Baptists divided over female professors teaching men

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Francis king

imho, men should be subordinate to women...

Why? How would they ever master themselves if that was the case?

[johnp.]

I've mastered myself - I can't seem to stop doing things I don't want to do.

john.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Francis king

imho, men should be subordinate to women...

Often enough in society they are...

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Actually, a woman can help to bring out the worst in a man--"the beast," as you have called it, but it is up to the man to tame his beast by developing self-control, which is one of the fruits of the Spirit. A woman can also help to bring out the best in a man in his successful struggle for self-control.

Well, by "beast" I did not mean an "out of control animal." The "beast" I am talking about is a man's natural outward personality, which is what you see most of the time. The beast is not an "out of control personality" that you trap, subdue, control and put inside a cage (ie. achieving self-control). It's a man's outfit.

The outfit is what everyone else normally sees. You don't see the real person. The real person doesn't want to be seen. He's more interested in "improving his outfit." What I mean by this "beast idea" is a creature that looks scary, hideous and intimidating on the outside, but once you get to know him, you find that he's a really nice guy. The beast is tamed by whoever is able to penetrate beyond this "natural outward personality." When the beast is "tamed," it means that he's "pacified."

A man that expresses all his emotions and reveals everything about himself is no longer wearing the outfit. He is practically naked. People can see through him, past the outfit, see him for who he really is. He's exposed himself. The outward personality no longer protects and covers him. A man is only supposed to be "naked" to one person -- his wife.

The "tame the beast" idea comes up in a lot of cartoons. You have a bunch of male characters fighting against some big, scary, hideous, frightening and monstrous adversary, trying to fight against it and defeat it. They come up with all sorts of complicated schemes to trap it, scare it off, destroy it, etc.

Then along comes a woman (or a girl). Of course, you can probably guess what happens next. The woman uses her personality to shame the "monstrous adversary" into backing off. The real message is that the beast being pacified wasn't really that much of a nasty, malign creature after all. It had a soft side. While I don't like the depiction that males lack the "intelligence" (as in emotional intelligence) for that kind of thing, I guess there is some truth to idea that "the beast is a nice person once you get to know it."

Originally Posted by seattlegal

As a woman, I get accused of being vague all the time. When words are inadequate to express my point, I can only point the way with metaphors and hope to stimulate others' minds enough to realize the point I'm trying to get acrossed. (If the others want to understand.)

Ah yes. The feminine version.

Reminds me of my mother. A lot of the time my mother gave me advice or warnings, she didn't do it by being coercive or intrusive. There were times when she wasn't specific with what she said, but I knew what she was referring to. It was like she didn't need to say it, I already knew.

Very educational . . .

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Why? How would they ever master themselves if that was the case?

Maybe giving a woman control is a way in which a man can master himself. Behind every great man is a brilliant woman.

Nah . . . just kidding. I wouldn't let that happen if I had my way. It wouldn't be very macho.

Originally Posted by johnp.

I've mastered myself - I can't seem to stop doing things I don't want to do.

john.

What do you mean by mastering yourself? How does doing what you don't want to do equate to mastering yourself? Are you being ironic?

Interpretation #1
mastering yourself = doing what you've always dreamed of doing because that's what makes you a master of yourself. On top of the world. Top gun. Mr Universe. Master, architect and author of your own destiny.

Interpretation #2
mastering yourself = doing what you don't want to do because it's the right thing to do, and what you do want to do is the wrong thing so mastering yourself means subduing your dark side. You are your own worst enemy to be conquered.

[johnp.]

Hello Saltmeister.

Are you being ironic?

I wasn't being sarcastic but was aiming for some humour, an off the cuff remark.
What I think I mean is that I am unable to master myself because my fallen nature is too powerful yet I am held responsible for my fallen nature.
Any seeming improvement I make in regard to myself I will lose in pride. If I try to master myself I am being mastered. Since we are being transformed into the likeness of God our trust must be soley in Christ to change us otherwise it is not of God and is of no benefit.

The beast is not a wild thing out of control but it is in control. But the beast is not man because he behaves in a less emotional way to a woman. We are not beasts because we don't cry when Bambi's mum gets shot. A tear might come to the eye when we get knocked out of the World Cup but I wouldn't say so.

I like the way men have become an 'it'.

A man that expresses all his emotions and reveals everything about himself is no longer wearing the outfit.

Pull yourself together man.

The "beast" I am talking about is a man's natural outward personality, which is what you see most of the time.

I believe that a persons personality is the way it is because the person has found that to work for them. That the personality is a defence mechanism. The one thing that will bring these defences down is love. If two people love one another there are no secrets from each other, no defences are needed.
It might be natural in some way but it is a chosen course for the best part but I don't see why all the emotion thing in the same way is needed, we are different in that way.
A man that expresses all his emotions and reveals everything about himself is not behaving like a man, I'm not saying he isn't a man though. Is there a precedence down the ages?

You are your own worst enemy to be conquered.

If I took that task on I'm already conquered but being confident of this, that he who began a good work in me will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. Php 1:6.


john.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Well, by "beast" I did not mean an "out of control animal." The "beast" I am talking about is a man's natural outward personality, which is what you see most of the time. The beast is not an "out of control personality" that you trap, subdue, control and put inside a cage (ie. achieving self-control). It's a man's outfit.

Clothed in the flesh? {see below} Aren't we supposed to strive to be "clothed in Christ?" (Galatians 3:27)

Originally Posted by johnp.

I wasn't being sarcastic but was aiming for some humour, an off the cuff remark.
What I think I mean is that I am unable to master myself because my fallen nature is too powerful yet I am held responsible for my fallen nature.
Any seeming improvement I make in regard to myself I will lose in pride. If I try to master myself I am being mastered. Since we are being transformed into the likeness of God our trust must be soley in Christ to change us otherwise it is not of God and is of no benefit.

The beast is not a wild thing out of control but it is in control. But the beast is not man because he behaves in a less emotional way to a woman. We are not beasts because we don't cry when Bambi's mum gets shot. A tear might come to the eye when we get knocked out of the World Cup but I wouldn't say so.

I like the way men have become an 'it'.

{Match the colors below}
OK, this is "the beast" I was referring to, and where self-control being a fruit of the Spirit in this regard. It also addresses johnp.'s point about, "I've mastered myself - I can't seem to stop doing things I don't want to do." The self-control comes from the Spirit, but we must choose it, otherwise we make free-will {and thereby love} invalid. {Notice the references to "liberty" just prior to the verses quoted below in Galatians chapter 5, especially verses 13-14?}

Originally Posted by Galatians 5:16-

16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. 24 And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.