View Full Version : Peace between the Sexes
Barry
05-15-2006, 05:26 AM
This is up at http://http://infinite-grace.com/ but thought I'd put it here too.
Peace between the Sexes
Men and women, women and men.
So much like icebergs floating on the sea.
So little of ourselves does the other perceive.
So much remains hidden below in the depths of the waves.
And waves there are.
Waves between us, and waves around us.
Waves that make us dizzy,
Waves that challenge our boundaries and frontiers.
But waves are on the surface and currents are far below.
We spend our time looking at the waves,
But it is the currents that direct us.
The currents, which swirl around our hidden selves.
When will we look into the depths?
When will see beyond the refection of the sea,
And embrace the wholeness of who we are
And the wholeness of ourselves?
When will we see what we have been missing?
When will we be a peace with each other?
When each esteems the other in their wholeness,
We both more truthfully find ourselves.
Peace and harmony between the sexes.
Love and respect amidst the waves of the sea.
The waves crash upon our visible frontiers,
As we collide driven by the currents of the sea.
Peace and harmony between the sexes.
Peace with ourselves with who we are.
Peace on earth.
Barry
Barry,
We've got quite the journey ahead of us. We're still all working on what it means to be a "woman" or a "man" - finding ourselves. We're headed in the right direction imo. We've at least begun to examine things.
We're so very different, and so very the same.
Amie
Barry
05-15-2006, 07:27 PM
Barry,
We've got quite the journey ahead of us. We're still all working on what it means to be a "woman" or a "man" - finding ourselves. We're headed in the right direction imo. We've at least begun to examine things.
We're so very different, and so very the same.
Amie
The journey is long and the distance is great.
Been at it so long, I'm growing faint.
Discouraged we feel and wearied we walk.
I won't give up but walk the talk.
Along our path we find a key.
For what could it be?
We look behind to see how far we have come.
I won't give up I'm not like some.
What do we find?
Something dragging behind.
No wonder this feakin jouney's been so hard.
Look and see what I've been pulling this far!
I have the key to unlock this load.
Now moveing fast toward my abode.
I thought I was different from she who is next to me.
Now I can see she is just like me.
Together we take our jouney forward.
The shy is the limit so we go onward.
Love to all, Barry
backtothefuture
05-15-2006, 09:14 PM
Can I have a key
To unlock my load?
for the journey to fullness
seems at times so alone.
As woman we are growing
the men also it seems
together one day
we can be part of that dream.
where we all are important
with the gifts that God gave
and together we can love on those hard to live days.
So Barry, my friend
a locksmith do you know?
to make me a key when this journey seems slow.
Blessings,
Nancy:eek:
Graceful, courageous alien
Barry
05-16-2006, 05:21 AM
Great job Nancy!!
The following are some of my own thoughts and should be taken with a grain of salt.
I think the Key is acceptance for who we are.
Since who we are is not very clear to see then we try to jockey for position between each other. Religious precepts of inequality are one of the first hurdles to overcome IMHO. The position struggle needs to stop.
Tami has touched upon a thought in another threat that is somewhat similar to mine. Perhaps our thoughts will merge some day.
IMO Male and Female are linked to the Unity and Diversity of God.
So then:
Each of us IMHO is a complete person.
I'm not too fond of the "romantic" conclusion of "I was incomplete before I met you". It sounds great but it places stress on the relationship. It makes one's life partner overly responsible for one's own happiness and ability to function.
Rather I'm more fond of the concept that we are complete but we complement from that completeness. But so great is the complement that the sum is greater than the parts. This is interpreted as individual incompleteness which IMHO is a less than accurate analyzes. In seeing that the sum can be greater than the individual parts we may incorrectly interpret this to mean that individually we lacked a completeness. IMHO this in tern make the life partner more "responsible" for one's self than they really are or can be.
We get along better and complement each other better and have a better sum of our parts when we approach personal completeness. Here then we are more self confident and self assured. Our true "needs" can be more accurately expressed and more honestly expressed. Assisting our life partner with his or her "needs" as a complete person can be more honestly approached.
