Do you believe God really intended for women to carry attaché cases and drive BMWs to work? Are they fulfilling the mission God designed them for by doing this?

What do you think?

Do you believe God really intended for women to carry attache cases and drive BMWs to work? Are they fulfilling the mission God designed them for by doing this?

I believe the Creator gave women the ability to make their own decisions and the wisdom and intelligence to follow their own path in life. Their choices are there own, from what they believe to what they do as are a mans. I see no difference between man and woman except for the roles they play in propagating the human race. One is no more important than the other and they must both work together to advance life on this planet. Just my humble opinion.:cool:

People might not agree with this opinion. I might get a lot of disagreement. My personally feeling that many women now a days pass the marriage, husband and children just to forward their career. That is fine and everybody has that choice. When a family gets involved though I do believe that at least one parent should be home with the child. The family of both parents working and not really raising children is causing many problems in children. I know that is not exactly the question you asked greasemonkey, but I think that is what you were trying to get at. Am I right?

Joe

Wish mine did then I would not have to ( work, still drive the old chev

But knowing that I will get a lot of heat, women and men are made different, different size over all, their organs are not the same size, there are different hormones and I understand even brain functions differ.

So God made them different than men, not saying they can't do anything, but saying we are different. Men and women are made to work as a team as husband and wife, where the strenghts of one works with the weakness of the other, and the opposite traits for the other.

While of course though out history various women worked, and esp those that did not work out of the home.

And I will agree that when there are small children, it is so very important for one of the family to be at home, or at least have a way for the child to be with a parent at their place of work, ( small business at times)
This sounds offensive to many in today's society because everyone believes they have some special right ( one of the faults of a democratic society) and that their own right is more important than an overal family or social or society need.

Fr_Chuck,

I would have to agree with you. Yes, in today's society. Anybody with those views probably would feel the heat. There are defiantly differences and yes women and man are made differently. God does have purposes for each.

Joe

I tend to agree with a number of you. Today's woman is, more than ever, accommodating culture and the cost to the family and society is huge. Family problems are getting worse, rather than better. I feel if women would study the Bible, understand the role God intended for them to perform, read about the Bible's truly Godly women, such as Sarah, Naomi, and Ruth, among others, they would realize that the path many of them are choosing is not good. The Bible is repleat with great role models for women. God will review their lives in light of the role He intended for them to perform.

If only it were that simple. But the men have accommodated the culture as well so if the women were to change, don't the men then have to change correspondingly? And the economy too, since it would lose a good portion of the work force? And probably our foreign policies too since we'll be affecting foreign markets too? We are all in this together and I don't think its really that simply. Especially since there are other beliefs too, ones that are not bible based at all... it's a small world now so what of those women? A good idea means it needs to be pratical to implement it too and this one doesn't hit me as do-able.

Val, I got the spread the love message, but I totally agree with you here. Let's look at the economy... I would have loved to stay home with the kids, but the economy makes it so that I had to work.

As for staying home with the kids. I would have loved that also, but coming from a family of early elementary teachers, 4 teachers below 5th grade level, they all say that the children who go to preschool are more socialized and ready for the school environment. Oops that was another thread.

Back to the role of women, I think here in the US, we can thank Gloria Steinem for a lot that has happened with society today.

It begins one family at a time! Personally, I have a hard time imagining Boaz allowing Ruth to be an F-15 fighter pilot, family lawyer, or CEO. Yes, many husbands have abdicated their role as spiritual leader of the household and have failed to treat their wives with love and respect. It's time for men and women to assume their proper roles and to start anew.

Do you believe God really intended for women to carry attache cases and drive BMWs to work? Are they fulfilling the mission God designed them for by doing this?




Both man and woman had the same mission.

Genesis 2:18
And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.”


The mission given mankind is described in the following way.


Genesis 1:28
Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Notice that God is speaking to both of them not just Adam.

The animals were to be taken care of, the earth gradually made into a global paradise, Eden would be the focal point from which it would spread, and the earth would be populated. Unfortunately both sinned, were barred from the Eden, and the transformation of earth into a paradise was put temporarily on hold.

This is clear from the following words:

Genesis 3: 17

... “ Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.

18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.

19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.”


In short both disqualified themseives to carry out that noble mission when they rebelled.

23 therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken.


