It is not just 'man' that opposes God. 'Woman' does also.

God commands fruitful reproduction, but 'woman' in her 'wisdom' disagrees.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/giving-women-a-choice-key-to-family-planning-2\
0091202-k6cd.html

The Age (Melbourne)
3 December 2009

Giving women a choice key to family planning
By Farah Farouque

The key to preventing a near-doubling of global population by 2050 is to
enable women in developing nations to choose the size and spacing of their
families, according to the United Nations population chief.

Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, who heads the the United Nations Population Fund, said
research showed about 235 million of the world's women would like to cap
their family sizes but had no access to family planning.

Rejecting approaches such as China's One Child policy, she said that
slowing down future population growth could be achieved only through
voluntary means.

"If these 235 million can plan their family, they all want smaller
families. This means it will slow population growth," she said.

"When population growth is slowed that will lead to smaller total
population, which will have a lighter footprint on environment (and)
climate change."

The Population Fund estimates the world's population, now more than 6
billion, will be either 9 billion or 11-12 billion by 2050.

Dr Obaid emphasised that only if girls were educated and had access to
better services would population growth be held to 9 billion.

"When girls are educated, the preference is always for smaller families,
and the important thing is that it should always be choice by women and
men. It's not imposed, it is a voluntary choice."

When this choice was exercised it would result in benefits "in terms of
lighter emissions, in terms of abusing the environment, congestion and
urbanisation".

Dr Obaid, the first Saudi Arabian to head a UN agency, is visiting
Melbourne for an international women's conference.

She expressed concern about the position of indigenous women in Australia,
noting many of their problems were akin to those of women in the developing
world.

"They have similar problems [in terms of] access to health and education,"
she said. "Any vulnerable group will have some similar problems; the issue
is a matter of degree. Luckily in Australia you are a rich country,
hopefully the resources will flow to provide the support and transformation."

Asked about Saudi Arabia's lack of women's rights, she said advances were
being made and the media was quick to stereotype. "The voices of women for
change and reform are quite high," she said.

"Change has taken place, and I think the world has stereotyped Saudi women
in a certain way."

The New York state Senate decisively rejected a bill yesterday that would have allowed gay [perverts] couples to wed, providing a major victory for those who oppose same-sex marriage and underscoring the deep and emotional divisions surrounding the issue.

I fear that you are right, but not all of them are separated or divorced. We
have had several come on this group who have claimed to be home schooling
mothers of several children.

Not all fit the stereotype.  Discernment requires comparing every word that they
say to what Scripture actually says - and it doesn't add up - as well as prayer,
of course, and trusting teachers who are known to be faithful to the Word.


You have to have a paradigm shift so that equality as egalitarians teach makes
sense to you - kind of like Alice going through the looking glass.


I refuse to take another pill. It has taken a long time to get out of the
surreal world that the egals live in.  I'm not going back, that's for sure, once
I saw what world I was being drawn into.
------------

--- In CCC-Forum@yahoogroups.com, Craig Coffey <ctc2004hpk@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, indeed they are.  Indeed they are!!  IMO, it will be the keepers of
those gates who will suffer the greatest judgement.  We already see it through
their present fruits.  There is a spirit of heaviness about them.  They are
controlled through certain principalities of darkness.  Is it any wonder why
many of them are separated or divorced?
>
> --- On Tue, 11/17/09, Webfoot <dlkaijala@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Webfoot <dlkaijala@...>
> Subject: [CCC-Forum] Re: Egalitarianism and Homosexuality: Connected or
Autonomous Ideologies?
> To: CCC-Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, November 17, 2009, 11:07 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Yes. "Hiding in caves" is right, and the entrance to those caves is heavily
guarded.
>
> 1 John 4:4
> Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you
is greater than he who is in the world.
>
> ------------ -----
>
> --- In CCC-Forum@yahoogrou ps.com, Craig Coffey <ctc2004hpk@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > It can be a chore to have a healthy balance of mercy vs. truth.  One of
my main objections to the Emerging Church Movement is the lack of Spirit-led
expository of truth .... and a overwhelming tendency to show "understanding and
acceptance" in the face of wanton sin.  Jesus never said that mercy would set
us free.  He said the truth would set us free.  He also said that those
who worship Him must worship Him in spirit AND in truth.  Some want the
worship and the mercy without being faced with the truth of their lives.  The
tendency of the Egals is to band together in close knit little focus groups as
they examine the sins of men and the church.  Rarely have I read of one Egal
correcting another one in matters of theology or personal responsibility. 
These "covens" are little more than emotionally and spiritually sick people
lamenting with each other. 
> >  
> > There comes a time in a person's life ..... even in those who have suffered
a legitimate abuse .... to "come out of the cave" as the demonaic did in Luke
8.  They must humble themselves and meet Jesus in order to be set free. 
Jesus will meet them!  This is the coupling of divine intervention with human
cooperation.  These Egals are choosing to live in the cave of deception. 
There are valid reasons why caves are dark.  These spiritual caves represent
a darkness of the spirit.  I am convinced that only the Holy Spirit can set
them free.  But, there must be bold people who will enter into the caves
where the Egals hang out.  Only a few have this calling and enablement. 
They must hold to an uncompromising truth and out of their mercy and compassion
for these deceived ones ... be willing to confront even the chiefs among
them.  There is much spiritual warfare inside those caves!
> >
> > --- On Mon, 11/16/09, Webfoot <dlkaijala@ ..> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Webfoot <dlkaijala@ ..>
> > Subject: [CCC-Forum] Re: Egalitarianism and Homosexuality: Connected or
Autonomous Ideologies?
> > To: CCC-Forum@yahoogrou ps.com
> > Date: Monday, November 16, 2009, 6:41 PM
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > Maybe. There is still some reason why Eve's having been deceived is a reason
that women should not be teachers or exercise authority over the whole church.
Yes, all believers - even men - can be deceived as Eve was - but men are not
excluded from being teachers or holding positions of authority over the whole
church just because men can also be deceived. There is something else going on
in the case of women.
> >
> > It could just be part of the curse, but I think it's more than that. Adam's
preeminence is one reason that women should not teach or exercise authority over
men, and the fact that Eve was deceived is another.
> >
> > 2 Corinthians 11:3
> > But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your
thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.
> >
> > 1 Timothy 2:12-14 (English Standard Version)
> > 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man;
rather, she is to remain quiet.
> >
> > 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
> >
> > 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a
transgressor.
> >
> > Then, it's not exactly that all egalitarians are soft on abortion and
homosexuality. In a way, homosexuality and abortion are two sins among many
other sins that grieve and offend God's holiness and are deserving of judgment.
It's not that God cannot save a repentant homosexual or a repentant abortionist
or a repentant women who has had an abortion. We have all heard many, many
testimonies of God's grace and the power of the Gospel to transform lives. It's
not that our own sins, even though we may not have committed those specific
ones, are any less worthy of condemnation.
> >
> > It's that many seem to let all kinds of sin pass without actually helping
the person come to repentance, facing up to the real nature of their offenses,
and their need to cast themselves only on the mercy of the court, so to speak.
> >
> > We are encouraged to understand those who have fallen into such sins, and I
am not adverse to that. It's just that this is one of the things that Scripture
tells us about how to handle sin, it seems to me. If a homosexual is told that
their sin is not entirely their fault, but that something in their circumstances
made them who they are, then there is a problem, IMO.
> >
> > Jude 1:22-24 (English Standard Version)
> > 22And have mercy on those who doubt;
> >
> > 23save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with
fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh.
> >
> > We see a lot of mercy - which would be more of a feminine reaction - but not
a lot of "sntching them out of the fire" or "hating even the garment stained by
the flesh."
> >
> > ------------ ---------
> >
> > --- In CCC-Forum@yahoogrou ps.com, Craig Coffey <ctc2004hpk@ ...> wrote:
> > >
> > > The enemy comes as an angel of light.  The Egal validations
offered for these hurting women are beguiling, indeed.  The propensity
of foolish women to be beguiled started with Eve.  The wise and
discerning woman, in spite of her hurt, will still be able to discern truth from
error.  She heeds the witness of the Holy Spirit within her. 
Her emotions (flesh) are obviously working overtime, but she works hard to
subdue the flesh and makes the wise choice to stay with God and the
Word.  The Scriptures are clear in describing foolish women. 
Every Egal that I know meets these criteria of the foolish woman.  I
know of a few foolish men who also claim to be Egals.  I've found these
"men" to be more "gals" than they are masculine. These males allow the Egals to
emasculate them.  This is the only way they are acceptable to the
Egal.  This, too, is a type of beguilement.
> > >
> > > --- On Sat, 11/14/09, Webfoot <dlkaijala@ ..> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Webfoot <dlkaijala@ ..>
> > > Subject: [CCC-Forum] Re: Egalitarianism and Homosexuality: Connected or
Autonomous Ideologies?
> > > To: CCC-Forum@yahoogrou ps.com
> > > Date: Saturday, November 14, 2009, 10:38 PM
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Check out some discussion right here at the CCC from around Sept. of 2007.
Everything that the egalitarians say that they do not believe - and some of them
tell you that they are not egalitarians - they have in the past, come onto this
group to defend. I used to be pretty influenced by them - and some say that I
still am. :-)
> > >
> > > You will see one woman defending Oprah and pole dancing, as well as Ellen
Degeneris, and rebuking the mean comps for not caring about these women's souls!
> > >
> > > On some groups that spend their days and nights bashing all things
Complementarian, you will also see pornography defended with very little protest
on the part of the egals.
> > >
> > > I think that there is plenty of evidence. Why are the egals covering up
and having fits - even threatening people - when they are called on such things?
It's not just what they DO say. It is what they deny, and what they are willing
to do and say in order not to be exposed.
> > >
> > > I have seen women who used to be staunchly pro-life go soft on abortion. I
have seen women who used to oppose gay marriage now distance themselves from
their former positions.
> > >
> > > No, it is not a slippery slope for many. Many egals are already there, and
have been for quite some time, now. The hard core egals have already made up
their minds. What bothers me - and it's really none of my business - is that
many women are drawn into their cult without even knowing what has happened to
them.
> > >
> > > So, I definitely believe that women are easily deceived and should not
have positions of spiritual authority over the church. Not all Comps would agree
with that position, but when you see it happening before your very eyes, what
other explanation is there?
> > >
> > > ------------ --
> > >
> > > --- In CCC-Forum@yahoogrou ps.com, Craig Coffey <ctc2004hpk@ ...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The fact that some Egalitarians have chosen lesbianism as their new
"norm" shows the kindred spirits with the pro-gay backers.ÃÆ'‚ 
No pun intended, but they have been in bed spiritually with the homosexuals from
the get-go.ÃÆ'‚  They identify strongly with that people group as
they perceive that they share the same "victimization" .ÃÆ'‚ 
They see the church, and strong/masculine men as the enemy.ÃÆ'‚ 
This really presents quite a quandry for many Egals, as they still CLAIM to be
evangelicals but to do so they must stand against the homosexual
agenda.ÃÆ'‚  The cautions about being doubleminded apply here, as
we see the Egals .... like those embracing the homosexual agenda .... as being
unstable in all their ways.
> > > >
> > > > --- On Sat, 11/14/09, Webfoot <dlkaijala@ ..> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Webfoot <dlkaijala@ ..>
> > > > Subject: [CCC-Forum] Egalitarianism and Homosexuality: Connected or
Autonomous Ideologies?
> > > > To: CCC-Forum@yahoogrou ps.com
> > > > Date: Saturday, November 14, 2009, 12:15 PM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > For a long time, now, Complementarians have been alleging that the
embracing of egalitarianism will eventually lead to the acceptance of
homosexuality - as in same sex marriage and the ordination of gays.
> > > >
> > > > Evangelical egalitarians have said that the Complementarians are guilty
of a "slippery slope" logical fallacy. Evangelicals, such as those at the CBE,
are not in favor of homosexuality.
> > > >
> > > > In this article, David W. Jones presents the irrefutable evidence that
several organizations that at one time did oppose homosexuality have now
embraced same sex marriage and the ordination of gays.
> > > >
> > > > These organizations are not on a slippery slope. Check out the names
associated with some of these groups. Some of the names may sound familiar. You
may have met some of them online in discussions with Christian feminists.
> > > > ------------ --
> > > > Egalitarianism and Homosexuality: Connected or Autonomous Ideologies?
> > > >
> > > > David W. Jones
> > > >
> > > > "If the EWC [Evangelical Women's Caucus] was the only Christian
organization to begin with an emphasis on women's rights but to end up
tolerating homosexuality, the preceding events could probably be viewed as
inconsequential. A review of the shifting doctrinal beliefs of a number of the
mainline Protestant denominations, however, reveals that more than one Christian
group has followed the same path as that of the EWC-that is, to begin by
adopting an egalitarian view of male/female gender roles, but to end up by
endorsing homosexuality. "
> > > >
> > > > "Conclusion
> > > > In conclusion, this essay addressed two main questions; first, "Is there
sufficient historical evidence to support complementarians' concern over a
possible connection between egalitarianism and homosexuality? " And second,
"What is the nature of the link between these two ostensibly unrelated
ideologies?" Regarding the first question, which was the focus of this essay,
this work surveyed historical evidence from four different groups-the
Evangelical Women's Caucus, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Evangelical
Lutheran Church in America, and the United Methodist Church-and concluded that,
indeed, there is sufficient evidence to support complementarians' concern
regarding a connection between egalitarianism and homosexuality. In fact, the
slide from the acceptance of feminist-type arguments to the endorsement of
homosexuality currently occurring in some Christian denominations follows a
paradigm that is demonstrable in secular culture, as well. In
> > > light
> > > > of the historical record, then, it seems that to deny the presence of
this progression would be both irresponsible and irrational.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the second question that this work briefly considered, it was
noted that pinpointing the exact nature of the connection between egalitarianism
and homosexuality is not an easy task. Indeed, defining the link between these
two ideologies is a difficult endeavor because not all who endorse biblical
feminism have or will embrace homosexuality. In light of this fact, then, it was
suggested that the primary connection between egalitarianism and homosexuality
is a non-requisite logical connection. While many other links between these two
ideologies likely exist (there is great need for further work in these areas),
as was explained above, the main reason why some advocates of egalitarianism
have been led to endorse homosexuality is that feminist-type arguments so
minimize gender identity that once biblical feminism is embraced, it is but a
small logical step to accept homosexuality. "
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Yes.  "Hiding in caves" is right, and the entrance to those caves is heavily
guarded.