Therefore the "sum or our parts" can be approached through a genuine love for the other in realistic expectations and responsibility concerning one's self.
Love is better approach through self confidence of being a full and complete person so that "person" who we are can complement the other complete person for who they are.
Religious thought has not IMHO taught the above. So our love for each other has been clouded with ideas of unrealistic expectations for and from our relationships. We try to depend too much on our "partner" for our personal responsibilities for which no one else can really "complete".
We need each other. And the sum is greater than the parts. But the parts have to be real parts and complete in their own right.
JMO
Barry
backtothefuture
05-16-2006, 06:04 PM
Barry,
I do so appreciated all you have to say. I personally think that its a long way off before there is peace between male and female.
Its learning and being willing to step out of what we think is "normal" that will bring that about. IMO.
I am almost 55 years old. Most of the woman in my group of friends have all agreed on this. That we all came out of a fairy tale kind of up bringing. You know, the handsome prince will come and sweep you off your feet and solve all your problems. Never happened.
We also, all came out of a belief system that said, we were less valuable. Though some of our churches would preach equality, on the home front it was never nor is like that.
Most of our hope lays now, in recognizing our worth. Some had to step out of abusive marriages to do that. Some stayed, and still suffer with the pain that comes when one person changes in the marriage and the other doesn't.
My personal hope, is for my kids and their kids and so forth. I call it the greater good. As I try and fail, to work on myself, and see me for me and not Analise my husband so much in what he is or isn't doing, it has freed me up to go forward. Its easier on some days than others.
I also for the first time in my own life, have kind of felt that maybe you guys also have gotten a bad rap.
I mean, in our faith system, my husband had no choice but to be the head of the house. The bread winner, the I don't ever want to cry, heaven forbid, I look week. So I do see both sides of the story a little better these days.
Anyway,
Thanks for all your sharing.
Nancy:eek:
Wow,
The poetry gives me goosebumps!
Barry,
I agree. We as men and women bring to the table 100% each rather than 50/50. There are many societal standards being toppled down as we journey toward self acceptance. What is woman? Me, Nancy, Paige, Lauri, Tami, etc. What is man? Barry, Doug, Davo, Bill, etc. It is whatever we are, whoever we are.
Nancy,
It's true that most of the mainline churches teach that women are less valuable, less intellectually reliable (because "Eve was beguiled"), and less stable ("too emotional"). Then they teach that men are emotion--less, all the responsibility lay on their shoulders for the well being of their families and congregations, and any failures reflect on them personally.
I'm sure I'm only touching on the roles of the sexes in traditional church. It doesn't sound good for either of us, I agree.
Amie
I also for the first time in my own life, have kind of felt that maybe you guys also have gotten a bad rap.
I mean, in our faith system, my husband had no choice but to be the head of the house. The bread winner, the I don't ever want to cry, heaven forbid, I look week. So I do see both sides of the story a little better these days.
Anyway,
Thanks for all your sharing.
Nancy:eek:[/QUOTE]
Nancy, I agree with you and Amie here. The treatment of women in the church and world I grew up in was beyond degrading. But as the bitterness began to fade and my oozing, gaping, raw wounds began to heal....I have been able to see this too. I remember almost as many men having nervous breakdowns as women. It's a sad thing what this world does to both sexes.
Tami
Barry
05-17-2006, 06:22 PM
So many men have no idea what they are missing :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
Some of you wonderful ladies (and I'm sure many gents) think (and I can understand why) that this is going to take such a long time.
Well this is my view:
Yes but not as much as you may think IMHO.
Once some men see how much fun and happiness and fulfillment in life that guys are having once they embrace their feminine side and esteem women, a critical mass will be reached and things will start hopping.
As a few more men grow up with these new ideas, they are going to come into an envied position. Once this happens...
What we have at this time is culturally produced.
At no time in our past has culture had so little a staying power as now.
We live in a rapidly changing world and such drastic transformations are now becoming possible in ever smaller time frames.
Relationships at present are still traditionally based in old paradigms. This meaning that we focused on maintaining the relationship through inflating the "needs" in an attempt to fulfill our own need to feel important.
It is ownership and jealousy based.
