. Different name, same concept.

Draugin made an interesting comment about Lot. We all know that most of us here hold the Bible to be the infallable Truth. Now something we all have to realize is that the Bible has a number of scenes that it definately does not condone. Lot offered his own blood to get raped, and later has incest with his daughters. David commits murder and adultery. His son rapes his sister. Eli allows his sons to commit heinous crimes. Does the Bible condone all this? No. In Job, three of Job's friends and his wife have long monologues about why Job should curse God and die. It is true that they said it, but what they said is not true. Any time we are dealing with a narrative part of the Bible, like a story, we treat it like a story. We learn from the characters, even if what they do is wrong.
Lot lived in Sodom, well known for an act that now bears its name. Not only that, he was in a position of authority within the city. In those days, hosptitality to a guest was even more important than your own families needs. That was why Lot so strongly defended the angels. But by living in a perverse city, he had fallen to the point of accepting that lifestyle and compromised to treat the perverts at his door. And the effects lasted as he allowed his daughters to have incest with him. The Bible does not condone his actions and the sons of the daughters formed nations that were Israel's enemies. Why was Lot spared? If he didn't have any connection to Abraham, I wonder if he would have been spared at all. Just speculation, but I do believe that connection has something to do with it.

I'll stop with that for now.

Random thoughts:

Fencer4Jesus wrote:
Slavery: The Bible neither condemns nor condones it.

The Bible also was written during several eras of oppression. The Torah allows for some indentured servitude and even slavery. However Jesus points out that the Torah also allowed divorce "because of the hardness of your hearts," but He adds that it was not God's plan and tells us to try to live up to God's real plan. Might even Torah-permitted slavery fall into that category by now?

But the New Testament was all written beneath the might of the Roman Empire. Like Jesus, Paul did not set out to overthrow Rome. That would have been both a politicial gesture that undermined the spiritual message of the Gospel and a massacre for the hapless rebels. Paul told people how to survive it. But if we would not be hard of heart like the ancestors, we must acknowledge that nowhere in the Bible did it give Christians permission to go out and make slaves once we were the dominant culture or to bring slavery to continents that never previously had it. Both pro-slavery and anti-slavery groups cited Scripture, and often cited the same Scriptures. Obviously someone was embracing error. But do we really need to be told which side? Slavery was one of the great evils of modern times, but worse (if possible) because we Christians "escaped" Roman oppression and were supposed to know better.

(I found it interesting that this point was juxtaposed with a paragraph that "the Bible records a lot of things that were clearly wrong, but records them as history.")

In a strict sense, if you work for a boss, while you are on the clock, you can be considered a slave of your boss.

If your boss can prevent you from finding another employer/place to live, take you from your family, physically raise a hand against you, change your name, feed you garbage, pass you to his children in his will, and kill you if you try to leave him, then yes they are similar. Otherwise, no.

Draugrin wrote:
It can be difficult for women sometimes to find a sense of worth in the Bible

220 wrote:
What?! I have a sense of worth! I am crucified with Christ!

Draugrin wrote:
Then I congratulate you on being very fortunate in that regard. It's not so easy for everyone.

220 wrote:
Jesus did the same thing for you! You're no different from me or anyone else on the planet! Jesus died for everybody! He loves you just the same as me! He died for YOUR sins! This is love, "not that we loved God but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins" [1 John 4]. This is truth, Draugrin. Take it or leave it. I pray you believe it!

That wasn't what Draugrin was talking about, I think. Draugrin seems quite aware that Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so. Being told "take it or leave it" might make people think they can't discuss things that trouble them. Or at least, that they can't discuss things that trouble you.

Draugrin wrote:
This is actually one of the main struggles I've found myself up against with Christianity. I know I have much more study to make on the matter, but the apparent God-commanded exclusion of women from the Christian ritual process is not just about feminism vs. patriarchy or submission, it carries a strong sense of abandonment for women.

There is a sense that men are the spiritual leaders and women are not allowed to be because there is something either not good enough or inherently wrong about being born female that is especially displeasing to God, so much so that He would shun our honestly given service as priests. But this doesn't jive with the idea that men and women are spiritual equals...in which case, why the separation?

