Uncovered Women

[Sunshine]

neither nurses nor lawyers can get away with spelling that atrocious. I'm sorry, I still don't believe it.

Not that it matters.

Haven't read many medical records or case briefs have you!

My Tiny Spell is up and running.

And that's still one ugly dog.

 

[Wingsofwind]

And what happens when the man abdicates his role and dies leaving the woman alone with little children to raise?

She just finds another man is that it? How many child sex abuse cases have you read about. You know, it's ALWAYS the step father!

Geze, you and that flamer the apostle Paul! Too bad you weren't there to get as room with him. You would have made beautiful grunts together.

Fist off, when a man dies it does not mean that he is 'abdicating' his role.

Also, when a woman's husband dies she would be directly under the Lord only. Unless of course her father is still alive. Then she would be under her father again. This also don't mean her father can abuse this role. He is to treat her with respect also.

1Ti 5:3 Honour widows that are widows indeed.
1Ti 5:4 But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew pietyat home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.
1Ti 5:5 Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.

Shew piety means to Worship.

If her husband and father are both dead, she would be under the Lord only. If she can not keep from fornication then she is to remarry. Once she does then she is again under her husband.

1Co 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
1Co 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

And as to the child sex abuser cases, these men are not Godly men. They refuse to keep the role the Lord has given men. And refuse to treat his family the way he is told to. Like I said in my first post. When a man refuses to keep his role things go sour.

Also, not all step fathers are child sex abusers. Just because there are cases like that don't mean EVERY step father would be the same way.

-----------

I didn't post anything that would be considered 'flaming'.

Geze, you and that flamer the apostle Paul! Too bad you weren't there to get as room with him. You would have made beautiful grunts together.

Who's the flamer here?

 

[CitizenPained]

I'm Jewish and I don't cover up my arms or elbows, but I don't really want to flash my joobies, either. I mean, if you think about it, how many men want their wives dressing like hookers or in overly suggestive clothing around his friends? Considering the context here, the verse is just saying that wives should be modest.

Fast forward to 2011: We can take the same concept and apply. And there are many women who should really be wearing more clothing...erm...Personally, I think we should slap a burqa on women for certain offenses.

At the very least, Britney Spears should wear underwear with her miniskirts. And while we're at it, is it too much to ask that our children's clothes NOT have sex appeal?



RE: Women as property: Yes, women were considered property of their husbands in ways that we consider ourselves people under a government. They had rights and roles, but they were not slaves.

 

[Obamerican]

Yeah, it's so sensible to run around doing housework and watching children in 3-piece men suits with low cut shells under the jacket.

Thanks for showing your intolerance.

You neg people because they don't agree with your choice of garb for women? I'm glad your type don't run the country. It would be like living in Saudi Arabia.

 

[Obamerican]

While I appreciate the sentiment and understand how you came to this place, you are incorrect. The people who want to use Biblical law don't exist. There is no lobby at this time or any time to my knowledge of American who were trying to change this country into a theocracy, by fair means or foul. And while OT law may resemble Islamic sharia tenets, the truth of the matter is those laws were put in place to hold God's people until the Messiah came. The NT is about as different from the Koran as is possible to be, and nowhere does it advocate for the subjugation of women.

I am thrilled to get to introduce you to the Christian Reconstructionists. They are actually more numerous than Islamics in this country, and the thing that does bother me about them is their insistence on old testament law being as important as the new testament.

CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTIONISM, DOMINION THEOLOGY AND THEONOMY

I'm familiar with them because my grandparents were following D. James Kennedy before he came into widespread circulation, they attended his church in Florida.

FWIW, I lived in Utah for 10 years. The LDS Church has numerous prophecies that state that the constitution of this country will hang by a thread, and the LDS Church will step into the gap and save the nation, leading it to righteousness in God, and conformity with his laws. That's another form of constructionism. As you probably know, Glenn Beck is an active Mormon.

Mormons are strange people. Okay, all religious people have a void in their life that they are looking to fill. Most fill it with odd stuff from a book written by strangers.