It is a controlling person male or female that always proves to the other how needed they are to keep order.
It is a fish provider jealous of a fishing teacher because of the fear of no longer being needed any more.
In stead of esteeming and desiring growth from our life partner we unwittingly keep them tied to our own need to feel important in the relationship. We have everything backwards and up side down. If they learn how to fish then they won't need me anymore!!!! And this mentality is often the foundation of our relationships.
Boys and girls, it's time to grow up and really enjoy helping each other be all we can be. Got a long distance call got to go!
JMO
Barry
Truthseeker
05-17-2006, 08:21 PM
AMEN, dear brother Barry,
Its indeed time to grow up--men and women. :) When I was a child, I thought like a child; I did childish things. Now that I've grown into a (wo)man I've put childish things aside.
There's an island--I saw it on National Geographic. The women are worshiped. They abuse the men just as men have always abused women in many societies--because they have the power (in their religion). The old "chief" woman may choose from all the young men--and have as many "husbands" as she chooses, but the men can't ever commit "adultery." Its only a matter of who's in power.
Its amazing that because "Father" is used as a symbol (the Sire, the Origin of all Life) and therefore represented in the physical (male)--that so many misconceptions and misunderstandings have come. --rhonda
A quote from Susan B. Anthony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_B._Anthony):
"The day will come when men will recognize woman as his peer, not only at the fireside, but in councils of the nation. Then, and not until then, will there be the perfect comradeship, the ideal union between the sexes that shall result in the highest development of the race."
Are we truly just waiting on the boys to play nice, or is there something that we women can do as well?
A quote from Susan B. Anthony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_B._Anthony):
Are we truly just waiting on the boys to play nice, or is there something that we women can do as well?
Maybe that is some of the problem. Do you believe the boys play nice or fair with each other?
Buzz,
I like to believe that (how men treat one another) is individual and has nothing to do with gender - though "social norms" do interact just as they do with women unfortunately.
I see "man not recogonizing woman as peer" as "not playing nice".
How common is it for men not to recognize women as peers? In my experience, it is more often than not - though it is assuredly not the case for every man.
I'm wondering if it's true that we women have to wait for men's recognition for all to be right with the genders. I'm pretty sure women don't have their heads on completely straight either - or maybe that's just reflective of how I see me :).
If we aren't waiting on men's recognition as the answer to gender peace, perhaps we women can become more pro-active in making things happen in that direction.
Amie
If we aren't waiting on men's recognition as the answer to gender peace, perhaps we women can become more pro-active in making things happen in that direction.
Amie
Amie that is the point I was trying to make. There will always be those that are not willing to give women equality. There will be name calling, snide remarks, and innuendoes. There is prejudice against women in our and most societies. I don’t think waiting for that to change or a new law will fix that. David didn’t tell Eliab that he wasn’t being fair to him, David showed all who David was.
Buzz
Paige
06-06-2006, 07:10 PM
Exactly. I was privy to a conversation today where one woman exclaimed that all would be right w/the world once men get their act together and be the "leaders" God wants them to be. IOW, no matter what, this world is screwed up because of men (either they want to be the leaders or they don't). This is not fair at all. Wouldn't it be better if we would all be what we are waiting for others to be?
Paige
Paige! Beautifully said dear sister! Tami
Wouldn't it be better if we would all be what we are waiting for others to be?
Which is what? What comes to my mind is I would love for the majority of men to stop looking down on me. Maybe that says something for the way I see the men that do (look down on me)..
Amie
Paige
06-07-2006, 03:51 PM
As in, you must be looking up at them?
Barry
06-07-2006, 05:54 PM
As in, you must be looking up at them?
Nothing wrong with that, as long as the male is looking up to the female at the same time :)
Love
Barry
As in, you must be looking up at them?
Lol! No, as in I tend to look down on them back..
Amie
Paige
06-07-2006, 10:31 PM
:homer2: Glad you clarified!
What comes to my mind is I would love for the majority of men to stop looking down on me. Amie
Sorry Amie. When you are a foot taller than the average woman, it's nearly impossible to see eye-to-eye.