1 John 4:4
Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you
is greater than he who is in the world.

-----------------

--- In CCC-Forum@yahoogroups.com, Craig Coffey <ctc2004hpk@...> wrote:
>
> It can be a chore to have a healthy balance of mercy vs. truth.  One of my
main objections to the Emerging Church Movement is the lack of Spirit-led
expository of truth .... and a overwhelming tendency to show "understanding and
acceptance" in the face of wanton sin.  Jesus never said that mercy would set
us free.  He said the truth would set us free.  He also said that those who
worship Him must worship Him in spirit AND in truth.  Some want the worship and
the mercy without being faced with the truth of their lives.  The tendency of
the Egals is to band together in close knit little focus groups as they examine
the sins of men and the church.  Rarely have I read of one Egal correcting
another one in matters of theology or personal responsibility.  These "covens"
are little more than emotionally and spiritually sick people lamenting with each
other. 
>  
> There comes a time in a person's life ..... even in those who have suffered a
legitimate abuse .... to "come out of the cave" as the demonaic did in Luke 8. 
They must humble themselves and meet Jesus in order to be set free.  Jesus will
meet them!  This is the coupling of divine intervention with human
cooperation.  These Egals are choosing to live in the cave of deception. 
There are valid reasons why caves are dark.  These spiritual caves represent a
darkness of the spirit.  I am convinced that only the Holy Spirit can set them
free.  But, there must be bold people who will enter into the caves where the
Egals hang out.  Only a few have this calling and enablement.  They must hold
to an uncompromising truth and out of their mercy and compassion for these
deceived ones ... be willing to confront even the chiefs among them.  There is
much spiritual warfare inside those caves!
>
> --- On Mon, 11/16/09, Webfoot <dlkaijala@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Webfoot <dlkaijala@...>
> Subject: [CCC-Forum] Re: Egalitarianism and Homosexuality: Connected or
Autonomous Ideologies?
> To: CCC-Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, November 16, 2009, 6:41 PM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Maybe. There is still some reason why Eve's having been deceived is a reason
that women should not be teachers or exercise authority over the whole church.
Yes, all believers - even men - can be deceived as Eve was - but men are not
excluded from being teachers or holding positions of authority over the whole
church just because men can also be deceived. There is something else going on
in the case of women.
>
> It could just be part of the curse, but I think it's more than that. Adam's
preeminence is one reason that women should not teach or exercise authority over
men, and the fact that Eve was deceived is another.
>
> 2 Corinthians 11:3
> But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts
will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.
>
> 1 Timothy 2:12-14 (English Standard Version)
> 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man;
rather, she is to remain quiet.
>
> 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
>
> 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a
transgressor.
>
> Then, it's not exactly that all egalitarians are soft on abortion and
homosexuality. In a way, homosexuality and abortion are two sins among many
other sins that grieve and offend God's holiness and are deserving of judgment.
It's not that God cannot save a repentant homosexual or a repentant abortionist
or a repentant women who has had an abortion. We have all heard many, many
testimonies of God's grace and the power of the Gospel to transform lives. It's
not that our own sins, even though we may not have committed those specific
ones, are any less worthy of condemnation.
>
> It's that many seem to let all kinds of sin pass without actually helping the
person come to repentance, facing up to the real nature of their offenses, and
their need to cast themselves only on the mercy of the court, so to speak.
>
> We are encouraged to understand those who have fallen into such sins, and I am
not adverse to that. It's just that this is one of the things that Scripture
tells us about how to handle sin, it seems to me. If a homosexual is told that
their sin is not entirely their fault, but that something in their circumstances
made them who they are, then there is a problem, IMO.
>
> Jude 1:22-24 (English Standard Version)
> 22And have mercy on those who doubt;
>
> 23save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with
fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh.
>
> We see a lot of mercy - which would be more of a feminine reaction - but not a
lot of "sntching them out of the fire" or "hating even the garment stained by
the flesh."
>
> ------------ ---------
>
> --- In CCC-Forum@yahoogrou ps.com, Craig Coffey <ctc2004hpk@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > The enemy comes as an angel of light.  The Egal validations offered for
these hurting women are beguiling, indeed.  The propensity of foolish women
to be beguiled started with Eve.  The wise and discerning woman, in spite of
her hurt, will still be able to discern truth from error.  She heeds the
witness of the Holy Spirit within her.  Her emotions (flesh) are obviously
working overtime, but she works hard to subdue the flesh and makes the wise
choice to stay with God and the Word.  The Scriptures are clear in describing
foolish women.  Every Egal that I know meets these criteria of the foolish
woman.  I know of a few foolish men who also claim to be Egals.  I've
found these "men" to be more "gals" than they are masculine. These males allow
the Egals to emasculate them.  This is the only way they are acceptable to
the Egal.  This, too, is a type of beguilement.
> >
> > --- On Sat, 11/14/09, Webfoot <dlkaijala@ ..> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Webfoot <dlkaijala@ ..>
> > Subject: [CCC-Forum] Re: Egalitarianism and Homosexuality: Connected or
Autonomous Ideologies?
> > To: CCC-Forum@yahoogrou ps.com
> > Date: Saturday, November 14, 2009, 10:38 PM
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > Check out some discussion right here at the CCC from around Sept. of 2007.
Everything that the egalitarians say that they do not believe - and some of them
tell you that they are not egalitarians - they have in the past, come onto this
group to defend. I used to be pretty influenced by them - and some say that I
still am. :-)
> >
> > You will see one woman defending Oprah and pole dancing, as well as Ellen
Degeneris, and rebuking the mean comps for not caring about these women's souls!
> >
> > On some groups that spend their days and nights bashing all things
Complementarian, you will also see pornography defended with very little protest
on the part of the egals.
> >
> > I think that there is plenty of evidence. Why are the egals covering up and
having fits - even threatening people - when they are called on such things?
It's not just what they DO say. It is what they deny, and what they are willing
to do and say in order not to be exposed.
> >
> > I have seen women who used to be staunchly pro-life go soft on abortion. I
have seen women who used to oppose gay marriage now distance themselves from
their former positions.
> >
> > No, it is not a slippery slope for many. Many egals are already there, and
have been for quite some time, now. The hard core egals have already made up
their minds. What bothers me - and it's really none of my business - is that
many women are drawn into their cult without even knowing what has happened to
them.
> >
> > So, I definitely believe that women are easily deceived and should not have
positions of spiritual authority over the church. Not all Comps would agree with
that position, but when you see it happening before your very eyes, what other
explanation is there?
> >
> > ------------ --
> >
> > --- In CCC-Forum@yahoogrou ps.com, Craig Coffey <ctc2004hpk@ ...> wrote:
> > >
> > > The fact that some Egalitarians have chosen lesbianism as their new "norm"
shows the kindred spirits with the pro-gay backers.  No pun intended,
but they have been in bed spiritually with the homosexuals from the
get-go.  They identify strongly with that people group as they perceive
that they share the same "victimization" .  They see the church, and
strong/masculine men as the enemy.  This really presents quite a quandry
for many Egals, as they still CLAIM to be evangelicals but to do so they must
stand against the homosexual agenda.  The cautions about being
doubleminded apply here, as we see the Egals .... like those embracing the
homosexual agenda .... as being unstable in all their ways.
> > >
> > > --- On Sat, 11/14/09, Webfoot <dlkaijala@ ..> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Webfoot <dlkaijala@ ..>
> > > Subject: [CCC-Forum] Egalitarianism and Homosexuality: Connected or
Autonomous Ideologies?
> > > To: CCC-Forum@yahoogrou ps.com
> > > Date: Saturday, November 14, 2009, 12:15 PM
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > For a long time, now, Complementarians have been alleging that the
embracing of egalitarianism will eventually lead to the acceptance of
homosexuality - as in same sex marriage and the ordination of gays.
> > >
> > > Evangelical egalitarians have said that the Complementarians are guilty of
a "slippery slope" logical fallacy. Evangelicals, such as those at the CBE, are
not in favor of homosexuality.
> > >
> > > In this article, David W. Jones presents the irrefutable evidence that
several organizations that at one time did oppose homosexuality have now
embraced same sex marriage and the ordination of gays.
> > >
> > > These organizations are not on a slippery slope. Check out the names
associated with some of these groups. Some of the names may sound familiar. You
may have met some of them online in discussions with Christian feminists.
> > > ------------ --
> > > Egalitarianism and Homosexuality: Connected or Autonomous Ideologies?
> > >
> > > David W. Jones
> > >
> > > "If the EWC [Evangelical Women's Caucus] was the only Christian
organization to begin with an emphasis on women's rights but to end up
tolerating homosexuality, the preceding events could probably be viewed as
inconsequential. A review of the shifting doctrinal beliefs of a number of the
mainline Protestant denominations, however, reveals that more than one Christian
group has followed the same path as that of the EWC-that is, to begin by
adopting an egalitarian view of male/female gender roles, but to end up by
endorsing homosexuality. "
> > >
> > > "Conclusion
> > > In conclusion, this essay addressed two main questions; first, "Is there
sufficient historical evidence to support complementarians' concern over a
possible connection between egalitarianism and homosexuality? " And second,
"What is the nature of the link between these two ostensibly unrelated
ideologies?" Regarding the first question, which was the focus of this essay,
this work surveyed historical evidence from four different groups-the
Evangelical Women's Caucus, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Evangelical
Lutheran Church in America, and the United Methodist Church-and concluded that,
indeed, there is sufficient evidence to support complementarians' concern
regarding a connection between egalitarianism and homosexuality. In fact, the
slide from the acceptance of feminist-type arguments to the endorsement of
homosexuality currently occurring in some Christian denominations follows a
paradigm that is demonstrable in secular culture, as well. In
> > light
> > > of the historical record, then, it seems that to deny the presence of this
progression would be both irresponsible and irrational.
> > >
> > > Regarding the second question that this work briefly considered, it was
noted that pinpointing the exact nature of the connection between egalitarianism
and homosexuality is not an easy task. Indeed, defining the link between these
two ideologies is a difficult endeavor because not all who endorse biblical
feminism have or will embrace homosexuality. In light of this fact, then, it was
suggested that the primary connection between egalitarianism and homosexuality
is a non-requisite logical connection. While many other links between these two
ideologies likely exist (there is great need for further work in these areas),
as was explained above, the main reason why some advocates of egalitarianism
have been led to endorse homosexuality is that feminist-type arguments so
minimize gender identity that once biblical feminism is embraced, it is but a
small logical step to accept homosexuality. "
> > >
> >
>

