Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Silly Women


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I think the "house creepers" are people who present an alternative to a woman's otherwise seemingly boring life. 

Feminism is a biggie. It started way back with the message that women don't need men. Well, in many ways they don't - but in many ways they do, also. And this began appealing to girls who were being taught in school, on tv, in song ("I am Woman, Hear Me Roar"), by example, and, yes, even in some pulpits that women could do anything men could do. And so they began doing it.  Caution here: I do believe that some men over react when a woman has an opinion and dares to voice it...just because a woman does not always agree with her husband does not mean she is being unsubmissive...methinks sometimes men can be too trogloditish and it makes women frustrated and easy prey to the "kinder, gentler" house creeper.

TV has done a lot to indoctrinate both men and women with the faulty ideas that exist. The mocking of men while lifting up women as all-wise has contributed to the house creeper's victory. After all, if a woman is stuck with a less intelligent man but "intelligence" comes down the pike, why not go for it? (Rhetorical question there...please don't think I'm advocating leaving a husband)

The Internet has also contributed. I love this forum, and I love interacting with folks. But consider this. All of the forums, blogs, social media, etc. CAN BE a form of "...wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not," which 1 Tim talks about...this attitude leads to vulnerability on the part of a woman and leaves her open to house creepers on the Internet. We all have to be so careful.

Music has contributed greatly to this as well. First it was secular music that taught us that women did not need to answer to their husbands or fathers. Then it was the soft, pretty "Christian" music that taught us to trust in our emotions. Making women even more vulnerable.

House creepers don't need to come to the door...way too often they are already inside.

​And the house creeper type with the "form of godliness"  will also let the wife know that her husband is immature, unspiritual and out of step with God, and unfit to make sound decisions.

 

God told Abraham, he would give him a son. That promise took a long time. Sarah came up with the idea to give her 'bondwoman' for a wife and Abraham agreed. They had Ishmael . The "son of the bondwoman" teased Isaac and Sarah said to throw them out. THEN and only then did God say "hearken" to Sarah. It's OK to voice an opinion; God didn't make women super intelligent for nothing. But if Abraham had not "hearkened" that first time(when God didn't say to), we wouldn't have Muslim terrorists now. Either way. Abraham had to bear the responsibility, because the final decisions in the home are placed squarely on the husband

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

During work hours? I don't like that either.

Many years ago my wife had a former high school classmate, good friend of hers, whose wife had recently left him. So he came over to my house, one day, while I was at work "crying on her shoulder" so to speak (she told me about it and everything was innocent from her perspective)But  then he came back again. So I confronted this dude and told him I didn't mind him talking to my wife; just not while I wasn't home. That was the last we heard from him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think just seeing the many false churches virtually run by women today, or with a very strong feminine presence, as an example that this is already well underway. I can't tell you how hard it is to get acoss to 'Christian' women who base their theology upon their emotions and feelings. Particularly in areas of dress, modesty and hair. Sound afmiliar?

Lady: "I am thinking about cutting my hair into this really cute, pixie cut!"

Pastor: "Well, the Bible says that a woman's long hair is a glory to her because it is given her for a covering."

Lady/Husband/Friends/Family: "Oh, that's not for today! That was just cultural for the time. God doesn't care about hairstyles! I am fine with my wife/daughter having short hair; its none of your business. Get out of being under the law!"

We have a young lady in the church,immature yet, but she likes to wear failry revealing clothes, and whwn we talk to her, she always has some excuse. Again,it all comes down to self and emotions. BUt we're working on her,praying for her.

Bro Mike: That lady you reference does have a legitimate point. Take a look at the passage again carefully in context and go at least one verse past where people normally stop.

ICor 11:16 "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God"

As we men sometimes complain about the clean cut american business culture look as being unScripural but preached about as if a fundamental doctrine, the same applies here. The context is referring to customs and not sin, in fact, it basically gives two options for either sex (bald or long and flowing) seemingly no inbetween. In addition the context reads as if it is dismissive and unimportant regardless how either sex wears their hair.