I've observed that most women have little or no respect for the men in their lives. The number one topic of discussion between married women is complaining about their husbands. Looking down on people clearly goes both ways.
JL
dwilli58
02-14-2008, 09:56 AM
I haven't heard but one or two people mention the scripture in this discussion. Could it be that the "war between the sexes" began with religion? Maybe we should look at religion and the bible, and consider how in Genesis 1 and 2, in particular, we have the main catalyst for this gender war or confusion we find ourselves in? There seems to be a contradiction, because it said, "...He created them..." God created both in His image, so I can't believe that God sees one as more than the other. Maybe we have to go all the way back where our biases began to change our thinking? I offer this quote below for consideration in the discussion.
"I believe that feminism was borne out of thousands of years of oppression towards women. From the earliest cultures, women were held to a subservient position in the home and culture. Thanks to the traditions held by Hebrew and Arabic men, as well as those of other cultures, women have been held in almost total contempt over the centuries, because of these despotic-patriarchal societies. Most of this oppression came about because of religious beliefs, which instilled, in men and forced on women, the notion that the low status of women was instituted and enforced by the will of God. There is an Arabic adage that states, “Better to be born a dog than a woman.” That’s how the Nazi’s spoke and thought about the Jews. In Hebrew and Arabic cultures, women had to be totally covered (face also) when going out in public, this is still true in most modern-day Arab states. Women, were never permitted to speak to another man, other than their husband, in public or their home. Women, were not permitted to be educated in anything other than cooking, cleaning and child rearing. The man did all the talking and decision making. Because, in the minds of these men, women were untrustworthy, manipulative and merely uneducated-imbeciles. Later, Roman and Greek women may have had it better than their Hebrew and Arabic counterparts, but they were still held up as second-class to men. I can’t cover thousands of years of history. Suffice it to say that women, throughout time, have been persecuted and oppressed by men!"
Barry
02-14-2008, 10:26 AM
Nice post Dave.
Many of my best friends are female.
We have here at Talk-grace an excellent gender diversity both in administrative and members. I'm really proud of this fellowship.
Just some personal thoughts:
Peace between the sexes is indicative of peace in all humanity. It is both interrelated and interconnected.
This is then parallel to the two covenants. Parallel to the two creations. Where everything is new, their is neither male nor female in divine oneness. As the oneness cannot be divided. The interconnectedness speaks of a higher consciousness.
Distinctions are made as a matter of mutual honor in our oneness.
Barry
Dave,
Do you think that women were historically powerless?
Did women empower themselves? Or did men empower them? Or more generally, what do you think changed the course of history?
Amie
Amie,
Pierre Curie empowered one woman. James Watt, Thomas Edison, and Samuel Colt empowered all women.
Blessings,
JL
Amie,
Pierre Curie empowered one woman. James Watt, Thomas Edison, and Samuel Colt empowered all women.
Blessings,
JL
Suddenly Sanford and Son comes to mind and the words, "I'm going to empower my fist right into your mouth". :9_cool: :biglaugha:
Amie
Paige
02-15-2008, 09:48 AM
Pierre Curie empowered one woman. James Watt, Thomas Edison, and Samuel Colt empowered all women.
I think the above statement coincides quite nicely with what Barry said below in another thread:
But collectivly you cannot move socially forward. Any more than we could do without the printing press and the Internet.
There is a collective evolution at stake here.
In my observation, we have all empowered each other (whether we realize it, or not).
Paige
P.S. JL, has anyone ever told you how cerebral your humor is, lol??? You've got some zingers in you, for sure!