 

[CitizenPained]

Mormons are strange people. Okay, all religious people have a void in their life that they are looking to fill. Most fill it with odd stuff from a book written by strangers.

To be fair, we all read olds books by strangers...Homer, Aristotle, Jefferson, Machiavelli...

 

[catzmeow]

To be fair, we all read olds books by strangers...Homer, Aristotle, Jefferson, Machiavelli...

Yes, but I can't remember the last time I took marital advice from Nicholai Machiavelli. We read the authors you've named understanding that their books were written by human beings, and prone to human error. Is that how you read the bible?

Also, flamer in the context in which Sunshine used it doesn't mean an internet smackdown. It means flamboyantly gay man.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flamer

 

[JakeStarkey]

neither nurses nor lawyers can get away with spelling that atrocious. I'm sorry, I still don't believe it.

Not that it matters.

Yes, you are sorry and your opinion does not matter.

 

[Sunshine]

And what happens when the man abdicates his role and dies leaving the woman alone with little children to raise?

She just finds another man is that it? How many child sex abuse cases have you read about. You know, it's ALWAYS the step father!

Geze, you and that flamer the apostle Paul! Too bad you weren't there to get as room with him. You would have made beautiful grunts together.

Fist off, when a man dies it does not mean that he is 'abdicating' his role.

Also, when a woman's husband dies she would be directly under the Lord only. Unless of course her father is still alive. Then she would be under her father again. This also don't mean her father can abuse this role. He is to treat her with respect also.

1Ti 5:3 Honour widows that are widows indeed.
1Ti 5:4 But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew pietyat home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.
1Ti 5:5 Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.

Shew piety means to Worship.

If her husband and father are both dead, she would be under the Lord only. If she can not keep from fornication then she is to remarry. Once she does then she is again under her husband.

1Co 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
1Co 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

And as to the child sex abuser cases, these men are not Godly men. They refuse to keep the role the Lord has given men. And refuse to treat his family the way he is told to. Like I said in my first post. When a man refuses to keep his role things go sour.

Also, not all step fathers are child sex abusers. Just because there are cases like that don't mean EVERY step father would be the same way.

-----------

I didn't post anything that would be considered 'flaming'.

Geze, you and that flamer the apostle Paul! Too bad you weren't there to get as room with him. You would have made beautiful grunts together.

Who's the flamer here?

That is the dumbest post I have EVER read on the internet. There really needs to be a contest.

An educated 38 year old woman whose husbhand dies is under her father again if her husband dies. She is 'under' her 70 year old father? Is your wife allowed to even walk to the mailbox?

And yes, the apostle paul was a homosexual who hated women.

Thank God I live in a country where widows don't have to be, what was the word, desolate! Sheesh

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm not entirely sure why a belief in modesty and respect for our bodies and the bodies of those we care about is a barbaric or abusive. Perhaps someone could explain that to me.

Perhaps, however, it's more an issue of submission. Does God expect us to submit to Him? Does He ask us to submit to others? If He does, why would those practices be abusive or barbaric?

 

[catzmeow]

Also, when a woman's husband dies she would be directly under the Lord only. Unless of course her father is still alive. Then she would be under her father again. This also don't mean her father can abuse this role. He is to treat her with respect also.

Can you explain a little more specifically what this means? Can a father forbid a daughter to behave in certain ways? Is she required to move home to her father's house? Can the father tell the daughter not to date, work, wear certain clothes, etc?

 

[sparky]

There are many examples of female submssion/male patriarchalism in religions around the world (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism--particularly fundamentalist LDS). What do you think of the opinions above? Are women the property/responsibility/subordinates of men, required by God to submit to the headship of a man (their father or husband)? Do women require the oversight of a man in order to be in line with God's will for their lives? Is this concept workable in a modern era?

Or, are such teachings abusive and barbaric?

uh, just who was it that let the snake talk forbidden fruit into dinner here....?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'm not entirely sure why a belief in modesty and respect for our bodies and the bodies of those we care about is a barbaric or abusive. Perhaps someone could explain that to me.

