So, we should stop "Turning the other cheek"  We should stop "loving our neighbor"  We should stop "Doing unto others as we would have done unto us"  We should stop all this "Golden Rule" business, because they're sinners and they must be stoned!  If we don't become hateful and stomp them out then they'll take over the country!  Have none of you read the Book of Daniel.  God says, HE IS IN CONTROL.  If you don't believe your Bible when God over and over says He is in control, then maybe you should run out and stomp those sinners.  

It's the principle of the matter.  Spread the GOSPEL.  Paul wasn't out preaching the ten commandments.  He said he was all about Christ and Him crucified.  It is for the LOVE of Christ.  For God so LOVED the world that He gave His only Begotton son . . .  Let me tell you, if a homosexual turns from his sin it will be LOVE that makes him do it.  Not hate.  Have you ever even noticed that homosexuals attibute sex to love?  They need love.  Not hate.  They want love. Not hate.  Only love will change them.  So, how does hating help?

I'm not saying that condoning is in order.  I never said that.  

Preach the gospel through you actions.  When necesary  use words.  People get tired of words.

One thing that's a true way to interpret the Bible is to interpret the Bible by acting out its words in Your life.

Who cares what your interpretation of the Bible is if it's not creating a love in your heart that turns into actions in your life.

Now next time some Christian gets to be lucky enough to live next to a gay person, -- if they're not the type of Christian that would have Championed staying in the Upper room!!  Lots of "Upper Room" Christians, that huddle in masses and don't speak with the sinners, their neighbors. . . .

But suppose a Christian had a neighbor that was also gay, the T-Shirt would just tell the neighbor that their Christian neighbor hates him.

Anyway, I'm not disagreeing that certain things are wrong.  I'm just saying in its application I don't think it does any good to tell people to turn from sin without telling them to turn to God.  Usually if you can get a person to turn to God, that turn turns them from sin.  But turn from sin alone, there's nothing to turn to.  They need something to turn to.  Ask the Gay people themselves if your T-Shirt is going to make them turn to the Lord.

Then maybe you'll see my point.  Then maybe not.

Peace

                                   

I think I'm going to be smoker's rights advocate, and I'm going to start by suing because they don't make these smilies with Yellow Teeth.  

   I think us smokers are being misrepresented on the web!

More jokes . . .

I'm an Ex-Smoker, smoker.   I've failed quitting more times than I can count, but I think it did start again at least one more times than I quit.  Otherwise, I'd be NOT smoking right now.  So, I lost count of the times that I've quit and I've lost count of the times that I started again, but I know I started one more time than I quit.

   If I don't stop this, they're going to have to create one of those smilies with YELLOW teeth.  

Good luck!

Smoking only ruins your witness to judgmental folks.  The church is full of judgmental people so don't worry, we wont miss out on them if they don't join because of your smoking.  

That was a joke!

I agree!  But He might not fix it just the way we want it fixed.    So, we will only be happy when we want His will.  That way, when He fixes it His way, and we want His way, we're very happy about how He fixes it.

[If a person is a homosexual and he believes His Lord, and he's working on overcoming sin, isn't he lumped in with all the rest of us who have yet to reach perfection??]

I would be afraid, very afraid if my pastor had "man problems".  As a single Christian woman I know just how far off track I can get if there's "man problems" in my life.  I lose my focus and I can't function.  

But I agree with the scriptures Ollie posted.  We're ALL responsible to spread the gospel. If a person is a homosexual and he believes His Lord, and he's working on overcoming sin, isn't he lumped in with all the rest of us who have yet to reach perfection??
The scriptures do say, "Above reproach" and "not even a HINT of sexual immorality"

In my small and judgmental mind, however, I would think that a person who Champions their church obove a relationship with Christ   . . . .
and an organization who put mere men in the place of God . . .
saying that we have a relationship to them them instead of a relationship with God, are violating greater commandments and stomping over more important principles then the gay folks who decide to evangelize in an organized fashion.

Personally, I prefer a gay person that preaches the gospel than a straight person who preaches evolution.

That's my two cents. . .

Peace

Discerning the Bible’s guidance on women and ministry closely parallels discerning its guidance on the issue of slavery. Our own Wesleyan-holiness forebears helped hammer out the approach to Scripture that gave Bible authority to anti-slavery advocates of the last century. It is no accident that old time Wesleyans who thought the Bible supported the abolition of slavery also led the way in reading the Bible in support of the ordination of women. Nor is any accident that old time Calvinists prominent in the pro-slavery camp also resisted in parallel arguments the "liberation" of women. The two arguments--over slavery and over women’s suffrage--were similar and closely tied together biblically.