Maybe. There is still some reason why Eve's having been deceived is a reason
that women should not be teachers or exercise authority over the whole church. 
Yes, all believers - even men - can be deceived as Eve was - but men are not
excluded from being teachers or holding positions of authority over the whole
church just because men can also be deceived.  There is something else going on
in the case of women.


It could just be part of the curse, but I think it's more than that.  Adam's
preeminence is one reason that women should not teach or exercise authority over
men, and the fact that Eve was deceived is another.

2 Corinthians 11:3
But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts
will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.


1 Timothy 2:12-14 (English Standard Version)
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather,
she is to remain quiet.

13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;

14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a
transgressor.


Then, it's not exactly that all egalitarians are soft on abortion and
homosexuality. In a way, homosexuality and abortion are two sins among many
other sins that grieve and offend God's holiness and are deserving of judgment. 
It's not that God cannot save a repentant homosexual or a repentant abortionist
or a repentant women who has had an abortion. We have all heard many, many
testimonies of God's grace and the power of the Gospel to transform lives. It's
not that our own sins, even though we may not have committed those specific
ones, are any less worthy of condemnation.


It's that many seem to let all kinds of sin pass without actually helping the
person come to repentance, facing up to the real nature of their offenses, and
their need to cast themselves only on the mercy of the court, so to speak.


We are encouraged to understand those who have fallen into such sins, and I am
not adverse to that.  It's just that this is one of the things that Scripture
tells us about how to handle sin, it seems to me. If a homosexual is told that
their sin is not entirely their fault, but that something in their circumstances
made them who they are, then there is a problem, IMO.

Jude 1:22-24 (English Standard Version)
22And have mercy on those who doubt;

23save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear,
hating even the garment stained by the flesh.


We see a lot of mercy - which would be more of a feminine reaction - but not a
lot of "sntching them out of the fire" or "hating even the garment stained by
the flesh."

---------------------






--- In CCC-Forum@yahoogroups.com, Craig Coffey <ctc2004hpk@...> wrote:
>
> The enemy comes as an angel of light.  The Egal validations offered for these
hurting women are beguiling, indeed.  The propensity of foolish women to be
beguiled started with Eve.  The wise and discerning woman, in spite of her
hurt, will still be able to discern truth from error.  She heeds the witness of
the Holy Spirit within her.  Her emotions (flesh) are obviously working
overtime, but she works hard to subdue the flesh and makes the wise choice to
stay with God and the Word.  The Scriptures are clear in describing foolish
women.  Every Egal that I know meets these criteria of the foolish woman.  I
know of a few foolish men who also claim to be Egals.  I've found these "men"
to be more "gals" than they are masculine. These males allow the Egals to
emasculate them.  This is the only way they are acceptable to the Egal.  This,
too, is a type of beguilement.
>
> --- On Sat, 11/14/09, Webfoot <dlkaijala@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Webfoot <dlkaijala@...>
> Subject: [CCC-Forum] Re: Egalitarianism and Homosexuality: Connected or
Autonomous Ideologies?
> To: CCC-Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, November 14, 2009, 10:38 PM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Check out some discussion right here at the CCC from around Sept. of 2007.
Everything that the egalitarians say that they do not believe - and some of them
tell you that they are not egalitarians - they have in the past, come onto this
group to defend. I used to be pretty influenced by them - and some say that I
still am. :-)
>
> You will see one woman defending Oprah and pole dancing, as well as Ellen
Degeneris, and rebuking the mean comps for not caring about these women's souls!
>
> On some groups that spend their days and nights bashing all things
Complementarian, you will also see pornography defended with very little protest
on the part of the egals.
>
> I think that there is plenty of evidence. Why are the egals covering up and
having fits - even threatening people - when they are called on such things?
It's not just what they DO say. It is what they deny, and what they are willing
to do and say in order not to be exposed.
>
> I have seen women who used to be staunchly pro-life go soft on abortion. I
have seen women who used to oppose gay marriage now distance themselves from
their former positions.
>
> No, it is not a slippery slope for many. Many egals are already there, and
have been for quite some time, now. The hard core egals have already made up
their minds. What bothers me - and it's really none of my business - is that
many women are drawn into their cult without even knowing what has happened to
them.
>
> So, I definitely believe that women are easily deceived and should not have
positions of spiritual authority over the church. Not all Comps would agree with
that position, but when you see it happening before your very eyes, what other
explanation is there?
>
> ------------ --
>
> --- In CCC-Forum@yahoogrou ps.com, Craig Coffey <ctc2004hpk@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > The fact that some Egalitarians have chosen lesbianism as their new "norm"
shows the kindred spirits with the pro-gay backers.  No pun intended, but
they have been in bed spiritually with the homosexuals from the get-go.  They
identify strongly with that people group as they perceive that they share the
same "victimization" .  They see the church, and strong/masculine men as the
enemy.  This really presents quite a quandry for many Egals, as they still
CLAIM to be evangelicals but to do so they must stand against the homosexual
agenda.  The cautions about being doubleminded apply here, as we see the
Egals .... like those embracing the homosexual agenda .... as being unstable in
all their ways.
> >
> > --- On Sat, 11/14/09, Webfoot <dlkaijala@ ..> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Webfoot <dlkaijala@ ..>
> > Subject: [CCC-Forum] Egalitarianism and Homosexuality: Connected or
Autonomous Ideologies?
> > To: CCC-Forum@yahoogrou ps.com
> > Date: Saturday, November 14, 2009, 12:15 PM
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > For a long time, now, Complementarians have been alleging that the embracing
of egalitarianism will eventually lead to the acceptance of homosexuality - as
in same sex marriage and the ordination of gays.
> >
> > Evangelical egalitarians have said that the Complementarians are guilty of a
"slippery slope" logical fallacy. Evangelicals, such as those at the CBE, are
not in favor of homosexuality.
> >
> > In this article, David W. Jones presents the irrefutable evidence that
several organizations that at one time did oppose homosexuality have now
embraced same sex marriage and the ordination of gays.
> >
> > These organizations are not on a slippery slope. Check out the names
associated with some of these groups. Some of the names may sound familiar. You
may have met some of them online in discussions with Christian feminists.
> > ------------ --
> > Egalitarianism and Homosexuality: Connected or Autonomous Ideologies?
> >
> > David W. Jones
> >
> > "If the EWC [Evangelical Women's Caucus] was the only Christian organization
to begin with an emphasis on women's rights but to end up tolerating
homosexuality, the preceding events could probably be viewed as inconsequential.
A review of the shifting doctrinal beliefs of a number of the mainline
Protestant denominations, however, reveals that more than one Christian group
has followed the same path as that of the EWC-that is, to begin by adopting an
egalitarian view of male/female gender roles, but to end up by endorsing
homosexuality. "
> >
> > "Conclusion
> > In conclusion, this essay addressed two main questions; first, "Is there
sufficient historical evidence to support complementarians' concern over a
possible connection between egalitarianism and homosexuality? " And second,
"What is the nature of the link between these two ostensibly unrelated
ideologies?" Regarding the first question, which was the focus of this essay,
this work surveyed historical evidence from four different groups-the
Evangelical Women's Caucus, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Evangelical
Lutheran Church in America, and the United Methodist Church-and concluded that,
indeed, there is sufficient evidence to support complementarians' concern
regarding a connection between egalitarianism and homosexuality. In fact, the
slide from the acceptance of feminist-type arguments to the endorsement of
homosexuality currently occurring in some Christian denominations follows a
paradigm that is demonstrable in secular culture, as well. In
>  light
> > of the historical record, then, it seems that to deny the presence of this
progression would be both irresponsible and irrational.
> >
> > Regarding the second question that this work briefly considered, it was
noted that pinpointing the exact nature of the connection between egalitarianism
and homosexuality is not an easy task. Indeed, defining the link between these
two ideologies is a difficult endeavor because not all who endorse biblical
feminism have or will embrace homosexuality. In light of this fact, then, it was
suggested that the primary connection between egalitarianism and homosexuality
is a non-requisite logical connection. While many other links between these two
ideologies likely exist (there is great need for further work in these areas),
as was explained above, the main reason why some advocates of egalitarianism
have been led to endorse homosexuality is that feminist-type arguments so
minimize gender identity that once biblical feminism is embraced, it is but a
small logical step to accept homosexuality. "
> >
>