NKJV

The world has changed and what was good way back when may not be the way to deal with what is now. Yes you can blame the many things on the economy or the changing lifestyles that confront us but the fact remains that even though there are many things and changes before us man and woman must still work together to raise the family and educate the children so they can in turn carry the human race to a better role. You can also look at the world and point to all kinds of bad things but to not see the good is not in my opinion a realistic view of the real world. As a leader of my family I think all young women be taught to not only love their family and raise their children but to also aspire to do all their ability and imagination allows them to do and most of all not to be subservient to anyone. My role as MAN is to love, respect, teach, inspire and encourage the very best of those under my wing. For that reason I disagree with the statement "Its time for men and women to assume their proper roles and to start anew" And just because a wife has the talents to be a lawyer AND a good wife and mother doesn't mean that the husband has abdicated his role as a spiritual leader and failed to treat their wives with love and respect. The opposite is true. This is NOT the world that BOAZ lived in and I doubt that Ruth would be any less a good wife if she did fly an F15. A real MAN is one that listens as well as advises, encourages, and loves ,guides as well as protects. You can blame the ills of the world on anything you want, but to return to the good old days of wifey with the hot meal waiting is... a little unrealistic if she has a masters in law! Does that intimidate you guys? Get over it! Just my humble opinion.:cool: ;)

Tal,

I stated, that at least one parent should be at home with a child. Even in my workplace there is actually men that take parental leave, or maternity leave. To stay home. The wife then takes the role of working outside of the home. It is all individual choice. I do believe that society was a better place years ago. That is in the past and we have a new society. I do see it failing in many ways. At the same time like you said it is not all negative as well. About the statement about how the men and women need to be in their proper roles, well to each individual that role can be different. Depending on the situation. To have somebody say it is not the right role that is a matter of opinion or especially stems from religion beliefs. Which there is nothing wrong with having them. I for one, would like to see at least one parent at home for raising children and I do think it would make a difference in the future generation.

Joe

My wife was working when we got married but quit to have our son and we talked and decide that even though we had a lot of choices for babysitting she wanted to stay home and raise our son which I had to agree with !00%. The next year brought my daughter and things worked out great. We didn't have a lot of money but we managed to stay within our budget and make ends meet so I have no regrets about not having a corvette, but I did have good well raised kids who are adults with children of their own. Yes every family has to decide how their household should go and how best their roles are to be filled. I try not to think what I do is any better than what any one else does though I do feel very strongly about a Person being all they can be. This new world that is quickly changing is scary but it is also exciting and challenging, I tend to be an optimist but I see a lot of good things that outweigh the bad, JUST me!

Couldn't spread the love but wanted to say - Tal and Jesushelper you both state very good points and I agree with you both!

Role of men:
. Spiritual leader
. Provider
. Defender

Moses, Daniel, Caleb, Joshua, King David, and, of course, Jesus are good examples for men.

Role of women:
. Helpmates
. Nurturers

Sarah, Naomi, Ruth, Esther, and Proverbs 31 are good examples for women.

Role of men:
. Spiritual leader
. Provider
. Defender

Moses, Daniel, Caleb, Joshua, King David, and, of course, Jesus are good examples for men.

Role of women:
. Helpmates
. Nurturers

Sarah, Naomi, Ruth, Esther, and Proverbs 31 are good examples for women.
What roles do you assign to single parent households with the divorce rate at 50%?
Can a man not be a helpmate or a nurturer?
Can a woman be a provider or spiritual leader?
If a woman has skills and talent and wanted to use them shouldn't a man support her?
What happens to these roles when the children leave the nest?
What happens to these roles when the man dies, or is disabled?
What happens to these roles if there are no children?
Should the woman's opinion be considered when these roles are defined ?
What should a man do if a woman wants to be more than just a helpmate?
In today's world what is it the man is defending his family against?

Society today has blurred the traditional role of women and men but I think if man and women work together for the good of family the benefits far out weigh the consequences.

Talaniman, I don't think you will ever get it. You can't keep accommodating culture. The cause of many divorces is because men and women are not fulfilling their proper role in society.

Today's woman is, more than ever, accomodating culture and the cost to the family and society is huge. Family problems are getting worse, rather than better. I feel if women would study the Bible, understand the role God intended for them...Sadly reading the bible won't fix the problem with families. The problem exists because americans are caught in a nasty consumerism/materialistic downward spiral as it relates to the family. I have no problems with women in the workforce, in fact I love well-educated, smart women. The problem exists when both parents put the parenting on the back burner in order to work like dogs to have a McMansion and a 42" plasma TV. Yes you can be a woman, work and be a great mother. It's all about priorities and balance. The world today is not like it was 2000 years ago nor is it like the days of our parents where the man had a job for life with a great pension - we adjust to the times.