dwilli58
02-15-2008, 10:10 AM
Amie,
I am seeking the answers here also. Maybe I didn't make it clear that what I wrote before was an attempt to share my thoughts. I am not so certain of what I wrote that I can't be changed if I'm wrong, is all I'm trying to say. In answer to your email! According to Genesis, the answer would be no. First, I'm not fond of the word, empower, but I think I know what you mean by using it, because it implies SELF power. I think, in the last 100 or so years, women have empowered themselves. Before that, except in isolated instances (as jlv mentioned), I think women were held back to the extent that they couldn't empower themselves. Certainly, men as a whole are not seen, in history, as empowering women. As in the quote I put forth before, I believe that a great deal of oppression has occured because of erroneous information about God, which has come, for the most part, through religion. Genesis says, that Eve turned and gave the fruit to Adam. If this is correct, then Adam was there when she was deceived. Right? If so, why didn't he stop her? For Christian men, this seems to always be the starting point for why women are in this position. I am not questioning the fact that God made us different, we are! We have different strengths and weaknesses, and that is what God intended, so when we are joined we become more whole. What I am questioning is equality! As Barry pointed out, we are one in Christ, but are we, as men, adhering to that? I have been in so many denominations where women are almost always silent. They talk among themselves, what are the men missing from God because of this? It was a woman that God used to bring me to Him! If she had been silent, perhaps I may still be lost. Over the years, God has used women to bring His love, truth and life into my life, as he has men. That is why I feel strongly on this issue.
Dave,
In no way was I trying to change you or anything, my questions were sincere. If men did have all of the power (and I don't know enough of history to speak to that), then not only did men oppress, but they built up and created a world where other oppressive men were not enabled. That means even, that the majority of men were not the oppressors, but lovers :). The invention of Smith and Wesson was a great equalizer, but we never needed it. That I know of, there was no civil war where sex was the dividing factor.
You shared your value for the words of a woman in your life. It sounds as if you value the unheard words of silent women as well. Value was not always measured out of things of the heart like gratitude.
Oppressed women have choices. Why do you think they choose (or have chosen) oppression? I think that it is because they do not value themselves, yet mostly and often overlooked, they had not valued the men.
Is a Muslim woman valuing the men in her society by covering herself and accomodating his fear of lust? How does a woman having faith in her brother respond? It is differently than covering up I think.
I love your spirit and heart Dave. I do not think that women were or are the only ones who have been oppressed. I don't think either, that men are the only ones who have oppressed. I find it interesting though that of any of these bodies of people, the majority is not steering the world in that direction. The majority of men and women are actually living out love -- whether or not they profess it.
But that's just my thoughts too,
Amie
Dave,
I don't think Adam was there. Before Eve was created, Adam named the eagle "tears flesh" and the lion "does violence." Adam had faced the lions. Here was a serpent threatening his bride. If Adam had been there, he would have crushed the serpent's head with his heel. That's what the last Adam did.
As for empowerment, before the steam engine, electricity, and the gun, it was a very rare woman who could fend for herself. Until recently, for almost all women, a woman's personal survival has always necessarily depended on a man.
This is not reasonably disputable. Yet it is something that is commonly ignored in any analysis of what Scripture means. If women have been historically dependent on men for survival, then survival issues must be considered. Otherwise we moderns (who don't have those concerns) will quickly twist Scripture to mean something it could never have meant. And we will quickly do it both ways.
For example, the admonition for women to "keep silent" in 1 Tim. 2. The passage talks about men in general, then women in general, then woman singular in relation to man singular. The interpretation in some churches is to ignore the change to singular and make my wife subject to every 13-year-old boy in the congregation, including her own son.
Yet outside the church, these same elders claim can't live with that standard. The passage says it is the same inside the church as it is in the world.
So what's up? Historically, in the world, a woman is only subject to one man at a time. First her father, then her husband. 1 Tim. 2 merely says, "Don't put a woman over her father or husband." It's not done in the world. Don't do it here.
Of course we have people who agree with those elders as to what the text saya. They then notice that the text says it's the same inside the church as it is in the world, and use that as an excuse to import the world into the church. "The times have changed. 1 Tim. 2 says the church must change with the times."
So how is it in the world? Historically? We've also screwed that up from the biblical model and I've gone on too long.
Blessings,
JL
JL,
I disagree as for whether or not Adam was standing there.
You believe that women in ancient times did not have the ability to fend for themselves? I just want to be sure that I heard you correctly.
The text in 1 Timothy is transitionary. Women modeled the behavior that the church would enact with her (the church's) bridegroom. If the consummation has occurred, there is no more need for modeling any behavior.