The biblical challenge is two fold: 1) to interpret Bible texts accurately in their historical context, and 2) to determine which texts should be read in light of which (i.e., make sense of the Bible as a whole). Both were critical in the slavery debate, and both remain central in the "ordination of women" debate.

As for interpreting the Bible texts accurately in their historical contexts, both the pro-slavery and anti-slavery people tended to read their own positions into the text. On the one hand "The Curse of Ham," Genesis 9:18-25, did not really support the enslavement of black Africans. On the other, Paul did not abolish slavery nor imply its abolition in Ephesians 6:5-9.
The same problem of competent reading of Bible texts in their historical and literary contexts, faces persons seeking God’s will from Scripture regarding the ordination of women. The most vocal present voices against the ordination of women (who happen also to be Calvinist) would have one believe these texts in 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians are straight-forward, easily understood verses. The problem, they claim, is not the texts, but a compromised church, unfaithful to the truth of Scripture and afraid to confront error--the same slander thrown against our abolitionist predecessors by the pro-slavery folks. The truth is 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 are full of difficulties. It is not easy at all to determine the apostle’s basic meaning in these texts or the actual problems he wanted to meet, let alone know how we should apply them. Recent evidence indicates that even these "plainest" of texts do not bear directly against ordination.

But even if 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 did expressly forbid the ordination of women (which they do not), the second problem we noted earlier remains. Which texts are to be read in light of which? What sense do we make of the Bible as a whole on this question? Do we read the entire Bible in light of these two problematic texts, or do we read these two texts in light of the rest of the Bible? Here again the way has already been forged by the anti-slavery people who founded one branch of our present denomination in 1843 (The Wesleyan Methodist Connection).

The abolitionists’ most powerful anti-slavery arguments from the Bible proved not to be the Bible’s statements about slavery itself, but rather other basic, irrefutable biblical claims. This larger Bible context led them to conclude that slavery was a grievous evil, an abomination to God, in spite of the fact that Moses had provided for it, and Saint Paul had assumed it. Thus, in his tract against the slave trade, John Wesley argued not from "slavery texts" but from the Bible’s teaching about the mercy and justice of God. Jonathan Blanchard, Wesleyan Methodist founding president of Wheaton College, argued against slavery on the basis of "one bloodism" --God had created of "one blood" all humans (Acts 17). Charles Finney argued against slavery on the basis of common human need (all are sinful). Others relied on Galatians 3:28 ("In Christ...no slave or free") and Luke 4:18 (Jesus’ mission of "release to the captives," and so on.

None of these persons were liberals; none of them rejected the wisdom of God or the authority of Scripture, as their pro-slavery opponents claimed. Rather, they understood that some Bible truths, by their very nature, must logically provide the context in which other specific instructions and claims in Scripture are read.

This very same task awaits persons who want to address the "women in ministry" question adequately! We must speak not only of one or two specific texts but must make sense of biblical revelation as a whole on this question. 1 Timothy 2 :11-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 stand confronted by a tidal wave of other biblical texts, Pauline and otherwise, which fly in the face of prohibiting women full entry into Christian ministry (as B. T. Roberts, the founder of the Free Methodist Church, argued persuasively a century ago).

Our aim here is not actually to argue the point biblically but to show what the points to argue are--and have been for over a century! Here we underscore the fact that the Wesleyan Church’s ordination of women stands not only on solid biblical grounds but on a solid, historic approach to Scripture as well. We read Scripture on this question in ways hammered out over a century ago by the people who founded the Wesleyan Methodist Connection, the Pilgrim Holiness Church, the Salvation Army and other similar holiness streams.

No , the problem is not lack of biblical warrant, but lack of leadership and conviction. We have to take responsibility in local churches for calling and at district levels for appointing to leadership ministries the women whom God is gifting and calling for those ministries in the Wesleyan Church. And we must do it now.

women in ministry: a biblical perspective

Dr. David Thompson, author and professor at Asbury Seminary, examines the biblical arguments for women in ministry

(Photo: Phoebe Palmer, 1807-1874, preached at over 300 meetings in the United States, Canada and the British Isles.)

Women pastors? Senior pastors? In our church? Over a hundred years ago we Wesleyans led the way in opening ordained ministry to women. So why is this an increasingly difficult topic in the Wesleyan Church?