With reference to Post #16 (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religion/role-women-28886-2.html#post136869), there is one word that sums up this view perfectly antiquated !! (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=antiquated)

Tx please try and join the rest of us in the 21st Century.

Talaniman, I don't think you will ever get it. You can't keep accomodating culture. The cause of many divorces is because men and women are not fulfilling their proper role in society.
I thought I asked some very valid questions to which I have not received answers as I would like to get it, if you can explain it. And the thing about not fulfilling proper roles being the main cause of divorce, I agree some what because I know for a fact no one wants to be told what to do with their life or be confined to some one else's idea of what is proper. I agree with NeedKarma when he says that we must change with the world as it changes. Your rigid thinking is okay in your house, but not in mine!

Obvously post #17 had some real good questions that one poster was unable to give answers to. For someone who has all the answers just came up with this reply ''Talaniman, I don't think you will ever get it. You can't keep accommodating culture. The cause of many divorces is because men and women are not fulfilling their proper role in society.'' Why could this poster not answer these questions?

What roles do you assign to single parent households with the divorce rate at 50%?
Can a man not be a helpmate or a nurturer?
Can a woman be a provider or spiritual leader?
If a woman has skills and talent and wanted to use them shouldn't a man support her?
What happens to these roles when the children leave the nest?
What happens to these roles when the man dies, or is disabled?
What happens to these roles if there are no children?
Should the woman's opinion be considered when these roles are defined ?
What should a man do if a woman wants to be more than just a helpmate?
In today's world what is it the man is defending his family against?

Maybe if they are repeated, the poster will relook at the questions really look through them and actually give an answer to them.

Role of men:
. Spiritual leader
. Provider
. Defender

Moses, Daniel, Caleb, Joshua, King David, and, of course, Jesus are good examples for men.

Role of women:
. Helpmates
. Nurturers

Sarah, Naomi, Ruth, Esther, and Proverbs 31 are good examples for women.

This is a very traditional view, but you can't honestly believe these roles are exclusive?

Txgreasemonkey -

Your question IS Bible-based. And any attempts to answer it, that is not Biblical is not answering the question!

I had a daily devotional a few weeks. Ago from my pastor's liveprayer.com. I didn't store it, but I remember the gist of it.


God didn't want for a woman, specifically a married woman with children to be the breadwinner in the family. However, there were MANY exceptions where it was proper for the woman to work(outside of the home)

A single woman. A divorced or widowed woman and an extremely talented woman. These exceptions allow leeway in our present society for women to fulfill their needs to earn money even if they are married... and it is not outside of God's plan.

So I guess (even personally) the key words are " the main breadwinner" This way hopefully babies do not have to be in a nursery when they are newborns. We were able to wait till they were 18 months old each to put them in the general care of nurseries & babysitters. (had problems then too, but mostly minor ones.)

There you have it - my wife is extremely talented so it's OK for her to work. Whew, that's a load off my mind.

txgreasemonkey -

Your question IS Bible-based. And any attempts to answer it, that is not Biblical is not answering the question!

I had a daily devotional a few wks. ago from my pastor's liveprayer.com. I didn't store it, but I remember the gist of it.


God didn't want for a woman, specifically a married woman with children to be the breadwinner in the family. However, there were MANY exceptions where it was proper for the woman to work(outside of the home)

A single woman. A divorced or widowed woman and an extremely talented woman. These exceptions allow leeway in our present society for women to fulfill their needs to earn money even if they are married...and it is not outside of God's plan.

So I guess (even personally) the key words are " the main breadwinner" This way hopefully babies do not have to be in a nursery when they are newborns. We were able to wait till they were 18 months old each to put them in the general care of nurseries & babysitters. (had problems then too, but mostly minor ones.)
I appreciate your answer 31pumpkin, and if I may ask does GODS plan prevent a man from being a nurturer, or a helpmate to his working wife?

Tal, I know you didn't ask me but I would like to answer your question anyway. Yes I think some men can be nurturers but no I don't think men were meant to be. I would like to add that not every woman is necessarily a nurturer either.

As far as the question at hand, I do think that men and women have specific roles that God had set up for them. Like everything else, I think there are exceptions to this rule. I think if it is possible women should stay at home with their children. I don't like the term "times have changed" because it lends to a lot of excuses but I do agree that between society and the price of things in genera, it may not always be practical. My wife and I chose to have her stay home but that was a personal one. We have contemplated many times of her working part time but figured it wouldn't be the right time.

I am not quite sure why the divorce rate is the way it is but there are many reasons that I don't think anyone can put their finger on just one. If there is one reason it is probably pride between the partners of not wanting to give up their rights. I will leave it at that.