Amie
dwilli58
02-15-2008, 01:20 PM
Sorry I sounded defensive! I just reread my opening statements and it sounded very defensive. I guess I never looked at it that way, and I'm not sure that I totally understand or can agree at the moment, but it is something to consider! As i get older, the one thing that I am sure of is...I'm not overly sure of a great deal;-) Thanks for your input!
dwilli58
02-15-2008, 01:37 PM
jlv,
Maybe this is the issue. I have read the nasb, kjv, nkjv and others, and at least one or more of them says, "eve turned to adam etc" Are you saying that the Genesis rendition is just a metaphor for Christ (the second adam etc)alone? I guess as I read your response I was again reminded of the multitude of interpretations of the bible. By the way, I agree with much you have to say, but I take it one step farther. Here's a question for you or anyone who reads this: When there are so many versions of the bible and such a divided, "church" or "body of christ," on what all in the bible means, how do you continue to hold to the bible as an accurate representation of God?
Dave,
Here's the NIV, "she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it."
I don't see "turned." As for "with" does that mean standing beside her at that moment or also in the garden? The Hebrew says nothing about Adam's proximity. Nor does it say anything about the length of time involved.
And as you can see, I'm in trouble with the Amie again.
Blessings,
JL
And as you can see, I'm in trouble with the Amie again.
ROFL!! We don't have to agree -- I still love ya when you're wrong! HAHAHA!!
When there are so many versions of the bible and such a divided, "church" or "body of christ," on what all in the bible means, how do you continue to hold to the bible as an accurate representation of God?
See Dave, I think that the bible can be set aside when it causes division. What can we know other than how we feel? Once we are able to have a relationship, I think that we are also able to have mature conversation about God without the need to own the same interpretation.
I'm not just being polite with JL, I've been able to get to know him some as a person and our friendship, imv, is more valuable than agreement.
You may find the conversation opener (and conversation maybe) that Paige shared in this thread interesting along those lines: http://talk-grace.com/showthread.php?t=1029&highlight=utopia
If we cannot and will not be "Borg", how do we have a functional Kingdom? It's an interesting challenge I think.
Amie
But I still prefer you laughing.
dwilli58
02-16-2008, 10:02 AM
jvl,
My bad remembrabce of verse! That is correct, and you are right, it could mean that Adam was just there in the garden, but...it could also mean he was present at the time also, for the same reasons you state. I think you're ok with Amie, judging by her response! You know also, we can't be afraid of these issues, otherwise we sink into dogma etc. For years I had questions that, in my church, I was afraid to bring up, because they were unpopular or heretical to talk about. Herecy, is a good thing, it is what allows us to question the status-quo!
Dave
dwilli58
02-16-2008, 10:13 AM
Amie,
I agree with you wholeheartedly! I like what you said, "I've been able to get to know him some as a person and our friendship, imv, is more valuable than agreement." Isn't that what God wants most? It is the bible that brought God to me in so many ways, but that doesn't mean there isn't man's error involved there. I think that is what frightens us. If we have the spirit (Romans 8:14), then we can be led by it, and not fear our questions! God knows what is on our heart. We're seeking bread (His life), will God give us a snake or condemn us for questioning. No! That would not be the God I have come to know and love. God, gave us the spirit to discern, and that discernment is for what has ended up in the bible also!
dwilli58
02-16-2008, 11:13 AM
Amie,
I checked out the url on Utopia. Some heady stuff to consider! I felt like a freshman in a discussion group with grad students. So, I will consider a while before really getting involved in this particular discussion. I guess there is one thing, are we all looking for some form of utopia then, if so can there be unity? I agree that love is the most important thing. In my life, when i'm confused, it always comes back to the love of God in me and for us.
Dave
The Freshman;-)
Yeah Dave,
The political stuff can go over my head. Pulling from Doug's words, I like this:
..the kingdom is not necessarily a perfect world but perfect love.
I guess there is one thing, are we all looking for some form of utopia then, if so can there be unity?
No need to be "heady" to talk and bring things up :). The sort of funny thing is that unity is already a reality. If we were standing on the moon, we could see that more plainly. There can be peace without utopia and will be imv, as we learn how to improve upon our relationship with one another.