Check out some discussion right here at the CCC from around Sept. of 2007. 
Everything that the egalitarians say that they do not believe - and some of them
tell you that they are not egalitarians - they have in the past, come onto this
group to defend.  I used to be pretty influenced by them - and some say that I
still am.  :-)


You will see one woman defending Oprah and pole dancing, as well as Ellen
Degeneris, and rebuking the mean comps for not caring about these women's souls!


On some groups that spend their days and nights bashing all things
Complementarian, you will also see pornography defended with very little protest
on the part of the egals.


I think that there is plenty of evidence. Why are the egals covering up and
having fits - even threatening people - when they are called on such things? 
It's not just what they DO say. It is what they deny, and what they are willing
to do and say in order not to be exposed.


I have seen women who used to be staunchly pro-life go soft on abortion.  I have
seen women who used to oppose gay marriage now distance themselves from their
former positions.


No, it is not a slippery slope for many.  Many egals are already there, and have
been for quite some time, now.  The hard core egals have already made up their
minds.  What bothers me - and it's really none of my business - is that many
women are drawn into their cult without even knowing what has happened to them.


So, I definitely believe that women are easily deceived and should not have
positions of spiritual authority over the church.  Not all Comps would agree
with that position, but when you see it happening before your very eyes, what
other explanation is there?

--------------


--- In CCC-Forum@yahoogroups.com, Craig Coffey <ctc2004hpk@...> wrote:
>
> The fact that some Egalitarians have chosen lesbianism as their new "norm"
shows the kindred spirits with the pro-gay backers.  No pun intended, but they
have been in bed spiritually with the homosexuals from the get-go.  They
identify strongly with that people group as they perceive that they share the
same "victimization".  They see the church, and strong/masculine men as the
enemy.  This really presents quite a quandry for many Egals, as they still
CLAIM to be evangelicals but to do so they must stand against the homosexual
agenda.  The cautions about being doubleminded apply here, as we see the Egals
.... like those embracing the homosexual agenda .... as being unstable in all
their ways.
>
> --- On Sat, 11/14/09, Webfoot <dlkaijala@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Webfoot <dlkaijala@...>
> Subject: [CCC-Forum] Egalitarianism and Homosexuality: Connected or Autonomous
Ideologies?
> To: CCC-Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, November 14, 2009, 12:15 PM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
> For a long time, now, Complementarians have been alleging that the embracing
of egalitarianism will eventually lead to the acceptance of homosexuality - as
in same sex marriage and the ordination of gays.
>
> Evangelical egalitarians have said that the Complementarians are guilty of a
"slippery slope" logical fallacy. Evangelicals, such as those at the CBE, are
not in favor of homosexuality.
>
> In this article, David W. Jones presents the irrefutable evidence that several
organizations that at one time did oppose homosexuality have now embraced same
sex marriage and the ordination of gays.
>
> These organizations are not on a slippery slope. Check out the names
associated with some of these groups. Some of the names may sound familiar. You
may have met some of them online in discussions with Christian feminists.
> ------------ --
> Egalitarianism and Homosexuality: Connected or Autonomous Ideologies?
>
> David W. Jones
>
> "If the EWC [Evangelical Women's Caucus] was the only Christian organization
to begin with an emphasis on women's rights but to end up tolerating
homosexuality, the preceding events could probably be viewed as inconsequential.
A review of the shifting doctrinal beliefs of a number of the mainline
Protestant denominations, however, reveals that more than one Christian group
has followed the same path as that of the EWC-that is, to begin by adopting an
egalitarian view of male/female gender roles, but to end up by endorsing
homosexuality. "
>
> "Conclusion
> In conclusion, this essay addressed two main questions; first, "Is there
sufficient historical evidence to support complementarians' concern over a
possible connection between egalitarianism and homosexuality? " And second,
"What is the nature of the link between these two ostensibly unrelated
ideologies?" Regarding the first question, which was the focus of this essay,
this work surveyed historical evidence from four different groups-the
Evangelical Women's Caucus, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Evangelical
Lutheran Church in America, and the United Methodist Church-and concluded that,
indeed, there is sufficient evidence to support complementarians' concern
regarding a connection between egalitarianism and homosexuality. In fact, the
slide from the acceptance of feminist-type arguments to the endorsement of
homosexuality currently occurring in some Christian denominations follows a
paradigm that is demonstrable in secular culture, as well. In light
>  of the historical record, then, it seems that to deny the presence of this
progression would be both irresponsible and irrational.
>
> Regarding the second question that this work briefly considered, it was noted
that pinpointing the exact nature of the connection between egalitarianism and
homosexuality is not an easy task. Indeed, defining the link between these two
ideologies is a difficult endeavor because not all who endorse biblical feminism
have or will embrace homosexuality. In light of this fact, then, it was
suggested that the primary connection between egalitarianism and homosexuality
is a non-requisite logical connection. While many other links between these two
ideologies likely exist (there is great need for further work in these areas),
as was explained above, the main reason why some advocates of egalitarianism
have been led to endorse homosexuality is that feminist-type arguments so
minimize gender identity that once biblical feminism is embraced, it is but a
small logical step to accept homosexuality. "
>

For a long time, now, Complementarians have been alleging that the embracing of
egalitarianism will eventually lead to the acceptance of homosexuality - as in
same sex marriage and the ordination of gays.


Evangelical egalitarians have said that the Complementarians are guilty of a
"slippery slope" logical fallacy.  Evangelicals, such as those at the CBE, are
not in favor of homosexuality.


In this article, David W. Jones presents the irrefutable evidence that several
organizations that at one time did oppose homosexuality have now embraced same
sex marriage and the ordination of gays.

These organizations are not on a slippery slope. Check out the names associated
with some of these groups.  Some of the names may sound familiar. You may have
met some of them online in discussions with Christian feminists.
--------------
Egalitarianism and Homosexuality: Connected or Autonomous Ideologies?

David W. Jones

"If the EWC [Evangelical Women's Caucus] was the only Christian organization to
begin with an emphasis on women's rights but to end up tolerating homosexuality,
the preceding events could probably be viewed as inconsequential. A review of
the shifting doctrinal beliefs of a number of the mainline Protestant
denominations, however, reveals that more than one Christian group has followed
the same path as that of the EWC-that is, to begin by adopting an egalitarian
view of male/female gender roles, but to end up by endorsing homosexuality."


"Conclusion
In conclusion, this essay addressed two main questions; first, "Is there
sufficient historical evidence to support complementarians' concern over a
possible connection between egalitarianism and homosexuality?" And second, "What
is the nature of the link between these two ostensibly unrelated ideologies?"
Regarding the first question, which was the focus of this essay, this work
surveyed historical evidence from four different groups-the Evangelical Women's
Caucus, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America, and the United Methodist Church-and concluded that, indeed, there is
sufficient evidence to support complementarians' concern regarding a connection
between egalitarianism and homosexuality. In fact, the slide from the acceptance
of feminist-type arguments to the endorsement of homosexuality currently
occurring in some Christian denominations follows a paradigm that is
demonstrable in secular culture, as well. In light of the historical record,
then, it seems that to deny the presence of this progression would be both
irresponsible and irrational.

Regarding the second question that this work briefly considered, it was noted
that pinpointing the exact nature of the connection between egalitarianism and
homosexuality is not an easy task. Indeed, defining the link between these two
ideologies is a difficult endeavor because not all who endorse biblical feminism
have or will embrace homosexuality. In light of this fact, then, it was
suggested that the primary connection between egalitarianism and homosexuality
is a non-requisite logical connection. While many other links between these two
ideologies likely exist (there is great need for further work in these areas),
as was explained above, the main reason why some advocates of egalitarianism
have been led to endorse homosexuality is that feminist-type arguments so
minimize gender identity that once biblical feminism is embraced, it is but a
small logical step to accept homosexuality."

This is a good article.