By jduke44

Tal, I know you didn't ask me but I would like to answer your question anyway. Yes I think some men can be nurturers but no I don't think men were meant to be. I would like to add that not every woman is necessarily a nurturer either.
I agree with you there. We may have to be though for the sake of a healthy family.


As far as the question at hand, I do think that men and women have specific roles that God had set up for them. Like everything else, I think there are exceptions to this rule. I think if it is possible women should stay at home with their children. I don't like the term "times have changed" because it lends to a lot of excuses but I do agree that between society and the price of things in genera, it may not always be practical. My wife and I chose to have her stay home but that was a personal one. We have contemplated many times of her working part time but figured it wouldn't be the right time

Again I agree as it is a personal choice between husband and wife.


I am not quite sure why the divorce rate is the way it is but there are many reasons that I don't think anyone can put their finger on just one. If there is one reason it is probably pride between the partners of not wanting to give up their rights. I will leave it at that

Now this maybe another thread!!

I appreciate your answer 31pumpkin, and if I may ask does GODS plan prevent a man from being a nurturer, or a helpmate to his working wife?


Nurturer? Aren't men nurturers when they raise a family?

Or a helpmate to his working wife? It doesn't say a very talented working wife is supposed to have a "bum" for a husband either. It isn't like "anything goes".

I think the more the maturity of Christian ( and maybe other religions as well)
The closer they follow God's principles

Well. That's all I know. :D cya

The problem stems from a misundersatanding about what the Bible tell us about headship. Some women understand it as a license for a husband to abuse his wife so they consider it unjust. But a careful study of this principle of headship shows that it demands respect for the wife and a loving of her as one's own body.

Ephesians 5:28
So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.

Social factors have also contributed viewing of man's role as head of the household as negative. The article at the site below clarifies issues in relation to this.


Women's Liberation and the Bible
http://www.brfwitness.org/Articles/1975v10n3.htm

The problem stems from a misundersatanding about what the Bible tell us about headship. Some women understand it as a license for a husband to abuse his wife so they consider it unjust. But a careful study of this principle of headship shows that it demands respect for the wife and a loving of her as one's own body.

Ephesians 5:28
So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.

Social factors have also contributed viewing of man's role as head of the household as negative. The article at the site below clarifies issues in relation to this.


Women's Liberation and the Bible
http://www.brfwitness.org/Articles/1975v10n3.htm

I don't always agree with scripture but what you have presented is so right on. Not only has it survived the test of time but is a statement that we as men need to look at and define ourselves by it!

I do wish that the religious believers in our little community -- instead of lecturing us - would get on the politicians and law makers and tell them the errors of their ways.

If they made businesses pay a (family) living wage to the main breadwinner, the other partner would then have the choice of being a house-wife/husband during the childrens' formative years, a role which has been under-rated and undermined for far too long...

... and may your god go with you.

That is an excellent idea Jonegy. That is the only way things would change. By people standing up for the change and going to government and pressuring government for the change. That is the only way things will change if everybody that knows how important a parent staying home is. People have to fight for that. Yes, Christians do need to be more assertive.

Joe

I agree whole-heartedly that children should have their parents care for them. In my opinion what has happened has been like a domino effect. For one thing to work, the step in front of it has to be there.

1.
-a couple should be married (committed to eachother)
-realize that this is long-term and divorce is not an option (with the exception of abuse)
-have eachothers' best interests in mind always
-they should be in the same place in their lives, have similar goals, ideas, etc. and they need to be faithful to each other
-don't give up so easy, no marriage is perfect, the honeymoon is short and takes a lot of work
-we need to work together. If you don't have each other, who do you have?

2.
-when you have a family, realize that this is a job
-kids are work
-it's not about having a baby, it's about having a person
-know what your priorities are and have them straight.
-if you have this the rest is easy

I think it's important to put people first. I know a lot of people want things, and forget that is not what is important. We don't get to take that with us. We get our mind and our heart.

I don't know about women not working. I think that if your family needs more income then so be it. That is, money to meet your needs, not your wants. YOU have to answer for the way you have lived, no one else!


About this thing with the government offering some sort of assistance. I have the perfect idea. Maybe other countries have this, but I know they don't in Canada. The government should offer income-splitting. If my husband makes $65,000 a year he will pay more tax than if we both made $32,500. Now tell me that's not ridiculous. Families with one income should be able to split their income so they could keep more of the money they earn. I worked it out and if my husband and I were able to split, he would have got almost $10,000 more back on his income tax. WOW!

the role God intended for them to perform

Did God intend men to play around with virgins and leave them... Did God intend on men to cheat and abuse?