Amie
dwilli58
02-16-2008, 01:15 PM
Amie,
Thanks for the words of encouragement. I get the point, "looking from the moon," we are all in this together (unity), whether we know it or will admit it to ourselves. I'll try to give some insight, if I can;-), into myself. I guess at 58, I'm looking for some answers, as I'm sure all are, to explain the emptiness that I sense arond me. During my years in the church (I left it 7 years ago), it was always pounded into me that the world is doomed and we shouldn't expect anything better than we see everyday. At the same time I was told that Jesus came to give us life abundantly. Maybe I'm bonkers, but that sounds contradictory to me? So, along with a close brother, we have been out here seeking God and His life and will since. Seeking what all of this means, that sounds so corny! But I think you know what I mean. I believe God led me to you folks for a reason. Thanks for inviting me in!
Dave
Dave,
If you've been in church for 20 years and you've been paying attention, the only questions left are the ones the preacher refuses to properly and openly discuss. They are unpopular by definition and quite likely heretical.
You will be run off or asked to leave for asking those questions. You will be denounced a heretic for looking for answers your self. Such is the state of the church today. I'm going through that again, eventhough I specifically asked and addressed the issue when we started at this church 19 months ago.
The first time should be scary. You should be afraid. The second time on, you will only be afraid for your children.
JL
JL,
I'm so very sorry for your struggle. Church must be very important to you for you to go through what you are.
I believe God led me to you folks for a reason.
He's a plotter like that, lol! I love your energy and am glad to know you.
Amie
dwilli58
02-17-2008, 10:33 AM
Dave,
If you've been in church for 20 years and you've been paying attention, the only questions left are the ones the preacher refuses to properly and openly discuss. They are unpopular by definition and quite likely heretical.
JL
I and some other brothers have left for the last time (almost 8 years now), I have no desire to return to that system. I agree fully with you! Can I ask why you are still seeking the "church"? As you know, herecy is nothing more than having a different interpretation or opinion from the status quo. Needless to say, in the church system this kind of attitude is unwelcomed, thus the tract that we receive from them, on the first day, that is entitled, "What We Believe." I have never found one that said, "What We are Seeking" or "We've Come Together to Love Each Other and God".
Dave
dwilli58
02-17-2008, 10:46 AM
JL,
I'm so very sorry for your struggle. Church must be very important to you for you to go through what you are.
Amie
Church...was important to me almost eight years ago. By "church," I mean the socio-political-business enterprise that claims to be the only representative of God, His love and truth. It is anything but important to me now. I still love and pray for most of the people I was involved with there. I pray for them to come out, knowing they probably won't. I have been dismissed by them, for reasons that I think jlv is speaking of. Actually, they would have turned from me for taking part in this site, unless, of course, I was checking it out to bash it! This may sound harsh, but "church," in my reality now, has become the enemy of God's truth and love, because they refuse to give up man's traditions about God and actually experience His love and LIFE. I like your spirit also, Amie! I like all of you, although jlv makes me a little nervous.;-) But that's ok, at 58, I've been nervous many times!!!;-)
Dave
dwilli58
02-17-2008, 10:49 AM
Amie,
I just realized that your statement about church was to jl! Man o man, I need to start paying attention in class;-) Anyway, what I wrote is what I sense I needed to share anyway!
Dave
All,
I got shanghaid today by a couple of elders. Not a Berean among them.
That's done.
JL
Barry
02-17-2008, 03:05 PM
All,
I got shanghaid today by a couple of elders. Not a Berean among them.
That's done.
JL
Sorry about that JL.
Really am. Been there!
It may not be your view, and that's cool bro, but if it were me, unless Titus or Timothy or Paul or Peter appointed these "elders", I'd just move on without giving it a second thought.
If they were, then I'd advise you to stick it out but, and write Paul a letter right away explaining the whole thing!
Church leaders do what they want because they know or at least think, that they can do just that. :)
JMO
Barry
Barry,
I normally would, but in this case I had asked 18 months ago if they had any secret creeds or tests of fellowship. I was promised that there were none. One of those elders to acknowledged it today. They lied and they know it.