-------------


Radical Feminism and Abortion Rights: A Brief Summary and Critique

- Alan Branch


"Several years ago while serving as a pastor in Raleigh, NC, I saw an
unforgettable bumper sticker. Emblazoned in white letters on a purple background
was the following message: "Forgive me for not being in church this Sunday. I
was too busy practicing witchcraft and becoming a lesbian." This intentionally
provocative statement illustrates a profound fact about the worldview of radical
feminists-their counter-Christian morality is strongly rooted in paganism, an
important point for us to understand lest we mistakenly assume all radical
feminists are irreligious. In reality, many if not most radical feminists are
quite religious. However, their religion is pantheistic and not theistic in
nature.

The purpose of this article is to summarize the world-view of radical feminism
and its approach to abortion, to suggest some possible public policy
implications, and then to offer a brief theological critique. In speaking of
radical feminism and its approach to abortion, I am differentiating between
first, second, and third generation feminists. First generation feminism was
seen in the suffrage movement here in the United States. The second phase of
feminism was the "women's liberation" and sexual liberation movement of the
1960s and 1970s. Radical feminism is the "third wave" and is explicitly pagan in
nature. In order to demonstrate the challenges of radical feminism, I have
selected Rosemary Radford Ruether, Mary Daly, and Ginette Paris as primary
examples. At key points I will refer to other feminists in order to amplify
particular emphases."


https://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-9-No-2/Radical-Feminism-and-Abortion-Rights

I guess that the only time Sharia Law is referenced among egalitarians is when
they accuse Complementarians of being like the Taliban!


Real Christian women whose lives are being harmed by efforts in our own country
to impose Sharia Law don't seem to be on the egal radar screen.


I still find it strange. Maybe they don't know about these cases, or maybe later
they will address the very real dangers of the imposition of Sharia Law here in
the US.

-------------------

--- In CCC-Forum@yahoogroups.com, Craig Coffey <ctc2004hpk@...> wrote:
>
> I agree with you that the Egals will likely be mute about this story.  For
one thing, they only choose to obsess over men and churches within the
evangelical Christian community.  This narrow focus is where they perceive the
most "injustice".  If they choose to remove attention and resources from the
Christian church and focus more upon ACTUAL abuses in other religious
communities, then they would probably see this as a type of "defeat" or
"abandonment" toward the other sisters in their covens.
>
> --- On Tue, 11/10/09, Webfoot <dlkaijala@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Webfoot <dlkaijala@...>
> Subject: [CCC-Forum] Defending a Christian Convert in the U.S.
> To: CCC-Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 11:35 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> I don't think that the egalitarians have mentioned anything on their blogs or
chatter groups about this lady or about Rifqa. I thought that they were outraged
about how Islam and Sharia Law. Here are two great opportunities to show support
for suffering women right on our doorstep.
>
> Maybe later they will let up on the evil Drs. Ware, Grudem, and Packer long
enough to show some support for these Christian women.
>
> ------------ ----
>
> Jay Sekulow's Trial Notebook
> http://aclj. org/TrialNoteboo k/Read.aspx? ID=873
>
> Defending a Christian Convert in the U.S.
>
> I want to bring you news about an important case we are handing involving the
protection of the rights of a Christian convert in this country.
>
> We represent Nishan in a case out of Ohio. She is a former Muslim and now
devout Christian who has been falsely accused of violating Ohio law which
prohibits an applicant for marriage from making a false statement on an
application or affidavit. It has been alleged that our client, who married last
month, was previously married to a citizen of Pakistan at the age of 17 as part
of a "nikah" - a marriage contract or promise to marry under Islamic tradition.
>
> All of this was arranged by Nishan's father during a family trip to Karachi,
Pakistan in May 2007 following her graduation from high school. Three days after
the ceremony, Nishan and her father returned to the United States. She remained
confused about the ceremony conducted during her trip to Pakistan and later took
precautionary steps to annul her vows by preparing an affidavit for the U.S.
Consulate in Pakistan in August of 2007. She gave the affidavit to her father
who assured her he would send the necessary paperwork to the Consulate. Her
family never again mentioned her alleged Pakistani husband and Nishan believed
that all necessary steps had been taken to annul any alleged marriage vows.
>
> Following these events, Nishan began dating her current husband and converted
to Christianity in 2009. Fearing what her devout Muslim family members might do
if they became aware of her religious conversion, she kept her new faith a
secret until shortly before her marriage. Upon hearing that Nishan was a convert
to Christianity, her father attempted to physically assault her.
>
> Nishan never knowingly or intentionally misstated her marital status on her
application for marriage to her husband in October. The fact is that even if
Nishan's own attempts to nullify her Pakistani marriage were insufficient, her
conversion to Christianity in 2009 effectively annulled her alleged betrothal
pursuant to Islamic law which provides that if either spouse leaves Islam (e.g.
by conversion to Christianity) , and the two never consummated their union, the
betrothal is immediately annulled.
>
> This is an important case involving the rights of a former Muslim to accept
and convert to Christianity and we will be in court later this month to defend
our client from these criminal charges.
>
> We will keep you posted as this case unfolds.
>
> Posted: 11/10/2009 12:00:00 AM
>

I don't think that the egalitarians have mentioned anything on their blogs or
chatter groups about this lady or about Rifqa.  I thought that they were
outraged about how Islam and Sharia Law.  Here are two great opportunities to
show support for suffering women right on our doorstep.


Maybe later they will let up on the evil Drs. Ware, Grudem, and Packer long
enough to show some support for these Christian women.

----------------

Jay Sekulow's Trial Notebook
http://aclj.org/TrialNotebook/Read.aspx?ID=873


Defending a Christian Convert in the U.S.

I want to bring you news about an important case we are handing involving the
protection of the rights of a Christian convert in this country.

We represent Nishan in a case out of Ohio. She is a former Muslim and now devout
Christian who has been falsely accused of violating Ohio law which prohibits an
applicant for marriage from making a false statement on an application or
affidavit.  It has been alleged that our client, who married last month, was
previously married to a citizen of Pakistan at the age of 17 as part of a
"nikah" - a marriage contract or promise to marry under Islamic tradition.

All of this was arranged by Nishan's father during a family trip to Karachi,
Pakistan in May 2007 following her graduation from high school. Three days after
the ceremony, Nishan and her father returned to the United States. She remained
confused about the ceremony conducted during her trip to Pakistan and later took
precautionary steps to annul her vows by preparing an affidavit for the U.S.
Consulate in Pakistan in August of 2007.  She gave the affidavit to her father
who assured her he would send the necessary paperwork to the Consulate. Her
family never again mentioned her alleged Pakistani husband and Nishan believed
that all necessary steps had been taken to annul any alleged marriage vows.

Following these events, Nishan began dating her current husband and converted to
Christianity in 2009. Fearing what her devout Muslim family members might do if
they became aware of her religious conversion, she kept her new faith a secret
until shortly before her marriage.  Upon hearing that Nishan was a convert to
Christianity, her father attempted to physically assault her.

Nishan never knowingly or intentionally misstated her marital status on her
application for marriage to her husband in October.  The fact is that even if
Nishan's own attempts to nullify her Pakistani marriage were insufficient, her
conversion to Christianity in 2009 effectively annulled her alleged betrothal
pursuant to Islamic law which provides that if either spouse leaves Islam (e.g.
by conversion to Christianity), and the two never consummated their union, the
betrothal is immediately annulled.

This is an important case involving the rights of a former Muslim to accept and
convert to Christianity and we will be in court later this month to defend our
client from these criminal charges.

We will keep you posted as this case unfolds.



Posted: 11/10/2009 12:00:00 AM

The strength of the Christian man lies in his willingness to humble himself before Christ and act as servant-leader in his family and church.

Quote (Criag): Though these Feminist Liberationists CLAIM to abhor certain
practices of their secular sisters, they in fact SHARE many of the same
sinful dysfunctions.  What are the common denominators between the
two?  Simply put ...... pride and rebellion.

Such supposed 'feminist Christians' - the term is an oxymoron - one cannot
be a Christian and a feminist - they are different religions - are indeed
daughters of their father - Satan - the father of PRIDE and REBELLION.

Craig Coffey wrote:

  > This is another fine example of the quandary the so-called "Evangelical
Feminists" must find themselves in.  In their warped theological view
concerning gender roles, they also pull the "victim" or "harassment" card
when challenged.  This has happened to me on numerous occasions on other
sites and in my personal life elsewhere.  Though these Feminist
Liberationists CLAIM to abhor certain practices of their secular sisters,
they in fact SHARE many of the same sinful dysfunctions.  What are the
common denominators between the two?  Simply put ...... pride and rebellion.

PS
Yes, man was the head - authority over - the woman and the woman the companion
and help meet for the man from before the fall. It is the conflict and
discontent that entered after the fall.