Did God intend for society to make it impossible to stay at home with a 'family' unit untact so that the children can be fed and nurtured??

Don't put is all on us women, please. We did not make life what it is all on our own!

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/15/15_9_18.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZNxdm801YYDE)
In England, in the 1600, women were rated and treated on the same level as aminals, with no rights - and not even allowed to read the Bible - reading was a man's thing. Women, who at that time were caught reading were burned at the stake. I don't think we can afford to go back to those 'good ole days'.

I agree that it should not be left up to any one person in the relationship. Each member has to give their 100%. I don't think it should be a situation where if you give, then I will give. We have to pull our own, there is no score, life is not fair. Be the best you can be and hopefully your partner will be too. Example: My husband has not changed a diaper in 10 years. We have had 4 children in that time. Some people have a very hard time with that. I do not. Vice versa, I hate making the top bunk bed up, so he takes that so I don't have to. I don't know if it evens out and I don't care. We help each other and what we help each other with changes depending on our needs. I notice people keeping score and people who count how much each spends. I do not agree with this. I know a lot of women who work so they don't have to ask to spend money. "His pay cheque, my pay cheque". Instead of "we are partners, everything is ours."

For what we are talking about to work you have to have spouses willing to support one another at home and at work.

Did God intend men to play around with virgins and leave them... Did God intend on men to cheat and abuse?

Did God intend for society to make it impossible to stay at home with a 'family' unit untact so that the children can be fed and nurtured???

Don't put is all on us women, please. We did not make life what it is all on our own!

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/15/15_9_18.gif
In England, in the 1600, women were rated and treated on the same level as aminals, with no rights - and not even allowed to read the Bible - reading was a man's thing. Women, who at that time were caught reading were burned at the stake. I don't think we can afford to go back to those 'good ole days'.
Chery, I agree we should not go back to a time when women where subjugated by their so-called husbands to serve them. The fact is that women are the heads of a lot of single households especially here in America. Not only do they work but have to raise children on their own. So if females MUST define their own roles I suggest that the Men who are offended by this do-something about it and stop putting women down for working outside the home and taking jobs that men should be doing! This argument fails to be valid given the female has been the one keeping family together and raising the kids, in many cases ALONE!

Chery, I agree we should not go back to a time when women where subjugated by their so-called husbands to serve them. The fact is that women are the heads of a lot of single households especially here in America. Not only do they work but have to raise children on their own. So if females MUST define their own roles I suggest that the Men who are offended by this do-something about it and stop putting women down for working outside the home and taking jobs that men should be doing! This argument fails to be valid given the female has been the one keeping family together and raising the kids, in many cases ALONE!!

Exactly! Well done!
And its not only in America, its just the same in Europe.
Its everywhere.
Culture is changing, people are changing.

Yes I think some men can be nurturers but no I don't think men were meant to be. I would like to add that not every woman is necessarily a nurturer either.

As far as the question at hand, I do think that men and women have specific roles that God had set up for them. Like everything else, I think there are exceptions to this rule. I think if it is possible women should stay at home wih their children.

I agree that men can be nurturers and women aren't necessarily a nurturer. However if you look at the insticts in men and women (overall), you would see that they do fit into these roles.

I do think this is what God wanted for us. I think it helps to bring order into our household and less chaos... as long as there is support and both parties are giving 100%.

I agree that men can be nurturers and women aren't necessarily a nurturer. However if you look at the insticts in men and women (overall), you would see that they do fit into these roles.

I do think this is what God wanted for us. I think it helps to bring order into our household and less chaos...as long as there is support and both parties are giving 100%.

I agree on both points but couldn't comment.

Ideally, I would have loved to stay at home, have six children, and help them develop into beautiful adults, but it did not work out that way.

The provider (husband) was a spouse abuser, college educated - but couldn't hold a job.

The nurturer (wife) had to take on both jobs and raise a child (the only one she could have due to medical problems).

This is a circle - as my child is now facing the job of single parent who has to do it all.

Honestly, we both wish with all our hearts it could have been different.

But you know what - from statistics throughout the world - we belong to a majority.. isn't that ironic?

If my wife made our combined salaries I would surely stay home with the kids and be the primary caregiver. I've already had good experience doing that with parental leave (4 months) and the dot-com bust layoff :( that lasted a while.

Do you believe God really intended for women to carry attache cases and drive BMWs to work? Are they fulfilling the mission God designed them for by doing this?