And "take it or leave it" is a hollow and, if I may say, a rather sheltered attitude toward such Deep Magic seekers.

Actually I'm seeing that in a lot of the past few comments: a Hobbit mentality. That is, because of the devotion and protection of those who have gone before, sometimes people become so sheltered that they cease to remember it.

Draugrin wrote:
The only conclusion I can come to for the moment is that it was a clever bit of instruction on God's part based on the society He saw we had built. Men were in charge, so the rule was easier for society to swallow. But what about now that times have changed and we are closer (even if it is only a teensy bit) to recognizing that state of equality?

Well, we don't want to go all Roddenberry and think that humans are better nowadays. We've stamped out some sins (slavery, supposedly) and replaced them with others. (Sin) Nature abhors a vacuum. So invoking "times have changed" probably won't get the literalists on board. Rather, the question is, is anyone embracing error, and what if it isn't who we think it is.

Paul often talked about church structure. He also talked about women receiving charisms like prophecy that were identical to charisms received by the men (which makes sense). Paul also had a busy time running around smiting Gnosticism, which elevated women but not in a way Christians would recognize.

TOM wrote (in a piece called The Eschatology of Barbara Gordon (PG-13) when the Batman creators decided to have Batgirl date her boss -- TOM thought this was a terrible idea, BTW)

...

Gnosticism is one of the big-tent heresies: it has so many tenets and tendrils that many people who are in it don’t know they’re in it, and some of it conflicts. When Paul railed against “those who preach against meat and marriage,” these were the people he meant. The word actually means “secret knowledge.” In its simplest form Gnosticism told a “secret” that Matter is disgusting and evil, with Man a “divine spark” trapped in bodies of Evil, Disgusting Matter. (Hence the ban against meat: the higher up the food chain, the greater the concentration of pollutants. Think of it as spiritual dioxin.)

Bat-Gnosticism primarily manifests itself in the interpretation of relationships. Real-world Gnostics loathed marriage because—oh, horrors!—people might *touch* each other and bring sweet, sweet babies into the world, where their divine sparks would be slimed with bodies of Evil, Disgusting Matter. (As it took centuries for the belief system to die out, it seems that simply shunning marriage did not trim their population. Shakers, they were not.) Simultaneously, Gnostics believed in a distinct supernatural force called the “divine feminine.” (If the Mary Sue character had the Gnostic equivalent of a patron saint, whoever codified this belief would be it.) The “divine feminine” held “secret knowledge” of reality and spiritual truth, had mystical healing powers, and could save the world to boot. But whether it involves changing Mary Magdalene from prostitute to Mrs. Jesus, or changing Barbara from Bat-girlfriend to Mrs. Batman, it’s still inherently offensive, defining Woman by whether she Puts Out, and to whom. The independent woman, who used to be neither of these things, is lost. The idea that men and women could be friends, coworkers, and equals, without love or sex getting in the way, is ridiculed and discarded.

To the extent that Gnostics have a Bible (or a writer’s bible), the chant “Barbara brings light to Bruce Wayne’s darkness” is a direct lift from their teachings. It is a key point of Gnosticism that Man is naturally benighted (also, a bit of a schlump); Woman brings light to Man’s darkness. Man must embrace the divine feminine—in definitions both mystical and carnal—to receive spiritual truth. If he fails to do so, he will always be damaged, consigned to spiritual darkness and psychological gloom. Of course, if Woman touches Man he will be saved, but her own holiness will be defiled. Nevertheless a truly “divine” feminine would make this sacrifice to save Man. (Interesting how much a woman is expected to sacrifice to save a man.)

And that, Gandalf's Beard, is a sampler of why the early church threw away the so-called Gospels of Mary Magdalene, Thomas, and Philip really hard.