--- In CCC-Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Webfoot" <dlkaijala@...> wrote:
>
>
> Sin introduced the power struggle into the marriage relationship.  In that
power struggle, the man wins and the woman doesn't give up.
>
>
> Christ shows us a different way entirely.  If we want to call it a struggle,
it is a struggle for each to outserve the other - each in his or her own way and
within his or her assigned role.  It is the "battle" to show love, respect,
kindness, and all the fruit of the Spirit - he as a husband and father, she as a
wife and mother.
>
> -----------------
>
> --- In CCC-Forum@yahoogroups.com, Craig Coffey <ctc2004hpk@> wrote:
> >
> > This "power pie" was first offered to Eve by .... you guessed it ..... the
enemy.  Some things haven't changed, have they??
> >
> > --- On Thu, 11/5/09, Webfoot <dlkaijala@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Webfoot <dlkaijala@>
> > Subject: [CCC-Forum] Re: Feelings constitute proof
> > To: CCC-Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Thursday, November 5, 2009, 4:40 PM
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > Correction: Feminist apologists present all Comp men as either abusive
themselves, or complicit. I think that's more accurate. IOW, all Comp men are in
on the efforts to keep women from gaining their fair share of the power pie.
> > ------------ ---
> >
> > --- In CCC-Forum@yahoogrou ps.com, "Webfoot" <dlkaijala@ ..> wrote:
> > >
> > > What I find strange is that feminist apologists calmly, but clearly
present all Complementarian males as abusive. Well, they will say things like "I
didn't say ALL." However, J.I. Packer himself - who is one of the sweetest men
you could ever come across - is also in on the conspiracy! I'm talking about the
hard core feminist liberation theologians.
> > >
> > > Complementarian women fit into two categories according to these
apologists. Those women who understand Complementarianism and stay in, even
teaching women to stay home, are very likely abusive themselves. Otherwise they
are clueless victims of abuse who have not yet had the paradigm shift that will
make them realize that they are being sacrificed on the altar of male
superiority.
> > >
> > >
> > > IOW, it's pretty crazy stuff. Yet some of these apologists are warmly
welcomed onto blogs that claim to be "soft complementarian. " What does that
tell you about the "soft" in "soft complementarian" ? Soft on what?
> > >
> > >
> > > Some Complementarians allow a certain amount of posting by these
apologists - and athiests, also. Their teachings are opposed, though, as kindly
and politely as possible when the guys are being called abusive male
supremicists, or worse.
> > >
> > > That used to happen a lot here at the CCC, but not anymore. There is some
excellent discussion, though. Not all women will tell you guys, but you have
helped more women than you know.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, I'm still "squishy" on head coverings...
> > >
> > >
> > > My advice to women who are "soft complementarians" , "complegalitarians" ,
or just generally confused by it all? Turn off Oprah and turn on Dr. Laura. The
good Dr. visits my dauther and I many evenings through the airwaves. Good vibes.
> > >
> > >
> > > No, I don't agree with all that Laura says, but she sure understands
feminism.
> > >
> > > ------------ -------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In CCC-Forum@yahoogrou ps.com, Craig Coffey <ctc2004hpk@ > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You illustrate very clearly the evilness behind the feminist error. 
Satan comes as an angel of light.  In the church, the false teaching of
Feminist Liberation Theology was dangled by the enemy as "freedom from
patriarchal oppression".  Sounded good, on the surface.  There WAS some
misuse by some men of the authorities and roles that God gave them. 
However, like all satanic perversions of the Gospel, the proponents of this
wayward Theology became a belief system all their own.  If you don't cowtow
to THEIR perversions, you are mischaracterized by such things as "oppressor",
"abuser", and all sorts of other mischaracterization s.  Mrs. Webfoot, as you
stated, I have yet to run into any of these feminist theologians who are
happy.  Most of them are divorced.  Many of them want to be but don't have
the guts.  They are all disgruntled and bitter.  The fruits of their .....
"movement".
> > > >
> > > > --- On Wed, 11/4/09, Webfoot <dlkaijala@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Webfoot <dlkaijala@>
> > > > Subject: [CCC-Forum] Re: Feelings constitute proof
> > > > To: CCC-Forum@yahoogrou ps.com
> > > > Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 11:24 PM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That is true of all kinds of feminists.
> > > >
> > > > Most feminists are running a zero sum game. Men have all the power, in
their worldview. Women need to be empowered, so they have to take power away
from men - the ones who have it all or most of it.
> > > >
> > > > God's design for men and women involves companionship and
complementarity - among other things.
> > > >
> > > > No one is happy with the feminist arrangement; not the feminists, and
certainly not the ones who they target in their game. Studies are bearing that
out - feminism has not made women happy. No one benefits at the end of the day
in that paradigm.
> > > >
> > > > In fact, women are told that feminism is not supposed to make women
happy.
> > > >
> > > > ------------ -
> > > >
> > > > --- In CCC-Forum@yahoogrou ps.com, "Michael" <yello_armadillo@ ...>
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Feminist abuse of power.
> > > > >
> > > > > --Michael
> > > > >
> > > > > If they feel 'offended,' you're fired
> > > > > Professor claims he was canned on mystery harassment charge
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.wnd. com/index. php?fa=PAGE. view&pageId= 114935
> > > > >
> > > > > ~~~~
> > > > >
> > > > > The troubles for Professor Thomas Thibeault of East Georgia College
seem to have begun during an Aug. 5 faculty sexual harassment training seminar,
when he questioned the assertion â€" as he understood it â€" being
presented by Mary Smith, the school's vice president for legal affairs, that the
feelings of the offended constituted proof of offensive behavior.
> > > > >
> > > > > "What provision is there in the sexual harassment policy to protect
the accused against complaints which are malicious or … ridiculous?"
Thibeault asked.
> > > > >
> > > > > According to Thibeault's description of the events, Smith replied,
"There is no provision in the policy. I must emphasize that if the person feels
offended then the incident must be reported to the college authorities. "
> > > > >
> > > > > "So there is no protection against a false accusation?" Thibeault
pressed.
> > > > >
> > > > > "No," Smith is said to have responded.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Then the policy itself is flawed," commented Thibeault.
> > > > >
> > > > > Two days later, a police chief was waiting to escort Thibeault off
campus.
> > > > >
> > > > > [and so on]
> > > > >
> > > > > ~~~~
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's another one of a lesbian harrassing a Christian, and getting
him fired when he finally responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > Man fired after saying homosexuality wrong
> > > > > Accused of 'harassment' even though lesbian approached him
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.wnd. com/index. php?fa=PAGE. view&pageId= 114779
> > > > >
> > > > > ~~~~
> > > > > Peter Vadala was fired, and the company says he violated a tolerance
policy. But Vadala reports his dismissal came because he expressed his Christian
view of homosexuality after a female manager made repeated references, as she
approached him four times during work hours, to her plans to marry her lesbian
partner.
> > > > >
> > > > > "At the start of the day, she told me she was getting married. I told
her 'Congratulations, ' and asked, 'Where's he taking you on your honeymoon?'"
Vadala said.
> > > > >
> > > > > "She replied that her partner was a 'she,'" he continued, "So I
immediately tried to change the subject.
> > > > >
> > > > > "I think she knew I was uncomfortable talking about it," he continued.
"But, she brought it up to me three more times during the day.
> > > > >
> > > > > "After the fourth time she told me about her plan to marry her
partner, I told her, 'I think homosexuality is bad stuff,'" Vadala said.
> > > > >
> > > > > [and so on]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Sin introduced the power struggle into the marriage relationship.  In that power
struggle, the man wins and the woman doesn't give up.


Christ shows us a different way entirely.  If we want to call it a struggle, it
is a struggle for each to outserve the other - each in his or her own way and
within his or her assigned role.  It is the "battle" to show love, respect,
kindness, and all the fruit of the Spirit - he as a husband and father, she as a
wife and mother.

-----------------

--- In CCC-Forum@yahoogroups.com, Craig Coffey <ctc2004hpk@...> wrote:
>
> This "power pie" was first offered to Eve by .... you guessed it ..... the
enemy.  Some things haven't changed, have they??
>
> --- On Thu, 11/5/09, Webfoot <dlkaijala@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Webfoot <dlkaijala@...>
> Subject: [CCC-Forum] Re: Feelings constitute proof
> To: CCC-Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, November 5, 2009, 4:40 PM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Correction: Feminist apologists present all Comp men as either abusive
themselves, or complicit. I think that's more accurate. IOW, all Comp men are in
on the efforts to keep women from gaining their fair share of the power pie.
> ------------ ---
>
> --- In CCC-Forum@yahoogrou ps.com, "Webfoot" <dlkaijala@ ..> wrote:
> >
> > What I find strange is that feminist apologists calmly, but clearly present
all Complementarian males as abusive. Well, they will say things like "I didn't
say ALL." However, J.I. Packer himself - who is one of the sweetest men you
could ever come across - is also in on the conspiracy! I'm talking about the
hard core feminist liberation theologians.
> >
> > Complementarian women fit into two categories according to these apologists.
Those women who understand Complementarianism and stay in, even teaching women
to stay home, are very likely abusive themselves. Otherwise they are clueless
victims of abuse who have not yet had the paradigm shift that will make them
realize that they are being sacrificed on the altar of male superiority.
> >
> >
> > IOW, it's pretty crazy stuff. Yet some of these apologists are warmly
welcomed onto blogs that claim to be "soft complementarian. " What does that
tell you about the "soft" in "soft complementarian" ? Soft on what?
> >
> >
> > Some Complementarians allow a certain amount of posting by these apologists
- and athiests, also. Their teachings are opposed, though, as kindly and
politely as possible when the guys are being called abusive male supremicists,
or worse.
> >
> > That used to happen a lot here at the CCC, but not anymore. There is some
excellent discussion, though. Not all women will tell you guys, but you have
helped more women than you know.
> >
> >
> > Yes, I'm still "squishy" on head coverings...
> >
> >
> > My advice to women who are "soft complementarians" , "complegalitarians" ,
or just generally confused by it all? Turn off Oprah and turn on Dr. Laura. The
good Dr. visits my dauther and I many evenings through the airwaves. Good vibes.
> >
> >
> > No, I don't agree with all that Laura says, but she sure understands
feminism.
> >
> > ------------ -------
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In CCC-Forum@yahoogrou ps.com, Craig Coffey <ctc2004hpk@ > wrote:
> > >
> > > You illustrate very clearly the evilness behind the feminist error. 
Satan comes as an angel of light.  In the church, the false teaching of
Feminist Liberation Theology was dangled by the enemy as "freedom from
patriarchal oppression".  Sounded good, on the surface.  There WAS some
misuse by some men of the authorities and roles that God gave them. 
However, like all satanic perversions of the Gospel, the proponents of this
wayward Theology became a belief system all their own.  If you don't cowtow
to THEIR perversions, you are mischaracterized by such things as "oppressor",
"abuser", and all sorts of other mischaracterization s.  Mrs. Webfoot, as you
stated, I have yet to run into any of these feminist theologians who are
happy.  Most of them are divorced.  Many of them want to be but don't have
the guts.  They are all disgruntled and bitter.  The fruits of their .....
"movement".
> > >
> > > --- On Wed, 11/4/09, Webfoot <dlkaijala@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Webfoot <dlkaijala@>
> > > Subject: [CCC-Forum] Re: Feelings constitute proof
> > > To: CCC-Forum@yahoogrou ps.com
> > > Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 11:24 PM
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That is true of all kinds of feminists.
> > >
> > > Most feminists are running a zero sum game. Men have all the power, in
their worldview. Women need to be empowered, so they have to take power away
from men - the ones who have it all or most of it.
> > >
> > > God's design for men and women involves companionship and complementarity
- among other things.
> > >
> > > No one is happy with the feminist arrangement; not the feminists, and
certainly not the ones who they target in their game. Studies are bearing that
out - feminism has not made women happy. No one benefits at the end of the day
in that paradigm.
> > >
> > > In fact, women are told that feminism is not supposed to make women happy.
> > >
> > > ------------ -
> > >
> > > --- In CCC-Forum@yahoogrou ps.com, "Michael" <yello_armadillo@ ...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Feminist abuse of power.
> > > >
> > > > --Michael
> > > >
> > > > If they feel 'offended,' you're fired
> > > > Professor claims he was canned on mystery harassment charge
> > > >
> > > > http://www.wnd. com/index. php?fa=PAGE. view&pageId= 114935
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~
> > > >
> > > > The troubles for Professor Thomas Thibeault of East Georgia College seem
to have begun during an Aug. 5 faculty sexual harassment training seminar, when
he questioned the assertion â€" as he understood it â€" being presented by
Mary Smith, the school's vice president for legal affairs, that the feelings of
the offended constituted proof of offensive behavior.
> > > >
> > > > "What provision is there in the sexual harassment policy to protect the
accused against complaints which are malicious or … ridiculous?" Thibeault
asked.
> > > >
> > > > According to Thibeault's description of the events, Smith replied,
"There is no provision in the policy. I must emphasize that if the person feels
offended then the incident must be reported to the college authorities. "
> > > >
> > > > "So there is no protection against a false accusation?" Thibeault
pressed.
> > > >
> > > > "No," Smith is said to have responded.
> > > >
> > > > "Then the policy itself is flawed," commented Thibeault.
> > > >
> > > > Two days later, a police chief was waiting to escort Thibeault off
campus.
> > > >
> > > > [and so on]
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~
> > > >
> > > > Here's another one of a lesbian harrassing a Christian, and getting him
fired when he finally responds:
> > > >
> > > > Man fired after saying homosexuality wrong
> > > > Accused of 'harassment' even though lesbian approached him
> > > >
> > > > http://www.wnd. com/index. php?fa=PAGE. view&pageId= 114779
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~
> > > > Peter Vadala was fired, and the company says he violated a tolerance
policy. But Vadala reports his dismissal came because he expressed his Christian
view of homosexuality after a female manager made repeated references, as she
approached him four times during work hours, to her plans to marry her lesbian
partner.
> > > >
> > > > "At the start of the day, she told me she was getting married. I told
her 'Congratulations, ' and asked, 'Where's he taking you on your honeymoon?'"
Vadala said.
> > > >
> > > > "She replied that her partner was a 'she,'" he continued, "So I
immediately tried to change the subject.
> > > >
> > > > "I think she knew I was uncomfortable talking about it," he continued.
"But, she brought it up to me three more times during the day.
> > > >
> > > > "After the fourth time she told me about her plan to marry her partner,
I told her, 'I think homosexuality is bad stuff,'" Vadala said.
> > > >
> > > > [and so on]
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Please excuse the bad grammar.  I never claimed to be a scholar.
:-0