So I sent a letter to the preacher telling him so. I was slightly more tackful than that, but you can't expect much from an Asperger's poster child.
The new associate has another job. His boss will give him a hard time about it.
Plus I've known the new associate for 19 years. My doing what he personally suggested caused half the trouble.
I'm going to cause them a bit of grief this week.
Jeff
111whoami
04-23-2010, 01:05 PM
I believe the conflict between genders comes from seeing the incompleteness in other people that reminds us of the incompleteness that we feel. We, generally, don't want to look at the fact that we are not whole yet. There is so much in our psyche that we must explore before we can experience even close to wholeness. And so...because we feel shamed by our incompleteness we strike at others who remind us of that.
I would suggest this solution. Do not wait for the other to fix themselves because we (male or female) are just as incomplete and contribute to the conflict just as much. To say that the other must become whole first is to continue to fall into the rut. Focus on your own wholeness and someone who is also doing the same will become attracted towards you and you to them on a level undiscernable to the mind.
I believe that on a world-wide scheme of things. There will not be peace between genders until the return of Jesus, but there can be peace between two individuals who choose to seek truth and completeness for themselves.
As to the source of the problem, the origin of the conflict: the curse in Genesis.
Genesis 3:16 -- "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
Now...many people have tried to interpret this many ways. I would say that the whole sentence is a curse not just one clause.
"Your desire will be for your husband" -- It seems every (on a majority) middle-school, high-school, college girl is consumed with boys (and possibly guys are like that too, but...it doesn't seem quite the same) I believe that this desire that is spoken of is...not a good desire. People have tried to interpret it that women will try to rule over her husband but the husband will prevail...but no, I don't think that is the case because I think that the husband ruling over her is also part of the curse.
The purpose of man and woman: rule over the earth, take dominion, work (serve, as the original Hebrew states if I remember correct) the land, and multiply.
Woman's desire should be to do that, not...focus on her husband. Yes, love him and all, but I think this desire is not that of purity but misplaced desire. Desire that should have been put towards the purpose that God gave to humans.
The second part of the curse, "and he will rule over her," is also apparent throughout history. It is a part of the curse (I believe. Otherwise it would've been "but" rather than "and" and then there would be confusion as to which side was the curse, her desire or his rule) which means that it. is. not. good.
Let's look at the examples of what authority looks like. For one, we have this idea that humans are to serve the earth and all creation. Next we have Jesus, the second Adam. He came to serve, yet he was in authority. So... is it not that authority is something that serves?
With this idea of authority being that of a servant which spans from creation (the first Adam) to Jesus (the second Adam) we can look at the passages of the New Testament in a new light.
"submit to your husbands as the church submits to Christ" (paraphrase): Christ was a servant. Submitting...looks like allowing him to serve (which is the action of one who is in authority). Yet...if the husband is not acting like Christ, if he is not serving, it is impossible for her to submit as to Christ!
"submit yourselves one to another" -- The woman is not the only one that should submit! And the man is not the only one who is to serve. It is mutual serving and mutual submission to allow the service.
If one is not serving, the other cannot submit. If one is not submitting, the other cannot serve.
This...I believe is what has been lost. And it is through losing this that all creation has fallen into the curse that creates conflict between man and woman.
To summarize...
Find wholeness within yourself rather than from other people. Stand up at 100% and someone who is also whole will find you and you will find them.
Serve and allow yourself to be served.
Another small point I would like to make about finding wholeness. The fairytales and myths of the charming prince that comes and saves the girl, I believe, are highly misinterpreted. They represent the human psyche of one individual. It represents the outward, gallant person on the outside coming to the depths of the soul to free the one who is within in order to bring completeness to the psyche. In this way, fairytales are truth if you interpret them as representing two parts of one individual rather than a man awakening a woman and living happily ever after.
Micah
Micah,
Come to think of it, those fairy tales seem to be a representation of society in that often the women are painted as helpless and they look for anything outside of themselves (a lack of that wholeness you mention) for salvation. My heart goes out to the guys for all of the pressure that must put on them -- so much responsibility yet at the same time so much need for that feeling of being whole.
Good thoughts btw,
Amie
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.