Anyhow, telling people to tough it out, suck it up, and shut up, well, I expect you didn't intend it that way 220, but that's sort of how it sounds. If your education gave you a big head, as you mentioned, it doesn't necessarily follow that this happens with everyone else. A better question would be, does this effort glorify God or me? Am I doing this to better serve God or me? And will the education that you couldn't use at the time come in useful for His purposes later?

If I recall, you once commented that people in the developed world have no comprehension of persecution, how soft we are ... yet when someone comes along who had to struggle to get a good education simply because she was a woman, you dismiss it. I'm guessing that Wagga has probably been called some bad words that would make your ears bleed, "unwomanly" words, for toughing it out and fighting for the degree that you were born recently enough to take for granted. Paul did call his education "loss" (filthy rags, actually) but he said it to make a point about how humans can't save themselves, not to dismiss study. "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength and all your mind."

Did Paul's righteous efforts to stamp out Gnosticism get misunderstood? What would he say to a woman like PP's pastor who said she felt a calling to go into the ministry? Would he just quote himself a lot? Would he listen to her sermon first, or stop her from giving it? Or would some things really get talked out, so that whether or not we liked the answer, those with questions would feel respected and be at peace?

What people really need to do is to produce a verse that states "The Holy Spirit does not give the charisms of pastoring and priest-ing to women." No one has done that here.

Now I think everyone should have some nice lemonade and a cookie. (And I won't yell at you kids to get off my lawn. )

I’m confused (I know, so what else is new ). I sure didn’t wait for some sign as to what car to buy or when to buy it. Now as I sit here unemployed and filling out job applications, I have been thinking along the lines of “God has a plan for me and has picked out a job for me,” and I pray every night asking for help finding it. I thought that was showing faith and trust, but now I’m not sure if I’m going about it the wrong way. I also have tendency to worry about having made some misstep (although I at the same time tend to believe that God can turn any mistakes I make in to something good and /or correct them in someway). Clarification would be helpful.

Okay — look I’m getting to this much quicker than the last time, Pal! Earlier I was not referring to a situation like yours, in which you’re asking God for wisdom and to make a way for you to find a job.

The kind of mindset I was talking about would be to sit around and wait for some kind of supernatural or “inner peace” “sign” from God before you picked up a pen and did really unspiritual, human-action things like filling out job applications. Surely God does have a job picked out for you. But as Bookwyrm recounted about his college choices, you almost always don’t know what that will be in advance. Scripture never guarantees that we will. Rather, if what you’re doing is not obviously against Scripture (God’s revealed will), then it’s within the possibility of being God’s secret will. If it happens, it obviously was.

I pray He will help you find the job! ... No, just now I thought, I should actually pray now, not just go off and forget because it’s the internet:

Father in Heaven, please help Pal find a job, and soon. Give her initiative to fill out applications, and guide her steps to the right opportunity. Let her be able someday, again I hope soon, to look back and see Your hand guiding her, even as she didn’t know what You meant during the process. In Jesus’ Name, amen.

Told’ja she’d ignore me again, and I hadn’t even really started.

(EDIT to include quotes from post written while I was writing mine)

That wasn’t what Draugrin was talking about, I think. Draugrin seems quite aware that Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so. Being told "take it or leave it" might make people think they can’t discuss things that trouble them. Or at least, that they can’t discuss things that trouble you.

Ahem. (Clears throat) Yep.

I know Jesus loves me. I’ve “taken it.” That doesn’t automatically eliminate doubts, sincere questions or struggles to understand God’s truth. Obviously the Biblical saints felt the same way — i.e., Paul with his “thorn in the flesh,” struggling to figure out what God’s intent was for him. Draugrin, God absolutely has a place for women. It’s essential. It’s vital to the health of the Church. That church takes the role of a bride in Scripture (Ephesians 5; Revelation 21)! I’d love to discuss this further in the near future, if you’re open to it.

And "take it or leave it" is a hollow and, if I may say, a rather sheltered attitude toward such Deep Magic seekers.

Actually I’m seeing that in a lot of the past few comments: a Hobbit mentality. That is, because of the devotion and protection of those who have gone before, sometimes people become so sheltered that they cease to remember it.