--------

--- In CCC-Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Webfoot" <dlkaijala@...> wrote:
>
> What I find strange is that feminist apologists calmly, but clearly present
all Complementarian males as abusive. Well, they will say things like "I didn't
say ALL."  However, J.I. Packer himself - who is one of the sweetest men you
could ever come across - is also in on the conspiracy! I'm talking about the
hard core feminist liberation theologians.
>
> Complementarian women fit into two categories according to these apologists.
Those women who understand Complementarianism and stay in, even teaching women
to stay home, are very likely abusive themselves.  Otherwise they are clueless
victims of abuse who have not yet had the paradigm shift that will make them
realize that they are being sacrificed on the altar of male superiority.
>
>
> IOW, it's pretty crazy stuff.  Yet some of these apologists are warmly
welcomed onto blogs that claim to be "soft complementarian." What does that tell
you about the "soft" in "soft complementarian"?  Soft on what?
>
>
> Some Complementarians allow a certain amount of posting by these apologists -
and athiests, also.  Their teachings are opposed, though, as kindly and politely
as possible when the guys are being called abusive male supremicists, or worse.
>
> That used to happen a lot here at the CCC, but not anymore. There is some
excellent discussion, though.  Not all women will tell you guys, but you have
helped more women than you know.
>
>
> Yes, I'm still "squishy" on head coverings...
>
>
> My advice to women who are "soft complementarians", "complegalitarians", or
just generally confused by it all? Turn off Oprah and turn on Dr.  Laura.  The
good Dr. visits my dauther and I many evenings through the airwaves.  Good
vibes.
>
>
> No, I don't agree with all that Laura says, but she sure understands feminism.
>
> -------------------
>
>
>
> --- In CCC-Forum@yahoogroups.com, Craig Coffey <ctc2004hpk@> wrote:
> >
> > You illustrate very clearly the evilness behind the feminist error.  Satan
comes as an angel of light.  In the church, the false teaching of Feminist
Liberation Theology was dangled by the enemy as "freedom from patriarchal
oppression".  Sounded good, on the surface.  There WAS some misuse by
some men of the authorities and roles that God gave them.  However, like all
satanic perversions of the Gospel, the proponents of this wayward Theology
became a belief system all their own.  If you don't cowtow to THEIR
perversions, you are mischaracterized by such things as "oppressor", "abuser",
and all sorts of other mischaracterizations.  Mrs. Webfoot, as you stated, I
have yet to run into any of these feminist theologians who are happy.  Most of
them are divorced.  Many of them want to be but don't have the guts.  They are
all disgruntled and bitter.  The fruits of their ..... "movement".
> >
> > --- On Wed, 11/4/09, Webfoot <dlkaijala@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Webfoot <dlkaijala@>
> > Subject: [CCC-Forum] Re: Feelings constitute proof
> > To: CCC-Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 11:24 PM
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > That is true of all kinds of feminists.
> >
> > Most feminists are running a zero sum game. Men have all the power, in their
worldview. Women need to be empowered, so they have to take power away from men
- the ones who have it all or most of it.
> >
> > God's design for men and women involves companionship and complementarity -
among other things.
> >
> > No one is happy with the feminist arrangement; not the feminists, and
certainly not the ones who they target in their game. Studies are bearing that
out - feminism has not made women happy. No one benefits at the end of the day
in that paradigm.
> >
> > In fact, women are told that feminism is not supposed to make women happy.
> >
> > ------------ -
> >
> > --- In CCC-Forum@yahoogrou ps.com, "Michael" <yello_armadillo@ ...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Feminist abuse of power.
> > >
> > > --Michael
> > >
> > > If they feel 'offended,' you're fired
> > > Professor claims he was canned on mystery harassment charge
> > >
> > > http://www.wnd. com/index. php?fa=PAGE. view&pageId= 114935
> > >
> > > ~~~~
> > >
> > > The troubles for Professor Thomas Thibeault of East Georgia College seem
to have begun during an Aug. 5 faculty sexual harassment training seminar, when
he questioned the assertion â€" as he understood it â€" being presented by Mary
Smith, the school's vice president for legal affairs, that the feelings of the
offended constituted proof of offensive behavior.
> > >
> > > "What provision is there in the sexual harassment policy to protect the
accused against complaints which are malicious or … ridiculous?" Thibeault
asked.
> > >
> > > According to Thibeault's description of the events, Smith replied, "There
is no provision in the policy. I must emphasize that if the person feels
offended then the incident must be reported to the college authorities. "
> > >
> > > "So there is no protection against a false accusation?" Thibeault pressed.
> > >
> > > "No," Smith is said to have responded.
> > >
> > > "Then the policy itself is flawed," commented Thibeault.
> > >
> > > Two days later, a police chief was waiting to escort Thibeault off campus.
> > >
> > > [and so on]
> > >
> > > ~~~~
> > >
> > > Here's another one of a lesbian harrassing a Christian, and getting him
fired when he finally responds:
> > >
> > > Man fired after saying homosexuality wrong
> > > Accused of 'harassment' even though lesbian approached him
> > >
> > > http://www.wnd. com/index. php?fa=PAGE. view&pageId= 114779
> > >
> > > ~~~~
> > > Peter Vadala was fired, and the company says he violated a tolerance
policy. But Vadala reports his dismissal came because he expressed his Christian
view of homosexuality after a female manager made repeated references, as she
approached him four times during work hours, to her plans to marry her lesbian
partner.
> > >
> > > "At the start of the day, she told me she was getting married. I told her
'Congratulations, ' and asked, 'Where's he taking you on your honeymoon?'"
Vadala said.
> > >
> > > "She replied that her partner was a 'she,'" he continued, "So I
immediately tried to change the subject.
> > >
> > > "I think she knew I was uncomfortable talking about it," he continued.
"But, she brought it up to me three more times during the day.
> > >
> > > "After the fourth time she told me about her plan to marry her partner, I
told her, 'I think homosexuality is bad stuff,'" Vadala said.
> > >
> > > [and so on]
> > >
> >
>

Correction:  Feminist apologists present all Comp men as either abusive
themselves, or complicit.  I think that's more accurate. IOW, all Comp men are
in on the efforts to keep women from gaining their fair share of the power pie.
---------------