First, some mistakenly assume that Wesleyan women who claim a call to ordained ministry and want to pastor Wesleyan churches are duped by the secular feminism, no matter how well intentioned they may be.

But this slander by association with secular feminism is simply wrong. Persons troubled by this sort of linkage have either forgotten the history of the Wesleyan Church and the holiness movement or have not known it. We pioneered the ordaining of women and have been doing it since before there was such a thing as "feminism."

Second, the slice of the church growth world Wesleyans have recently listened to is largely a man’s world. Non-Wesleyan luminaries to which we have looked have not pointed us to the numerous women who have established and successfully lead significant ministries (including churches) in North America. It’s another case either of amnesia or ignorance, but the result is the same. Gifted women get the message and go elsewhere.

But the Bible itself probably presents the most difficult obstacle to ordaining and appointing women to Christian ministry. Specifically, Paul seems clearly to exclude it in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36. Here also we must learn again how to read the Bible as a whole from our own heritage and resist following Baptist and Calvinist approaches in this matter.

Discerning the Bible’s guidance on women and ministry closely parallels discerning its guidance on the issue of slavery. Our own Wesleyan-holiness forebears helped hammer out the approach to Scripture that gave Bible authority to anti-slavery advocates of the last century. It is no accident that old time Wesleyans who thought the Bible supported the abolition of slavery also led the way in reading the Bible in support of the ordination of women. Nor is any accident that old time Calvinists prominent in the pro-slavery camp also resisted in parallel arguments the "liberation" of women. The two arguments--over slavery and over women’s suffrage--were similar and closely tied together biblically.

The biblical challenge is two fold: 1) to interpret Bible texts accurately in their historical context, and 2) to determine which texts should be read in light of which (i.e., make sense of the Bible as a whole). Both were critical in the slavery debate, and both remain central in the "ordination of women" debate.

As for interpreting the Bible texts accurately in their historical contexts, both the pro-slavery and anti-slavery people tended to read their own positions into the text. On the one hand "The Curse of Ham," Genesis 9:18-25, did not really support the enslavement of black Africans. On the other, Paul did not abolish slavery nor imply its abolition in Ephesians 6:5-9.

The same problem of competent reading of Bible texts in their historical and literary contexts, faces persons seeking God’s will from Scripture regarding the ordination of women. The most vocal present voices against the ordination of women (who happen also to be Calvinist) would have one believe these texts in 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians are straight-forward, easily understood verses. The problem, they claim, is not the texts, but a compromised church, unfaithful to the truth of Scripture and afraid to confront error--the same slander thrown against our abolitionist predecessors by the pro-slavery folks. The truth is 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 are full of difficulties. It is not easy at all to determine the apostle’s basic meaning in these texts or the actual problems he wanted to meet, let alone know how we should apply them. Recent evidence indicates that even these "plainest" of texts do not bear directly against ordination.

But even if 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 did expressly forbid the ordination of women (which they do not), the second problem we noted earlier remains. Which texts are to be read in light of which? What sense do we make of the Bible as a whole on this question? Do we read the entire Bible in light of these two problematic texts, or do we read these two texts in light of the rest of the Bible? Here again the way has already been forged by the anti-slavery people who founded one branch of our present denomination in 1843 (The Wesleyan Methodist Connection).

The abolitionists’ most powerful anti-slavery arguments from the Bible proved not to be the Bible’s statements about slavery itself, but rather other basic, irrefutable biblical claims. This larger Bible context led them to conclude that slavery was a grievous evil, an abomination to God, in spite of the fact that Moses had provided for it, and Saint Paul had assumed it. Thus, in his tract against the slave trade, John Wesley argued not from "slavery texts" but from the Bible’s teaching about the mercy and justice of God. Jonathan Blanchard, Wesleyan Methodist founding president of Wheaton College, argued against slavery on the basis of "one bloodism" --God had created of "one blood" all humans (Acts 17). Charles Finney argued against slavery on the basis of common human need (all are sinful). Others relied on Galatians 3:28 ("In Christ...no slave or free") and Luke 4:18 (Jesus’ mission of "release to the captives," and so on.

None of these persons were liberals; none of them rejected the wisdom of God or the authority of Scripture, as their pro-slavery opponents claimed. Rather, they understood that some Bible truths, by their very nature, must logically provide the context in which other specific instructions and claims in Scripture are read.

