I want kerdy to explain the Knoxville shooting.

Kerdy 1 wrote:

<quoted text>
*whispering*
that was a funny video!

Nettiebelle wrote:

<quoted text>Kerdy, I have no misconceptions as to what you are presenting, nothing to clear up.

Nettiebelle wrote:

<quoted text>
both my daughters are beauties WITH brains. You can have both, and be successful as a woman!

victoria1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Not all prety gurlz ar dum.:P

Kerdy 1 wrote:

<quoted text>
If you saw double talk where there was none, then you are not understanding what I have been saying and therefore do need clarification. Unless of course, you did go back and read the scriptures and have understood Gods plan.

Nettiebelle wrote:

<quoted text>How many marriages fitting your description of a Biblical marriage are there in the US today, Kerdy?

victoria1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Good morning Nettie, how are things with you this fine weekend?

Judged:

1

Nettiebelle wrote:

<quoted text>How many marriages fitting your description of a Biblical marriage are there in the US today, Kerdy?

Nettiebelle wrote:

<quoted text>great! I am having a family reunion, with my sister, mother, son, two (blond) daughters, and grandchildren!!

victoria1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Sounds wonderful, it's a long weekend up here, so I will be enjoying long weekend stuff, like bbq on the deck, cold beer and sunshine.
But then tomorrow I'm off to the Ottawa area for a few days on a business trip *blech*.
Enjoy your family reunion, eat lots of good homecooking!!!

Nettiebelle wrote:

<quoted text>How many marriages fitting your description of a Biblical marriage are there in the US today, Kerdy?

Kerdy 1 wrote:

<quoted text>
A lot, but why is that of importance? Are you suggesting that you or I should disregard Gods word because a bunch of other people do? That doesnt make sense.

Nettiebelle wrote:

<quoted text>I am not suggesting, I am stating that marriage has changed since Biblical times, I assumed you were aware of that. Women are no longer treated as a possession, or a second class person. Thank the Lord.

RUN_FORREST_RUN wrote:

<quoted text>
This is exactly correct.
You can thank the Lord.
If a person looks at different countries in the world, a very general statement can be made, that where ever the Bible, or it's teachings and precepts have been accepted, or have had a substantial presence in the country, the quality of life for women is better. They have rights to vote, to be educated and hold jobs (or careers), to own businesses and even rise quite high socially.
In countries (or times in history) when the Bible has been rejected, the women, who are an excellent barometer of a society, have been oppressed, have had rights denied, or revoked, and are denied the ability to rise up socially.
These are general statements, but there is a noticeable pattern anytime this is researched.

Kerdy 1 wrote:

<quoted text>
For me its God, family, then everything else.

Judged:

1

Kerdy 1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Your points are valid in secular society,

Judged:

1

1

1

Nettiebelle wrote:

<quoted text>In my opinion, the first person in the Bible to treat women as though they had the same worth and were just as important as anyone else, male or female, was Jesus.

RUN_FORREST_RUN wrote:

<quoted text>
The first One in the Bible to do that was God. This is because the Creator, as has been written on the Tee-shirt of a preschooler, "God don't make no junk", does not Create in vain. He only Creates perfection.
In Genesis 2:18, the Lord said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."
In case anyone ever wants to diminish the importance of women, notice that Adam had access to fellowship with the Infinite Creator of the Universe, and STILL this was not good enough.
I have heard ignorant people try to use this verse to justify using women as servants, because of the archaic King James language of "help meet".
This does not mean servant. This is rightly interpreted as "a very necessary, vital member of the team" (my interpretation).
But let me quote Eerdmans Bible Commentary:
"Genesis 2:18-25, A wife for the man.'It is not good'. Only when man(kind) existed male and female could the work of the sixth day be called 'very good'(Genesis 1:27, 31), for only then could the divinely ordained cultural programme unfold to its genealogical fullness (Gen. 1:28a).'A helper'. The woman was made for the man (1 Corinthians 11:9), yet not as his slave-girl but his queen.'Fit for him'(Hebrew Ke negdo) suggests primarily correspondence, likeness (Genesis 1:20, 23); as the man is the image and glory of God, so the woman is the glory of the man (1 Corinthians 11:7)."
Notice that the Biblical attitude toward women was established right from the very beginning of the Bible, in Genesis, the "Book of beginnings".
And the Apostle Paul, in the New Testament, uses examples from this very beginning, to RE-affirm the proper attitude toward women.
I cannot make any excuses for how people have misused the Bible.
All I can do quote the Bible in the proper way, and give the correct interpretations of it.
If some clown says that women are supposed to be subservient because of Genesis, that's not my fault.
But God's attitude toward women, which includes making Deborah a Prophetess in the Old Testament (Judges 4:3-4),(and by the way, the office of Prophet was higher than that of the King), is to be the attitude learned from.
It is this attitude, that causes me to have no respect whatsoever for Hugh Hefner who only uses the bodies of women as "bricks", and the money paid for them as "mortar", to build his empire.
May God have mercy on his soul.

Judged:

1

1

1

Nettiebelle wrote:

<quoted text>I am not suggesting, I am stating that marriage has changed since Biblical times, I assumed you were aware of that.

Nettiebelle wrote:

<quoted text> Women are no longer treated as a possession, or a second class person. Thank the Lord.