(Moves past the issue of God’s “omnibenevolence,” i.e. whether “Jesus loves [nonbelievers] the same as he loves [believers],” leaving that for someone else to answer if he/she thinks it worthwhile ...)

Wagga, first I must say, thanks for the actual interactions.

However, I must submit (ha ha) again that without more references to the positive messages of Scripture, rather than continual basis on what’s wrong with Life, the Universe and Everything, you and everyone else here (myself included) will just get into a cyclical discussion. It’ll be your experiences with Extreme Ideas versus someone else’s experiences with Equally Extreme Ideas on the Opposite Side.

Did you read my post all the way through? It’s not meant to be an insulting question; still I ask, because you attributed to me the nickname “kiddo” when actually someone else called you that.

If you like to call me cherry picking to query the details, rather than the who of the Tanakh account of the very beginning of time, what would you say of churches who have traditionally based their whole administrative structure on St Paul’s dictum “I suffer women not to teach” (1 Timothy 2 ) whilst assiduously ignoring the following chapter you advised me to read, Dr Ransom? Isn’t that the one that details the qualities St Paul would have liked to see in men that are called to service? According to that chapter a bishop ‘then must be blameless, the husband of one wife’, sober, vigilant, of good behaviour’... (it does say something about such men being hospitable and able to teach).

Um ... I’d say both chapters must be adhered to. This seems to be a red herring at best. I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here. But it seems to be: if chapter 2 isn’t followed, then let’s not follow chapter 3 either. Hey, guess what: let’s follow both of them.

Did you read the parts where I said my personal “thing” is mostly against the factions of Christendom — the “Visigoths” included — who really do put women down? What were your thoughts on that?

Absolutely I’ve seen those kinds of churches, wagga, and I know those continue to be problems now. It just so happens that today I wrote more about the excesses of feminism. Some other day I’ll say something about the other problem — because, again, it’s closer to my unique interest field. Just because I “pick” on one doesn’t mean I will automatically swerve to the other. People assume that a lot, though — that if you don’t like one idea, you must have an equal and opposite reaction. I can’t tell if it’s a natural assumption, or projection.

Yes, let’s as Christians fix violations of both the high standards for ministers and the fact that, to better reflect Christ’s love for His church, men are meant to be servant leaders in the home and in the church. Too many rejections go on of one or the other, because Christians get it into their heads that this-and-such error is so vital, we need to do everything we can to avoid it. What did you think, wagga?

Instead of engaging what I did write, about Biblical support for complementarianism and what it can (and has) looked like in practice, it seems I was correct that you saw it all as just more attacks on God-created male/female equality. I’m not sure what else I can say to get past that reactionary filter.

Here are my questions again: do you believe is it possible to overcorrect for feminism’s excesses? At all, intrinsically, theoretically possible?

And again: I’d rather focus on what Scripture does say positively on this issue, in all its aspect, rather than that “all or nothing approach” you mentioned. Biblical balance will help a lot on this issue. In fact, I’m guessing that it is because of ignoring the 1 Timothy 2 qualifications for leaders that the church has suffered, and now it’s only women who want to do the jobs because the men are either corrupt or pathetic or both. The solution is certainly not to go on and keep ignoring Scripture, but to conform our minds and desires on all fronts, including both of these.

Okay, so maybe time for one more tiny post.

Did you read the parts where I said my personal “thing” is mostly against the factions of Christendom — the “Visigoths” included — who really do put women down?

I don't recognize the reference. To be fair, you might not be allowed to mention it. Were you referring to groups like the ones that their critics call "Ladies Against Women"? (Or sometimes, "Confused Women for America" because so many of their workers are male.)

Bookwyrm, Pattertwig's Pal, this may not be the book thread but have I got a book for you. It's called Winter is not forever by Janette Oke, about an 18-year-old boy who has no idea what to do with his life "because God hasn't told [him] yet." Good audiobook narration, by a woman reader for some reason.

He also talked about women receiving charisms like prophecy that were identical to charisms received by the men (which makes sense).