This very same task awaits persons who want to address the "women in ministry" question adequately! We must speak not only of one or two specific texts but must make sense of biblical revelation as a whole on this question. 1 Timothy 2 :11-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 stand confronted by a tidal wave of other biblical texts, Pauline and otherwise, which fly in the face of prohibiting women full entry into Christian ministry (as B. T. Roberts, the founder of the Free Methodist Church, argued persuasively a century ago).

Our aim here is not actually to argue the point biblically but to show what the points to argue are--and have been for over a century! Here we underscore the fact that the Wesleyan Church’s ordination of women stands not only on solid biblical grounds but on a solid, historic approach to Scripture as well. We read Scripture on this question in ways hammered out over a century ago by the people who founded the Wesleyan Methodist Connection, the Pilgrim Holiness Church, the Salvation Army and other similar holiness streams.

No , the problem is not lack of biblical warrant, but lack of leadership and conviction. We have to take responsibility in local churches for calling and at district levels for appointing to leadership ministries the women whom God is gifting and calling for those ministries in the Wesleyan Church. And we must do it now.

ten reasons why men should not
be ordained

1. Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as picking turnips or de-horning cattle. It would indeed be "unnatural" for them to do other forms of work. How can we argue with the intended order that is instituted and enforced by nature?

2. For men who have children, their duties as ministers might detract from their responsibilities as parents. Instead of teaching their children important life skills like how to make a wiener-roasting stick, they would be off at some committee meeting or preparing a sermon. Thus these unfortunate children of ordained men would almost certainly receive less attention from their male parent. Some couples might even go so far as to put their children into secular daycare centres to permit the man to fulfill his duties as a minister.

3. According to the Genesis account, men were created before women, presumably as a prototype. It is thus obvious that men represent an experiment, rather than the crowning achievement of creation.

4. Men are overly prone to violence. They are responsible for the vast majority of crime in our country, especially violent crime. Thus they would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.

5. In the New Testament account, the person who betrayed Jesus was a man. Thus his lack of faith and ensuing punishment stands as a symbol of the subordinate position that all men should take. The story also illustrates the natural tendency of all men to be either unwilling or unable to take a stand. From the Garden of Gethsemane to football locker rooms, men still have this habit of buckling under the weight of the lowest common denominator. It is expected that even ordained men would still embarrass themselves with their natural tendecy toward a pack mentality.

6. Jesus didn't ordain men. He didn't ordain any women either, but two wrongs don't make a right.

7. If men got ordained, then they wouldn't be satisfied with that; they'd want more and more power. Next thing most of the Conference leaders would be men and then where would we be? No. The line must be drawn clearly now before it's too late.

8. Many, if not most, men who seek to be ordained have been influenced by the radical "men's movement" (or "masculist movement"). How can they be good leaders if their loyalties are divided between leading a church and championing the masculist drive for men's rights? The tract writers haven't pronounced on it yet, but the masculist movement is probably profoundly un-Christian.

9. To be an ordained pastor is to nurture and strengthen a whole congregation. But these are not traditional male roles. Rather, throughout the history of Christianity, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more fervently attracted to it. Women, the myth goes, are fulfilled and completed only by their service to others. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination. But if men try to fit into this nurturing role, our young people might grow up with Role Confusion Syndrome, which could lead to such terrible traumas as the Questioning Tradition Syndrome.

10. Men can still be involved in Church activities, without having to be ordained. They can still take up the offering, shovel the sidewalk, and maybe even lead the singing on Fathers' Day. In other words, by confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the Church. Why should they feel left out?

(c) Ivan Emke (with acknowledgement for inspiration to Rosemary Radford Ruether.)

 

Well, I've officially eaten 10 pounds of fish since this article was first posted, and I'm not any smarter then I was before.

So, I will hold on tightly to my belief that Christ's death on the cross will let the Holy Spirit reign in our hearts and God still forgives us for not knowing everything.  

AllinAll,

Voting in church!    I have seen some churches, though, I'm not lucky enough to have them in my area, that wait on the Lord for guidence.  You should see our church meetings.  We always have a vote and rarely does  everyone agree on something.  Of course, I didn't go to the meetings for a long time, and when I started going, I'd have something to say about everything.  Just because I had a comment that needed saying   I don't go to the business meetings anymore because the church was there BEFORE I got there and it go along fine without my attending the business meetings.  

Let me ask you another question.  Do YOU ever notice the spirit of "The Curse" in any Christian couples you know?  Where the woman just thrives on being ruled over and never questions anything their husband says?  And if you say anything about it, they get down right nasty attitudes?  Taken to the extreme images of Charles Mansion come to mind.  Have you seen it?

