Search results

Well put. People want Scripture to explain everything. It doesn't. This passage was likely more clear to people 2-3000 years ago than it is today, but we also need to set aside the anti-supernatural bias we have and deal with the Scripture as it was written, not how we think it should have...

Since God says absolutely nothing about the inherent gender of angels (appearance is a different thing) and nothing about sexual organs of angels, you would do well to limit the scope of your "belief" accordingly.

Blah blah blah. The only issue I'm dealing with is constant disgust at "Christian" men who treat women as subservient and inferior while quoting Scripture to justify their attitudes.

Your assertions are baseless. It wasn't a "curse" at all, God said NOTHING WHATSOEVER about it being upon "all woman" (sic), and not all women experience "birth pain".

With respect, there is nothing in those passages suggesting that God gave them the lands because they defeated the giants formerly living there. Be careful not to attribute causation where none exists. :)

Shhh... let's not force people to admit there's nothing in Scripture about it! ;)

Methinks you're getting far enough off topic that discussing this sub-topic further would be hijacking. ;)

Agreed. :)

I’m not female so I have no hypocrisy in this fight.

What you are doing is inappropriately attributing Eve’s one-time error as sin committed by all Christian women. It would be easier if you simply admitted that you are biased against women and use Scripture to defend your own corrupt belief.

Which you have no business quoting at others unless you practice it.

Quote me. And then show the Scripture stating that God does not do ANYTHING that is not previously declared in Scripture. Good luck with both.

Unless ALL the women in YOUR local church keep silent ALL the time, you have no business quoting this verse to anyone.

I have absolutely no obligation to defend a claim I didn’t make. Your assumptions are irrelevant.

These are the go-to proof texts for "complementarians". It's unfortunate that they are ripped from their context every time. Genesis 3:16 is a statement of consequence on the first woman, not a curse on all women. It doesn't say that God wants men to rule over women, but that they will do so...

I can't use the "Funny" icon, but that warranted it. :)

Your statement is refuted by Rahab and Ruth. Where is that in Scripture? Ishmael was not the heir because he was not the son of Abraham's wife. However, Scripture doesn't tell us he was ever a "slave".

Yawn.

Paul didn’t say that. Men have misconstrued Paul’s words, projecting on him their own misogyny. There are good explanations for all of the so-called “difficult” passages about women in Paul’s letters, but unless men are willing to acknowledge and disown their ingrained chauvinism, they won’t...

I agree, though again that doesn’t explain why the Israelites went to great lengths to annihilate the giants… at God’s direction. ;)