Strange that in my experience the woman preachers of the snake oil charismatics all seem to have long flowing hair while the women I see in fundamental churches wear a variety of styles many that could be thought of as short (relatively speaking anyway).

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Bro Mike: That lady you reference does have a legitimate point. Take a look at the passage again carefully in context and go at least one verse past where people normally stop.

ICor 11:16 "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God"

As we men sometimes complain about the clean cut american business culture look as being unScripural but preached about as if a fundamental doctrine, the same applies here. The context is referring to customs and not sin, in fact, it basically gives two options for either sex (bald or long and flowing) seemingly no inbetween. In addition the context reads as if it is dismissive and unimportant regardless how either sex wears their hair.

Strange that in my experience the woman preachers of the snake oil charismatics all seem to have long flowing hair while the women I see in fundamental churches wear a variety of styles many that could be thought of as short (relatively speaking anyway).

.

​To take the verse to mean, "If anyone disagrees, its not important", is to miss all of what Paul previously wrote, and to ignore the fact that things spelled out clearly in the Bible, like this, are not generally left up to people's personal feelings about it.

Its important to take this entire passage about headcoverings in it's context, which can be found at the beginning of Chapter 7: "Now, concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me..." Apparently, the church in Corinth had written a letter to Paul, asking him about various subjects. Consider how, over the next few chapters, how Paul bounces from subject to subject, many totally unrelated. Even in Chapter 11, he speaks goes quickly from the subject of headcoverings/hair then immediately to the observance of the Lord's Supper, without skipping a beat. This goes back to 7:1-the letter. From this, as we go through the various subjects, we can ascertain what the questions were-in this case, (and history backs it up), women of the Roman culture, thus, all the areas where Rome held sway, which would include Corinth, had stopped wearing headcoverings, and were instead inventing new and complicated styles of wearing their hair, which had been previously covered up. The women were competing with each other in hairstyles. So, I suppose, from hisory and the answer Paul gives here, the question would have been akin to "As women are ceasing wearing headcoverings, are our women allowed to stop wearing them as well, or must a woman stay covered?", or something to that effect. Again, by his answer, we see it was something like that-Paul goes on to talk about the importance of a woman being covered-it represents her head, man, and the man is to be covered, which the man, whose head is Christ, is to remain uncovered, lest he cover the glory of God, being made in His image. There is no doubt left that a woman SHOULD be covered, and a man should NOT be covered, and to do otherwise is to make both parties unfit to pray or prophecy, and that would inlcude ANY prayer, not just within the context of the assembly.

Then, Paul continues by likening the hair to the covering-a man's hair should be short, hence, he is then uncovered if his hair is short. A woman's hair should be long, hence she is covered by her long hair, which God gave her FOR a covering. Hence, a woman should not have short hair, and a man should not have long hair.

Paul's wrap-up comment, then does not say we don't have to be covered, its not important, because he just spent a lot of time and space to emphasise that it IS important. Rather, it goes back to the original question: the WEARING of a piece of cloth as a cover, and THAT, the church has no custom of. In fact, that is so true that we don't even ever see it as an issue spoken of in the Old testament.-it was always purely cultural in the entire region, not a sign of Judaism. The hair was ALWAYS the covering, even from Eden.

By the way, blad is not uncovered-bald is an extreme-even the Jews were told not to shave their heads, because that was how many of the heathen nations wore their hair-uncovered is merely 'short', covered is 'long'. We could get into an argument about what constitutes long and short, but seriously, that's picking at nits, it's a way to disregard what the Bible clearly says. Its easy really: if the hair is too short to wear as a 'veil' or a 'cover', then it's short. If it's long enough to wear as such, then its long. Paul gives the answer by how he likens them. So, if there's a question that it MIGHT be too long for a man, the cut it. If there's a question that it MIGHT be too short, for a woman, then grow it out. Its not hard, not brain surgery. Common sense really does fix the problem.

As for how certain people of different faiths wear it, that means nothing but a hill of beans-its what the Bible SAYS that matters. If Fundamentalist women disobey the Bible by wearing short hair, that doesn't make the word of God of no effect. If Charismatic women wear their hair long enough, that doesn't make it of no effect, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...