How about the men that are dominitated by the princes of this world?  They thrive on dominating folks and beat their women into submission or to a pulp or to death whichever comes first.  Have you seen it?

What scriptures do you have to point out just why these spirits are ungodly?

Hi His_Child,

Obeying and submitting are not the same words.  Obey the commandments of the Lord, submit to your husband.    There's a Lord, He is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and I think that out ranks any "husband" status.    Keep in mind however, there's few things better in life than a love that gives you hope and strength.  Although, the ten commandments do not include, "Wives submit to your husbands" as some people make it out to be, the higher law of love says that husbands and wives should submit to each other.  In the garden of Eden, God created Eve to be Adam's helper.  Lots of people like to say, it says "helper" so therefore Adam was her boss.  Not so.  The Holy Spirit is also our helper and we aren't the boss of the Holy Spirit.  In addition, what Eve needed to HELP Adam with did not include a bunch of work because it was BEFORE the "by the sweat of thy brow thou shalt eat thy bread" curse.  So, in essense, it wasn't working for Adam or under Adam that Eve was created for.  There was no real work that needed helping with.  Adam was given charge over the animals, and Eve was created to be his healper.  Before the original sin, Eve was a co-leader because Adam didn't need a worker or a slave or someone to boss around.  Read those scriptures over and see if makes sense to you.

Still the sciptures says that husbands and wives should submit to each other because it's about love, not laws.  

I would like to point out that Paul wrote different letters to each of the churches.  He didn't write one standard letter, but each letter was addressed to a specific church.  This point of Paul writing different things to the different churchs, included with the example of Aninias and Saphira, who croaked over and died because they were hypocrites.  They wanted it to look like they'd given all that they had, when in actuality they held some back.  It was their right, BUT the point was they wanted people to THINK they gave all that they had.  They didn't.  Thus, they croaked over their hypocrasy.  The churches in that day, obviously, were composed of at least less hypocrits.  Obviously, the hypocrites in our churches aren't croaking over and dying like in the churches back in that day.  It is possible that ALL the men in the churches where Paul tells the wives to submit, those men were totally worthy of submission.  I disagree that ALL men are worthy of submission in the churches in our day.  I have a strong feeling if Paul was going to write a letter specifically to each and every church in our day, he wouldn't write the exact same letters that he wrote in that day.  He would address the issues of our day, the same way he addressed the issues of the churches in his day.

There's some other things to consider about your situation with Your husband.  If I were in your shoes, and my husband told me not to work, if we had to go on wellfare, I would die.  I would hate it and I would die for sure out of sheer hating it.  But I would still do what he said in that case.  And I totally am against just doing anything anyone says just because they said it.  But it's not worth it to fight over if it becomes a fight.  But I don't know your husband.  I'm imagining up my own because I don't have one.  The one I'm imagining up is pretty smart.    And he loves the Lord.  And he's always wanting to do what is right.

So, I'm filling all the blanks with information that is inacurate.  I don't know all the details.  All I know is that there's something inside of us that have always paid our bills and paid what was expected of us, to find ourselves in a position to not be able to pay.  Only when we get to that point do we see the whole world in a different perspective.  And we might do a whole bunch of stuff to never get to that point.  Which would include working ourselves into the ground.  

Could it be that your husband loves you and he doesn't want you to work yourself into the ground.  The scriptures says husbands are supposed to take care of their wives like they take care of their own body.  Maybe he thinks you're working too much and because he has to look after you like he looks after himself, then maybe that's why he doesn't want you to work so much.  Don't work yourself into the ground and at the same time be at odds with your husband.  That's a lot of stress.  But you ARE his helper.    You can remind him that while he's looking out for you, you're helping him.

By all means, however, don't toss out wisdom when applying the scriptures.  I think the reason why the world thinks the scriptures don't apply today is because so many people try to apply the scriptures without wisdom.  Even in Solomon's day, they had fresh perspective of the law and prophets that talked to God, they still needed wisdom to apply the the scriptures.  Today, we need wisdom to apply the scriptures.  

Take care

Excellent Response, Allinall,

You officially have my permission to teach in church    Okay, VOTE.  I'll use the word VOTE.  You have my vote that you can teach in church.  The legalisits might get all excited about a woman giving a man to permission to teach in church and then they'd say maybe I had authority in church and then they'd say my middle name was Jezebel, I am sure.    Do you think women should vote in church?  Do you think women should vote at all?  Remember back in the day when women couldn't vote?  Does being able to vote in church mean you have some authority in church?  If you're voting whether a man can teach in church, does it mean you have some authority over whether or not that man can teach in church?