I think God intended man and woman to work together to make this a better place to live. That is why he gave us free will to evolve in a changing world and not be stuck in the past!

Do you believe God really intended for women to carry attache cases and drive BMWs to work? Are they fulfilling the mission God designed them for by doing this?

Yes. 100%. If God did not intend it, He would not have made it possible. God made certain things possible and certain things not. He gave us the freewill to go about Life in such a way to encounter and explore all things possible. God intended for Satan to rule this Earth... God intended for Adam to eat the fruit... God intended abuse, disease, and rape. God intended for evil to be brought about this Earth. However, God also intended Good... God also intended Love... God also intended Faith... God also intended laughter, joyousness, and peace.

God intended all these things and He intended us to decide for ourselves what is right.

I think women actually have something special and unique to contribute to the work force. Not all women workers are in the corporate world or working solely for their own benefit. They are doctors, judges, teachers, ministers, politicians, activists... I am friends with the first woman judge in our province, who is now over 80 years old. She had a husband and children, but she still became one of the most respected judges in Canada. She was one of the founders of our province's human rights commission, and an advocate for the poor, the indigenous peoples, and women. If she had simply been a housewife all her life, think of all the good our province would have missed out on.

I have a daughter. Although I am a stay at home mom right now, there is no way I would ever expect my daughter to do the same thing. I want her to do whatever she wants, be successful and be the best person she can. If that's being a wife and mother, fine. But I don't ever want her to feel obligated to subjugate herself to a man.

I believe in women being independent, able to take care of themselves. I've heard too many stories of women staying with abusive men because they don't have the money or the education to support themselves and their children. I used to work in a women's shelter, and this was the number one reason women went back to their abusers. They didn't have the means to be independent.

If you have a wonderful husband like I do, that's great. ;) But I'm not so naïve as to think that all women are as lucky.

The last post was interesting and true. But in addition to the cultural perspective, I believe God's word clearly doesn't forbid wives working. In fact this is all news to me, as I thought some people were just old-fashioned. Maybe that's where old-fashionedness comes from.
But I read a few ministries articles on the subject and the only thing that's frowned upon is when a woman's job obligations cause her to neglect her husband and family.
So in our culture it comes down to money and thankfulness. Money, because one cannot take anything/one for granted. Thankfulness that one does have a job (whatever it is) and has the opportunity and talent(a gift from God) to do the job well and earn a living. A woman,imo, should remain employable at all times(or have a big bank account in her name) ;)
The bigger problem seems to be when people are in love with $$$ and their greed overtakes them. And of course the Bible says that the love of $$$ is the root of all evil.

Yes. 100%. If God did not intend it, He would not have made it possible. God made certain things possible and certain things not. He gave us the freewill to go about Life in such a way to encounter and explore all things possible. God intended for Satan to rule this Earth... God intended for Adam to eat the fruit... God intended abuse, disease, and rape. God intended for evil to be brought about this Earth. However, God also intended Good.... God also intended Love... God also intended Faith... God also intended laughter, joyousness, and peace.

God intended all these things and He intended us to decide for ourselves what is right.


I think you are getting God's intentions mixed up with something else. I don't think he intended for all of this to happen, but he did know it would happen. He gave us all the free will to choose our own path. If we choose to abuse someone or choose to stay in an abusive relationship that is our choice. God did not intend for us to be hurt. I think you are simplifying too much. Intention implies He had something to do with it, when I don't believe He did. He allows consequences to occur. (Like when teaching your child to walk. Your intent is not for your child to fall down and cry, it is just the consequence of learning to walk.) Yes sin may be required for us to grow and mature but I honestly don't believe it is His intention for anyone to be hurt. I believe God can step in if there is a need, but I'm not sure he does. (I do however believe in miracles.)

We all have to make our own decisions and learn from them. God gave us these possibilities to allow us freedom. If He didn't allow us to make choices what would the point be. Just because something is possible doesn't make it from God. If He interfered, that would be wrong. I know there are times that because of our decisions we get answers as to if we are doing good or bad. Example: your dog isn't obedient and doesn't know how to sit, heel or act around people. The dog may even end up biting someone if they are mistreated or not reared properly. That would be your responsibility. Have you taken the time to teach the dog this? The simple fact that your dog doesn't do what it's told is an answer enough to show that you are not doing your part. With children, can we afford to wait for the consequences?

God has told us how to raise our children and it is your responsibility to do it to the best of your ability.

