" What About LADY TALKERS "

Originally Posted by tbpew

As a voice to offer some offset to what I preceive as largely a rant, I ask the reader to consider this.

I just find it annoying when people try to erase gender distinctions in this present life under the guise of being "in Christ."

The Kingdom of God is not meat or drink, the Kingdom of God is NOT OF THIS WORLD.

Agreed.

HOW LONG will those who profess a new birth as being a birth of the Spirit (note: I make no assumption that poster CHAN is one who does this), attempt to bring down that which is from above. The Kingdom of God is not of the natural realm. The definitions, constraints, laws and roles that can be applied within this realm to not have any assurance of transferability to the Kingdom of God. It is carnal, babe in Christ thinking, to do so.

The Bible does not appear to erase gender distinctions for the Church while we're here in this present world and I was objecting to the feminist attempt to erase gender distinctions.

That which is seen is to assist us in our understanding of that which came before, that which is not seen.

In the realm of time, in the earthly realm, in the below realm, we have roles that DO NOT EXIST in the Kingdom of God.

Agreed.

In the below/natural realm we have:
poor and rich
bound and free
MALE and FEMALE
Jew and Greek

None of these have application in the realm of the anointing of God's Spirit that is, --in Christ.

I'm not sure I agree with your equating the anointing of God's Spirit with being "in Christ" in the context of the passage being hinted at. I would agree that when the Church is taken out of this present world that there will be none of these distinctions, and I would agree that in terms of our justification, sanctification and eventual glorification these distinctions do not apply. However, they do still apply in terms of the operation of the Church here in this present world. Otherwise, there would be no basis for Paul to say he doesn't allow women to speak or to usurp authority. There would be no basis for Paul saying that the man (or husband) is the head of the woman (or wife). There would be no basis for effeminacy being something for which one will not inherit the kingdom of God (since being in Christ would erase all gender distinctions and, thus, there is no such thing as male or female, according to Mizpeh's use of the passage).

If I am operating with consideration of the diversity due to roles involving gender distinction, I am operating in a realm (jurisdiction) that is established to support the NATURAL order.

Since we still live in fleshly bodies in the natural world, these distinctions still apply at least with regard to our interactions with others.

If someone were to mistakenly apply jurisdiction or roles in a realm where they do not apply, he would be being as silly as a mother barging into the house next door and saying to the neighbor's child, "stop watching TV right now, get up and clean-up your room this minute!".

The Church presently occupies the earthly realm.

We need to understand where to apply our roles. Any distinction of roles have application first and foremost in the natural/below realm. It would be foolish (an exhibit of carnal-mindedness) to extend those roles into anything concerning our membership in the Body of God's anointing --his Christ.

The roles apply where the Bible applies them. To use the passage in question to claim (as feminists like Mizpeh do) that there are no gender roles (or even gender distinctions) for Christians while we're here in this present world, is the real foolishness and, worse, an attempt to conform the Bible to wicked worldly 21st century American culture.