Prophecy? What sort of prophecy is this supposed to mean? This seems to be on the verge of mystic in a way, and from my experience that kind of thing is seriously bad in Christianity.

Oddly enough, that description of Gnosticism sounds way more like the intensely conservative Christian groups from my hometown (excluding the divine feminine, of course).

And Dr. Ransom, I would certainly welcome any insights you have!

TOM, I am truly glad you stepped in and said something about the differences in cultures because I truly did not know. One assumes that social situations among allied Western democracies would be roughly on the same page and I was genuinely surprised to find out that in the equal rights capacity Australia was almost a decade or two back. This definitely explains the "why" of wagga's frustration and now that I can understand the why I can see why my comments to her came across as offensive. Without your input, and Doc Ransom's, I fear that I would have just kept on firing broadsides until one ship or the other was sunk, figuratively speaking.

Well, actually Bookwyrm that is just how I took Shadowlander's post. Not only as an attack on women's liberation, whatever that meant in USA, but also on myself. I've no quarrel with Warrior 4 Jesus, who rightly pointed out a historic injustice directed at men. I can't understand Shadowlander's reaction to women being truly equal to men. By the way, Dr Ransom, as nice as I accept you meant to be, I'd really prefer not to be called Kiddo by anyone so young they should be advised not to teach their grandmother how to suck eggs, as the saying goes.

And for the reason I listed above, I'm going to let this one slide. I apologize for calling you "Kiddo". When I get into rip-roaring argument mode where I feel a lot is at stake I tend to feel like I'm talking to my 20 year old niece, who's always in some kind of trouble or another (usually by her own poor choices). But I'm not that young. I'm actually 37 and have seen enough of the world around me to make pretty good judgements. That may seem young to you, but over here people look at me like some kind of demented old geezer.

I am not a person of one idea just because I think it should be possible to believe in both Evolution and the Salvation of Jesus, or that I uphold the principle that where a career structure exists, as can and often does in the church as well as among the rest of the working population, that women who have had the calling to serve, should be formally enabled to do the job and be paid and promoted equally to men according to merit, and their capacity to do the job.

I said you were a "chap of one idea" because I've noticed that you tend to unerringly focus on the women's rights sides of issues, and now understanding the full scenario as it were, I can comprehend to a degree why you do this. But please understand that here in the US, while I wouldn't exactly call that "old hat", the issue has turned from women's rights into "step aside men, women are better than you" in many places. Women's "Everything" is promoted while men tend to get the short end of the stick. It's a sickening overcorrection, as Doc Ransom refers to it, from what was once an "equality for all" approach of a few decades ago. Society is saturated with the concept and it is forcibly crammed down all men's throats, although I think it is probably worse in the larger cities than it is in the more rural areas. To make matters worse this is being passed on to the children where young boys are being pushed aside to "make way for the girls", and as a result a whole generation of unsure, confused, angry boys who are getting into trouble, or worse, won't stand up for anything lest they get in trouble for it. I could speak volumes on this so I'll cut short. I'm trying to understand your situation, please try and understand ours.

I found Shadowlander's attitude to my degrees downright offensive, as I was already married when I got my degrees to bolster existing pre-marriage work qualifications and work experience up to professional expectations, so that I could return to work to help support my family until they were old enough and qualified enough to support themselves. This was necessary. Being 'from another culture' I have long understood the uncertainties of life.

I'll let this slide too. Again I do apologize for what can really only be called a misunderstanding on my part. Here in the US practically anyone can and does go to college or university and while earning a degree is no easy thing they are far more acquirable than you'd think. Actually I tend to view modern day colleges as giant parties where the booze flows and the sex never stops, and everyday this is confirmed when I talk to college graduates, forcing me to ask the question: When did getting higher education start being about getting wasted and getting the "hot girl" instead of going there for the purpose of learning? It makes me nervous about the day when I have to send my own youngins off to college.

I agree I feel as frustrated by the all or nothing attitude of some Christians, just as I feel equally frustrated by the attitude of the likes of Richard Dawkins who doesn't believe in any God. And I would like to be more supportive of men's role in life, but then I have no brothers or sons to support. Only a retired husband and myself. I had no choice in that either.