Perhaps, however, it's more an issue of submission. Does God expect us to submit to Him? Does He ask us to submit to others? If He does, why would those practices be abusive or barbaric?

You don't get to rephrase the question with more questions. Answer the questions straight up. You sound like Dan Peterson, for heaven's sake, and that is a bad thing.

But I will tell you that God expects us to use our heads. There is no reason for you to go all pharisee on this issue. Women are the equal of men, and the day will come in the LDS Church, my friend, when women will have the priesthood.

When an adult has to submit him or herself in a private association to another person, then it is time to leave that association.

 

[CitizenPained]

To be fair, we all read olds books by strangers...Homer, Aristotle, Jefferson, Machiavelli...

Yes, but I can't remember the last time I took marital advice from Nicholai Machiavelli. We read the authors you've named understanding that their books were written by human beings, and prone to human error. Is that how you read the bible?

Yes, that is the opinion of Conservative, Reform & Reconstructinist Jews -- and we make up the strong majority of world Jewry. Even amongst the Orthodox (maybe 15-20 per cent), their levels of 'adherence' in niddah laws vary.

I rather appreciate being part of a pluralistic society. But my original sentiment still stands:

Don't dress like a hooker...

...put some underwear on...

...or at least pants that fit.

If you feel the need, at least keep it to a few days a year. (It's really sad when you walk downtown around Halloween and can't tell which is costume and which is weekend wear.)

There are some people who think this is backwards (cough//France), but I donno. When did classy go out of style?

 

[Moonglow]

classy, like a plumage onna bird?

 

[CitizenPained]

I sport feathers on occasion.

 

[catzmeow]

Yes, that is the opinion of Conservative, Reform & Reconstructinist Jews -- and we make up the strong majority of world Jewry. Even amongst the Orthodox (maybe 15-20 per cent), their levels of 'adherence' in niddah laws vary.

I rather appreciate being part of a pluralistic society. But my original sentiment still stands:

Don't dress like a hooker...

That's interesting to read. Living surrounded, as I am, by fundamentalist bible thumpers, it's a refreshing perspective. I prefer to dress in vintage clothes during the day and save my naughty stuff for the bedroom.

 

[catzmeow]

There are many examples of female submssion/male patriarchalism in religions around the world (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism--particularly fundamentalist LDS). What do you think of the opinions above? Are women the property/responsibility/subordinates of men, required by God to submit to the headship of a man (their father or husband)? Do women require the oversight of a man in order to be in line with God's will for their lives? Is this concept workable in a modern era?

Or, are such teachings abusive and barbaric?

uh, just who was it that let the snake talk forbidden fruit into dinner here....?

You read that story as factual and not metaphorical?

 

[Moonglow]

Imma nudists or naturalists, I don't worry about those unecessary limitations and burdens on chic society. Wanna see a pic?

 

[random3434]

My family are Pentecostal.
There is a time and place for everything.
My wife won't wear pants to Church and all the women's dresses are ankle length.
I don't see it as controlling, but then again I have never heard a direct sermon on the subject as to the whys.
(I married into it )
It is merely humbling one's self before God......no gaudy jewelry or make up, etc...


(house full....distracted to keep a strong point.....reply if unclear)

Here's a question for you. I had several classmates who were pentecostal. They did not stand or pledge to the flag, and the girls didn't cut their hair or nails. Their clothes looked more like garbs than dresses as most looked homemade and not well suited to their body types. I still see these families out. I also see menonite families whose women go only slightly more extreme than the pentecostal women.

BUT the thing I notice with the menonites ANd the pentecostals is that the men dress conventionally in purchased shirts and taylored pants. So what gives. Why do you make your women look like old plough horses while you, yourself dress like the stud muffin?

Not to go off topic on this thread........(Like that's ever happened)

But, when I see a group of Petecostal's out I see all of them with iphones and such, texting, etc. I thought this was forbidden? Or is that the Amish?