--- In CCC-Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Webfoot" <dlkaijala@...> wrote:
>
> What I find strange is that feminist apologists calmly, but clearly present
all Complementarian males as abusive. Well, they will say things like "I didn't
say ALL."  However, J.I. Packer himself - who is one of the sweetest men you
could ever come across - is also in on the conspiracy! I'm talking about the
hard core feminist liberation theologians.
>
> Complementarian women fit into two categories according to these apologists.
Those women who understand Complementarianism and stay in, even teaching women
to stay home, are very likely abusive themselves.  Otherwise they are clueless
victims of abuse who have not yet had the paradigm shift that will make them
realize that they are being sacrificed on the altar of male superiority.
>
>
> IOW, it's pretty crazy stuff.  Yet some of these apologists are warmly
welcomed onto blogs that claim to be "soft complementarian." What does that tell
you about the "soft" in "soft complementarian"?  Soft on what?
>
>
> Some Complementarians allow a certain amount of posting by these apologists -
and athiests, also.  Their teachings are opposed, though, as kindly and politely
as possible when the guys are being called abusive male supremicists, or worse.
>
> That used to happen a lot here at the CCC, but not anymore. There is some
excellent discussion, though.  Not all women will tell you guys, but you have
helped more women than you know.
>
>
> Yes, I'm still "squishy" on head coverings...
>
>
> My advice to women who are "soft complementarians", "complegalitarians", or
just generally confused by it all? Turn off Oprah and turn on Dr.  Laura.  The
good Dr. visits my dauther and I many evenings through the airwaves.  Good
vibes.
>
>
> No, I don't agree with all that Laura says, but she sure understands feminism.
>
> -------------------
>
>
>
> --- In CCC-Forum@yahoogroups.com, Craig Coffey <ctc2004hpk@> wrote:
> >
> > You illustrate very clearly the evilness behind the feminist error.  Satan
comes as an angel of light.  In the church, the false teaching of Feminist
Liberation Theology was dangled by the enemy as "freedom from patriarchal
oppression".  Sounded good, on the surface.  There WAS some misuse by
some men of the authorities and roles that God gave them.  However, like all
satanic perversions of the Gospel, the proponents of this wayward Theology
became a belief system all their own.  If you don't cowtow to THEIR
perversions, you are mischaracterized by such things as "oppressor", "abuser",
and all sorts of other mischaracterizations.  Mrs. Webfoot, as you stated, I
have yet to run into any of these feminist theologians who are happy.  Most of
them are divorced.  Many of them want to be but don't have the guts.  They are
all disgruntled and bitter.  The fruits of their ..... "movement".
> >
> > --- On Wed, 11/4/09, Webfoot <dlkaijala@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Webfoot <dlkaijala@>
> > Subject: [CCC-Forum] Re: Feelings constitute proof
> > To: CCC-Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 11:24 PM
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > That is true of all kinds of feminists.
> >
> > Most feminists are running a zero sum game. Men have all the power, in their
worldview. Women need to be empowered, so they have to take power away from men
- the ones who have it all or most of it.
> >
> > God's design for men and women involves companionship and complementarity -
among other things.
> >
> > No one is happy with the feminist arrangement; not the feminists, and
certainly not the ones who they target in their game. Studies are bearing that
out - feminism has not made women happy. No one benefits at the end of the day
in that paradigm.
> >
> > In fact, women are told that feminism is not supposed to make women happy.
> >
> > ------------ -
> >
> > --- In CCC-Forum@yahoogrou ps.com, "Michael" <yello_armadillo@ ...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Feminist abuse of power.
> > >
> > > --Michael
> > >
> > > If they feel 'offended,' you're fired
> > > Professor claims he was canned on mystery harassment charge
> > >
> > > http://www.wnd. com/index. php?fa=PAGE. view&pageId= 114935
> > >
> > > ~~~~
> > >
> > > The troubles for Professor Thomas Thibeault of East Georgia College seem
to have begun during an Aug. 5 faculty sexual harassment training seminar, when
he questioned the assertion â€" as he understood it â€" being presented by Mary
Smith, the school's vice president for legal affairs, that the feelings of the
offended constituted proof of offensive behavior.
> > >
> > > "What provision is there in the sexual harassment policy to protect the
accused against complaints which are malicious or … ridiculous?" Thibeault
asked.
> > >
> > > According to Thibeault's description of the events, Smith replied, "There
is no provision in the policy. I must emphasize that if the person feels
offended then the incident must be reported to the college authorities. "
> > >
> > > "So there is no protection against a false accusation?" Thibeault pressed.
> > >
> > > "No," Smith is said to have responded.
> > >
> > > "Then the policy itself is flawed," commented Thibeault.
> > >
> > > Two days later, a police chief was waiting to escort Thibeault off campus.
> > >
> > > [and so on]
> > >
> > > ~~~~
> > >
> > > Here's another one of a lesbian harrassing a Christian, and getting him
fired when he finally responds:
> > >
> > > Man fired after saying homosexuality wrong
> > > Accused of 'harassment' even though lesbian approached him
> > >
> > > http://www.wnd. com/index. php?fa=PAGE. view&pageId= 114779
> > >
> > > ~~~~
> > > Peter Vadala was fired, and the company says he violated a tolerance
policy. But Vadala reports his dismissal came because he expressed his Christian
view of homosexuality after a female manager made repeated references, as she
approached him four times during work hours, to her plans to marry her lesbian
partner.
> > >
> > > "At the start of the day, she told me she was getting married. I told her
'Congratulations, ' and asked, 'Where's he taking you on your honeymoon?'"
Vadala said.
> > >
> > > "She replied that her partner was a 'she,'" he continued, "So I
immediately tried to change the subject.
> > >
> > > "I think she knew I was uncomfortable talking about it," he continued.
"But, she brought it up to me three more times during the day.
> > >
> > > "After the fourth time she told me about her plan to marry her partner, I
told her, 'I think homosexuality is bad stuff,'" Vadala said.
> > >
> > > [and so on]
> > >
> >
>

What I find strange is that feminist apologists calmly, but clearly present all
Complementarian males as abusive. Well, they will say things like "I didn't say
ALL."  However, J.I. Packer himself - who is one of the sweetest men you could
ever come across - is also in on the conspiracy! I'm talking about the hard core
feminist liberation theologians.

Complementarian women fit into two categories according to these apologists.
Those women who understand Complementarianism and stay in, even teaching women
to stay home, are very likely abusive themselves.  Otherwise they are clueless
victims of abuse who have not yet had the paradigm shift that will make them
realize that they are being sacrificed on the altar of male superiority.


IOW, it's pretty crazy stuff.  Yet some of these apologists are warmly welcomed
onto blogs that claim to be "soft complementarian." What does that tell you
about the "soft" in "soft complementarian"?  Soft on what?


Some Complementarians allow a certain amount of posting by these apologists -
and athiests, also.  Their teachings are opposed, though, as kindly and politely
as possible when the guys are being called abusive male supremicists, or worse.

That used to happen a lot here at the CCC, but not anymore. There is some
excellent discussion, though.  Not all women will tell you guys, but you have
helped more women than you know.


Yes, I'm still "squishy" on head coverings...


My advice to women who are "soft complementarians", "complegalitarians", or just
generally confused by it all? Turn off Oprah and turn on Dr.  Laura.  The good
Dr. visits my dauther and I many evenings through the airwaves.  Good vibes.


No, I don't agree with all that Laura says, but she sure understands feminism.

-------------------



--- In CCC-Forum@yahoogroups.com, Craig Coffey <ctc2004hpk@...> wrote:
>
> You illustrate very clearly the evilness behind the feminist error.  Satan
comes as an angel of light.  In the church, the false teaching of Feminist
Liberation Theology was dangled by the enemy as "freedom from patriarchal
oppression".  Sounded good, on the surface.  There WAS some misuse by
some men of the authorities and roles that God gave them.  However, like all
satanic perversions of the Gospel, the proponents of this wayward Theology
became a belief system all their own.  If you don't cowtow to THEIR
perversions, you are mischaracterized by such things as "oppressor", "abuser",
and all sorts of other mischaracterizations.  Mrs. Webfoot, as you stated, I
have yet to run into any of these feminist theologians who are happy.  Most of
them are divorced.  Many of them want to be but don't have the guts.  They are
all disgruntled and bitter.  The fruits of their ..... "movement".
>
> --- On Wed, 11/4/09, Webfoot <dlkaijala@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Webfoot <dlkaijala@...>
> Subject: [CCC-Forum] Re: Feelings constitute proof
> To: CCC-Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 11:24 PM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
> That is true of all kinds of feminists.
>
> Most feminists are running a zero sum game. Men have all the power, in their
worldview. Women need to be empowered, so they have to take power away from men
- the ones who have it all or most of it.
>
> God's design for men and women involves companionship and complementarity -
among other things.
>
> No one is happy with the feminist arrangement; not the feminists, and
certainly not the ones who they target in their game. Studies are bearing that
out - feminism has not made women happy. No one benefits at the end of the day
in that paradigm.
>
> In fact, women are told that feminism is not supposed to make women happy.
>
> ------------ -
>
> --- In CCC-Forum@yahoogrou ps.com, "Michael" <yello_armadillo@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > Feminist abuse of power.
> >
> > --Michael
> >
> > If they feel 'offended,' you're fired
> > Professor claims he was canned on mystery harassment charge
> >
> > http://www.wnd. com/index. php?fa=PAGE. view&pageId= 114935
> >
> > ~~~~
> >
> > The troubles for Professor Thomas Thibeault of East Georgia College seem to
have begun during an Aug. 5 faculty sexual harassment training seminar, when he
questioned the assertion â€" as he understood it â€" being presented by Mary
Smith, the school's vice president for legal affairs, that the feelings of the
offended constituted proof of offensive behavior.
> >
> > "What provision is there in the sexual harassment policy to protect the
accused against complaints which are malicious or … ridiculous?" Thibeault
asked.
> >
> > According to Thibeault's description of the events, Smith replied, "There is
no provision in the policy. I must emphasize that if the person feels offended
then the incident must be reported to the college authorities. "
> >
> > "So there is no protection against a false accusation?" Thibeault pressed.
> >
> > "No," Smith is said to have responded.
> >
> > "Then the policy itself is flawed," commented Thibeault.
> >
> > Two days later, a police chief was waiting to escort Thibeault off campus.
> >
> > [and so on]
> >
> > ~~~~
> >
> > Here's another one of a lesbian harrassing a Christian, and getting him
fired when he finally responds:
> >
> > Man fired after saying homosexuality wrong
> > Accused of 'harassment' even though lesbian approached him
> >
> > http://www.wnd. com/index. php?fa=PAGE. view&pageId= 114779
> >
> > ~~~~
> > Peter Vadala was fired, and the company says he violated a tolerance policy.
But Vadala reports his dismissal came because he expressed his Christian view of
homosexuality after a female manager made repeated references, as she approached
him four times during work hours, to her plans to marry her lesbian partner.
> >
> > "At the start of the day, she told me she was getting married. I told her
'Congratulations, ' and asked, 'Where's he taking you on your honeymoon?'"
Vadala said.
> >
> > "She replied that her partner was a 'she,'" he continued, "So I immediately
tried to change the subject.
> >
> > "I think she knew I was uncomfortable talking about it," he continued. "But,
she brought it up to me three more times during the day.
> >
> > "After the fourth time she told me about her plan to marry her partner, I
told her, 'I think homosexuality is bad stuff,'" Vadala said.
> >
> > [and so on]
> >
>

...when images of Christian women with headcoverings are tolerated:

http://www.familybooksandcds.com/coloring/thanksgiving/pilgrims_praying.jpg