I will stand my ground here, however. And feel free to get frustrated at me for being one of the "all or nothing" Christians here. This is simply the most logical approach to it. I have seen Christians that merely take the Bible at face value, or worse, pick only those parts they feel apply to "modern" society, and the end result is always the same. You end up with a church of believers who has no firm stand on anything (because that Jesus did say some pretty offensive things, so let's cut that little bit out), or the Genesis account of Creation (well that's patently absurd. We want to be viewed as "reasonable" and "scientifically forward thinking" by our non-Christian compatriots and quite frankly the whole 6 days thing is rather ridiculous. Not to mention I wouldn't want to be associated with those backwards thinking hayseeds who actually believe that 6 days nonsense), to many more examples. They take figurative scissors to the Bible and cut out everything that doesn't sound nice and peachy, or defies one's scientific knowledge or reason, or can't abide the thought of other offensive things the Bible might say (like the concept that yes, there is actual "evil" in the world, and this is how you shall recognize it), until all that's left of the Bible is a little pamphlet that's worth less than the paper it's printed on. It becomes a pamphlet of platitudes and good feelings and big hugs. But you and I know full well that this is not how God operates and if one can believe he made Mary, a virginal woman who had not known a man, pregnant, is it really that far of a stretch to say that perhaps He was able to make our world in 6 days?

The danger inherent from cutting out dislikeable parts of the Bible, or chalking it up to "well, the writers didn't really know what they were talking about and copied from other cultures" is that the work is intended to be a whole. The Bible must be right or it is of no use, and if it is of no use (except for platitudes and good feelings) then why have it at all? Do you understand the position I'm trying to argue from? If you start from the Bible as every Christian should then and only then can we try and decipher the world around us and get to the nitty gritty "how" and "why" of humanity and how we got to where we are today.

Now this mindset drives scientific types (like Dawkins) completely up the wall and they begin frothing at the mouth and shouting "pseudo-science!" in a fevered pitch because they're basically starting from a totally different assumption, that there is no God and that we're all basically here by accident. Any attempt to fuse the two philosophies fails because, at their roots, they are completely incompatible. God said He did it in 6 days. I don't know how He did it, but He is never wrong, and so with that starting point I can try and figure out the "how" using what we know. And from there the pieces start to fit together a lot better and mesh much better with what the Bible says. Now you may think I'm an idiot for feeling and believing that way, and you're certainly entitled to that opinion. I have been called far worse for it.

Actually, the "women are just men with different body parts" argument makes the feminist movement into a push for women to act like the stereotypical male. "Men are just women with different body parts" has never been a strong argument in the movement.

To be fair to the feminist movement, I was thinking more of personal experience with people in real life and online. Unfortunately, it's the nutjobs that stick out more in memory than the nice, sane people who just want to be treated fairly. That's something I should work on correcting in myself.

People don't want to believe that girls and women can do bad things intentionally. Despite the "women are embodiments of Evil and need to be controlled" argument of the 1600s and earlier, the Victorian era swapped it out for "Women are pure and good while men are crude and lecherous. Women must be protected at all costs because they can't think for themselves", and that's the cultural frame we haven't broken out of yet.

The Victorians pretty much screwed up everything they touched. Don't even get me started on what they did to the fantasy genre.

That attitude I've seen constantly at work. Men are fired for things women aren't even written up for. I've experienced it myself when I've gotten in trouble for doing something that female co-workers do constantly with no consequences. Hopefully this is something that will change with time without people overcompensating back into the Women are EVUL!!!!! territory.

I'm always happy to take book recommendations, ToM. Thanks!

Actually I tend to view modern day colleges as giant parties where the booze flows and the sex never stops, and everyday this is confirmed when I talk to college graduates, forcing me to ask the question: When did getting higher education start being about getting wasted and getting the "hot girl" instead of going there for the purpose of learning?