What does authority mean?

You didn't give me a scripture that was adequately convincing to me that from the Beginning, Adam was Eve's boss.  Adam's AND Eve's desire was toward the Lord.  I figured you were going to argue about Eve being Adam's helper, and that made him the boss of her.  But you didn't go there.  Had you, I was going to ask you IF when God sent us the Helper, the Holy Spirit, you would think that we would be the boss of the Holy Spirit because it is also a helper.  

Let me in case it's not evident, I'm not married, not dating.  There's no man now or in my immidiate future.  Christ is the head of the church, man is the head of his wife.  Man should take care of his wife the way he cares for his own body as Christ cares for the church.  Nobody HERE is arguing against that--to me it is a non-issue.  I don't think anyone is debating this thing.

I have another idea of grace.  You're either going to clarify my idea of grace or not.  It is nice to have someone to discuss these things with.  

God's role for the the day of rest is for people to rest on it.  And yet, the Lord of the day of rest healed on the day of rest.  Explain to my just why the Lord can break His own rules.

Thank you for your time and attention.  I enjoy hearing your well-thought out opinions.

Grace

   But you have to go to the actual games.  Then that would be a good and blessed thing.  

[THE CURSE]

Allinall on a role?

He still hasn't pointed out where BEFORE the eating of the fruit God told Adam he was the boss of Eve.

After the Eating of the Fruit incident, THE CURSE was that Adam would be the boss of Eve.

So, then how many husbands are graciously accepting the task of being the instrument of God's curse?  

I thought folks were supposed to strive to be a blessing to others.  

It's the principle of the matter.  Or do principles not matter?

Ruling and leading are entirely different spirits.  Leader of the household vs. Ruler of the household?  Is there not a clear distinction?

I can FEEL the Baracudas.  Man-eating Jesus fish with sharp teeth.  Can't wait to impose the law on me.  Ah yes, the true Spirit of Christ.    By your fruits you shall know them.

If Christianity is about forgiveness and compassion on people that aren't perfect, as was Christ, then we should have compassion on each other.

My only wish is that folks wouldn't take personal what I write.  It's not personal.  There's nothing personal about it.

Sincereheart, I like to break up words, as in Sin can sear your heart--is that an insult? . . .no, but God delivered the folks from the Wicked city of Sodam and Gomorrah because sin was making their heart sad, and there are numerous references in the bible to the blessings to the people who's hearts are grieved by sin.

It's not like I said a person a heart that is quick to see sin instead of overlooking it, Sin Seer Heart.  

All the Sin Seer hearts raise your hands, for by which measure you judge so shall you be judged.  I'm not afraid of your harsh Judgements because there is one true judge, and he wont judge me as harshly as humans will.  

Thanks for the encouraging and uplifting environment Fellow Christians.  The fellowship is wonderful.  I feel so uplifted and encouraged here.  I'm so happy to be known as a Christian.  It's so nice to be loved and accepted by my peers.  It's so wonderul to discuss the Biblical principles without being attacked.  

Jesus is my Redeemer and if He were here, He'd ask that you not throw so many stones.  The Bible tells about Jesus not letting people throw stones.

Peace

Hi Ladies,

I've personally witnessed women being murdered because of some supposed "Jezebel Profile"  I haven't read it.  I judged it by it's title.  I skimmed over it and I began to feel sorry for the women under Taliban regimes and in polygamist colonies.  

Mysogeny or the hate of women is rampant in our world.  While there was a woman or two in the Bible mentioned that caused harm, the millions of women suffering under real life oppression, the victims of domestic violence and the women living under biblically based control regimes are very real.  

At least if an article like this was going to be written, there should be some disclaimers such as "Beware, Ahab was terrible before Jezebel came along."  Give a little bit of ability for men to take responsibility for their own actions.  

I'm not trying to argue saying that Jezebel doesn't exist, but in this world we should be WISE as serpants and harmless as doves.  Healthy and balanced neighborhoods come from strong women in the community looking out for their neighbors.  Satan attacks strong women because he knows that entire neighborhoods would be destroyed if the stong women in them that look after the younger women and the kids running around would just go away.  If Satan can just get rid of all the strong women in a community, it goes downhill fast.

In Christianity, there's no such thing as forced submission.  God wants us to come to him by grace.  

Key issues that could separate Religion from following the person of Christ and living in Freedom and justice and Love and grace is in the way that women are treated in Christianity.  

Grace