I think that women are free to work and should if the children's physical needs aren't being met. I think there is plenty of time for the woman to contribute financially. It should be based on their own family situation.

Quote [QUOTE]"I think that women are free to work and should if the children's physical needs aren't being met. I think there is plenty of time for the woman to contribute financially. It should be based on their own family situation..."
I agree that a woman who is taking care of a family should not be in any rush to contribute financially to her family... for her duties (since she chose to take that responsibility) is the family. This opinion is based on the man making enough money that such a sacrifice can be possible. The issues are giving the love and attention to the new entries to life. Now is that what you are trying to say? Hope so!

It begins one family at a time! Personally, I have a hard time imagining Boaz allowing Ruth to be an F-15 fighter pilot, family lawyer, or CEO. Yes, many husbands have abdicated their role as spiritual leader of the household and have failed to treat their wives with love and respect. It's time for men and women to assume their proper roles and to start anew.


Ruth could not have been a pilot because Pontius had that job!

M:)


Do you believe God really intended for women to carry attache cases and drive BMWs to work? Are they fulfilling the mission God designed them for by doing this?

What do you suppose a woman's divine mission is?

M:)

When both parents work, the children largely have two "fathers." The silent message to the kids is that money and the "world's" values are what's most important. The nurturing role of the mother is devalued and family relationships suffer. Greed (idolatry) takes over, resulting in a disfunctional family where selfishness prevails. Ultimately, the strains become so great that the family "flys apart."

Yes this can happen,and does but there are a lot of families that balance the two jobs and still raise well balanced kids. They tend to work together to keep the home a home and share in the nurturing. It depends on the man and woman.

When both parents work, the children largely have two "fathers." The silent message to the kids is that money and the "world's" values are what's most important. The nurturing role of the mother is devalued and family relationships suffer. Greed (idolatry) takes over, resulting in a disfunctional family where selfishness prevails. Ultimately, the strains become so great that the family "flys apart."The working mother that would drop her maternal instincts just because she works didn't have those instincts in the first place. While I don't disagree that many are chasing the almighty dollar I certainly disagree with your categorizing all working couples as bearers of disfunctional families. Many families will be dysfunctional regardless of how many parents work. These days it's tough to get by on one salary.

What people forget is when man and woman sit down and make their plan as to the kind of life they will lead and the way they will raise their children it is their decision, right or wrong they are the ones to make the plan and make it work. Their choice. They're way.

Yes, and I think it is a very important decision to be made. Are women really included in this decision? I know many couples where it is just assumed, women work. Even my own mother and mother-in-law felt pressure from their husbands to stay at home. You are right, they and their families have to love with whatever decisions are made and no one else should have an opinion in it.

I understand God intends both men and women to evolve (as is the whole planet, I take notice) and that frequently we collectively take three steps forward and one back on our journey. Beyond that isn't important on a public scale. What is important to me is my relationship to all of it: God, my fellow humanity, even civilization... and as a woman I have worked out the specifics of that well enough to suit me and my creator. But out of a sense of humility I wouldn't dare to stick my nose in the specifics of yours, nor would I welcome yours in mine. It is a personal, private matter that doesn't really lend itself to open debate well. It is as varied an answer, I would guess, as would be the question about the role of man too-- if asked in a world-wide public forum. What I think isn't going to have much bearing on anything here as it can only really matter to me in the long run, I think?

Yes, and I think it is a very important decision to be made. Are women really included in this decision? I know many couples where it is just assumed, women work. Even my own mother and mother-in-law felt pressure from their husbands to stay at home. You are right, they and their families have to love with whatever decisions are made and no one else should have an opinion in it.

You have pointed out a glitch in my thinking I haven't considered in that as couples sit and talk unfortunately the man has the final say in most decisions. I admit to having seen this scenario in a lot of couples and I really don't agree with it, but it was none of my business. So I assume that the role of women is defined many times by how much power the woman is GIVEN by the man. How often this arrangement works or leads to a happy life I'm not sure of, but I can see where men can get the idea as head of the household they must dominate everyone in it. Personally I'd like a more equitable relationship built on more than my spouse just obeying whatever orders I give.

Personally I'd like a more equitable relationship built on more than my spouse just obeying whatever orders I give.See that's what we have and it works great. I was an independent person before I met my wife, I cooked, cleaned, sew, etc. She do all those things as well as help out with the "guy stuff" once in a while (mow the lawn, take out the trash, etc.). The best part is that we are on the same wavelength as it comes to our parenting/disciplining and that makes life a lot easier.