Ugh. Very true. My college is like that and we aren't even considered a "party school". There's this one guy in my calc class that spends the entire class staring out the window at attractive females. Although I'm not sure how much I can condemn him considering I've slept through quite a few of those classes.

Actually I tend to view modern day colleges as giant parties where the booze flows and the sex never stops, and everyday this is confirmed when I talk to college graduates, forcing me to ask the question: When did getting higher education start being about getting wasted and getting the "hot girl" instead of going there for the purpose of learning?

Tell me about it! I do attend a "party school", mostly because they gave me the best scholarship, and it's a label I have to fight whenever I talk about where I attend. I'm sort of insulated from the worst of it being in the Honors College and not having to take the regular core curriculum classes, but it still gets on my nerves to hear people trading stories about how wasted they got over the weekend as if it was some kind of epic feat. I think part of the prevalence of drinking in college is partly because, like sex, it's something that has been painted as being really, really bad since we were all about 13. We aren't taught what responsible drinking is, only what alcoholism is. We aren't taught what responsible sex is, only that it's bad (for girls). The problem with this is that as soon as the adults say "This is bad" we all want to do whatever it is they've just said not to do. We humans are an exasperating bunch!

(And as I type this, I can hear my downstairs neighbors chanting "Chug!". Oh the irony!)

To make matters worse this is being passed on to the children where young boys are being pushed aside to "make way for the girls", and as a result a whole generation of unsure, confused, angry boys who are getting into trouble, or worse, won't stand up for anything lest they get in trouble for it.

I think this is such a sad situation, and it's part of why I feel so drawn to mentor middle-school age boys. There really are some women who seem to feel entitled to be rude and oppressive to men because of how their great-great-great-grandmothers might have been treated, and that's just plain wrong. As up in arms as I can get at times about feminist issues, I really strive to be the kind of modern woman who views men as equal people, and not project any inherited anger onto them. Why should we, who complained and moaned about being thought of as lesser, now think of men as nothing more than "dogs" who only want our bodies? Sadly, this was (and still is) the main message of my sex education class in middle/high school. My brother is in high school now, and my mom has become something of a crusader against the current program because she wants my brother to be taught that he is a worthy person who is capable of treating himself and women with respect, not that he is the guy who will pressure the pure, virginal girl into sin.

The Old Maid wrote:
He also talked about women receiving charisms like prophecy that were identical to charisms received by the men (which makes sense).

Draugrin wrote:
Prophecy? What sort of prophecy is this supposed to mean? This seems to be on the verge of mystic in a way, and from my experience that kind of thing is seriously bad in Christianity.

No, nothing mystic. Paul never said that the women who were receiving prophecy in 1 Cor. 11 were receiving anything weird, and/or receiving either "lite" or "extra strength" versions of the charism. There is one Holy Spirit, and the Spirit distributes gifts. Paul didn't have a problem with the legitimacy of prophecy or women prophets (or men prophets). It was the chaotic nature of the worship service.

The Old Maid wrote:
And "take it or leave it" is a hollow and, if I may say, a rather sheltered attitude toward such Deep Magic seekers.

Actually I’m seeing that in a lot of the past few comments: a Hobbit mentality. That is, because of the devotion and protection of those who have gone before, sometimes people become so sheltered that they cease to remember it.

Dr.Elwin Ransom wrote:
(Moves past the issue of God’s “omnibenevolence,” i.e. whether “Jesus loves [nonbelievers] the same as he loves [believers],” leaving that for someone else to answer if he/she thinks it worthwhile ...)

Did you leave out a paragraph somewhere, or maybe get it mixed up? I wasn't talking about Omnibenevolence, but about two cultures that are more like each other (North Americans; Australians) than like almost anyone else, but still have sufficient culture drift between them (Shire; Bree) that they sometimes misunderstand each other. Example: in one culture, the term Rabbit-Proof Fence is self-explanatory, and may invoke a shudder. In the other, it's a film you probably haven't seen yet. Only after someone has seen it do they remember, oh, yeah, it used to be like that for Amerind children about a century earlier. People forget, especially when it was before their time.

[P.S., see the film, if you can endure it.]