We make about the same money, have our own cars and our own bank accounts. There is nothing forcing us to stay together except for the fact that we love and respect each other and want to be together. In a relationship where the woman has never worked you often find that the woman will put up with quite bit of abuse because she would not know what to do if she ever left.

We make about the same money, have our own cars and our own bank accounts. There is nothing forcing us to stay together except for the fact that we love and respect each other and want to be together. In a relationship where the woman has never worked you often find that the woman will put up with quite bit of abuse because she would not know what to do if she ever left.

Your point is well taken Need, Its hard to work together when the man uses abusive means to run his house. Not a good way to treat a fellow human.

Solomon, under God's inspiration, records the character of a noble wife in Proverbs 31. A wise man and woman would do well to read it over and over again.

Solomon, under God's inspiration, records the character of a noble wife in Proverbs 31. A wise man and woman would do well to read it over and over again.

It looks like we have agreement and have put to bed a myth, that the bible gives man subjugation over women when the truth is more like man and woman should work together for the greater good of the family. I suspect that most of the holy books of other religions say the same thing but a lot is lost or interpreted for the sake of another's agenda. Thanks TEX.

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/15/15_9_18.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZNxdm801YYDE)
In England, in the 1600, women were rated and treated on the same level as aminals, with no rights - and not even allowed to read the Bible - reading was a man's thing. Women, who at that time were caught reading were burned at the stake. I don't think we can afford to go back to those 'good ole days'.


Women were not singled out for special treatment either as martyrs or as Bible readers. For example, in the English village of Amersham, several martyrs were burned at the stake in 1506 and 1521 for their religious beliefs. They were part of a group of religious reformers - Lollards - who believed in such things as reading the Bible in English and worshipping in English rather than the Latin then used in the churches. They wanted the freedom to worship and believe with their own minds and not just accept the unquestioning doctrines of the Catholic Church of the time.

The monument to the Amersham Martyrs carries this inscription:


"In the shallow of depression at
a spot 100 yards left of this
monument seven Protestants, six men
and one woman were burned to death
at the stake. They died for the
principles of religious liberty,
for the right to read and interpret
the Holy Scriptures and to worship
God according to their consciences
as revealed through God's Holy Word

Their names shall live for ever”



In sixteenth-century England people were expected to follow the religious beliefs of the reigning monarch. When Edward VI was king they were told they had to be Protestants. However, when Mary Tudor became queen they had to change to being Catholics. After Elizabeth came to the throne they had to be Protestants again.

Those who refused to follow the religious beliefs of their monarch were accused of heresy. During their trials, defendants were given every opportunity to recant. If they did this they would be sentenced to a spell in prison. However, if they refused to recant and were found guilty of heresy, they were burnt to death.

During the reign of Henry VIII, people had to agree that the king, rather than the Pope in Rome, was the head of the English church. Those Roman Catholics that refused to accept this were executed, whether they were men or women.

In the reign of Mary, Protestant men and women were executed for refusing to accept that the Pope was the head of the church. Others – both male and female - were executed for reading the Bible in the English language.


M:)





It looks like we have agreement and have put to bed a myth, that the bible gives man subjugation over women when the truth is more like man and woman should work together for the greater good of the family. I suspect that most of the holy books of other religions say the same thing but a lot is lost or interpreted for the sake of another's agenda. Thanks TEX.


The Bible reflects the patriarchal composition of middle eastern society during the time of the composition of its documents. To extend that to make it appear that Godhas decreed that women are to be subjugated is outrageous. The traditional role of the man in family life is protector and breadwinner, and that of women as homemaker and nurturer.

A family is an organic social unit that depends for its success on the integrity of all its members, and the roles of husband and wife are to complement and support each other in all avenues of pursuits in the best interests of the family's purposes.

Anyone who intreprets the Bible to have it say that man is the master of women does not understand women, does not understand the Bible, and does not understand God.



M:)RGANITE

Do you believe God really intended for women to carry attache cases and drive BMWs to work? Are they fulfilling the mission God designed them for by doing this?
I don't really think God cares if a woman carries a briefcase or drives a bmw to work or not. I have no idea what they do at home with their families though.


"A Woman"

This is written in the Hebrew Talmud, the book
Where all of the sayings and preaching of
Rabbis are conserved over time.
It says: "Be very careful if you make a woman
Cry, because God counts her tears. The woman
Came out of a man's rib. Not from his feet to be
Walked on. Not from his head to be superior, but
From the side to be equal. Under the arm to be
Protected, and next to the heart to be loved."
Pass this on to all exceptional women that you know..
And to men so they know the value of a woman.