brich30039 11 years, 8 months ago on THE WATCHWOMAN: Myles Munroe's dangerous doctrine for women
THE WATCHWOMAN: Myles Munroe's dangerous doctrine for women
I totally agree. I see you mentioned abusive and abusive relationships, but left out the fact that he clearly spoke out against abuse in the same video. Not trying to over-assume here, but I think your view in your article represents one of a considerable portion of women in today's society. Munroe's and the bible's views on men and their roles does not by comparison make women second or subservient to them. The example of presenting the woman to yourself can in this context be equivalent to loving others as you love yourself. The emphasis is not supposed to be on the "to yourself", but on how you treat and love her. If her weight is an issue, either be willing to get up with her and work at it instead of complaining, starting to have wandering eyes, or just shut up and accept it.
I struggle with my girlfriend now in trying to get her to understand the concept of allowing the man to be the head of the household, but also being one with him at the same time. There is no hierarchy, there's just oneness. When a male makes any decision, not that he has to or should have to make all of them, if he truly loves and is one with his woman his decision will be the one that his wife would have made or agreed with.
jake1920 10 years ago on THE WATCHWOMAN: Myles Munroe's dangerous doctrine for women
THE WATCHWOMAN: Myles Munroe's dangerous doctrine for women
Spiritual orgasm. Really? I mean, couldn't you think of another metaphor? A "spiritual" orgasm is not the kind I'm thinking about when I look at your gorgeous face. Sorry!
BISHOPDDGALES 10 years ago on THE WATCHWOMAN: Myles Munroe's dangerous doctrine for women
THE WATCHWOMAN: Myles Munroe's dangerous doctrine for women
I like your story but the problem I have is that I did not see the name of the sermon or a link to the video so I could see the sermon for myself. You must believe your readers are intelligent enough to see the evidence and agree with your stance or not.
jmuthoka 10 years ago on THE WATCHWOMAN: Myles Munroe's dangerous doctrine for women
THE WATCHWOMAN: Myles Munroe's dangerous doctrine for women
It is unfortunate that i dont know the bone of contention in the whole matter but is a short stint i think the meaning of the message is with the individual and the perspective we look at issues. The lives we go through sometimes makes us look at issues in a monotype a pprorach. The message in question was fantastic as long as you interpret things in a positive way. Lets not bring judgement where it is not there. May God bless you.
Roofbreaker 10 years, 7 months ago on THE WATCHWOMAN: Myles Munroe's dangerous doctrine for women
THE WATCHWOMAN: Myles Munroe's dangerous doctrine for women
I so agree and just to note that just like Myles always says when purpose is not known abuse is inevitable. This blog writer obviously has no clue about her own purpose, so she must feel significant bashing others who do know.
Bahamianpride 11 years, 4 months ago on THE WATCHWOMAN: Myles Munroe's dangerous doctrine for women
THE WATCHWOMAN: Myles Munroe's dangerous doctrine for women
He is referring to men of God.. Abuse of women is not the nature of emotionally healthy men, it is a product of mental illness.. If u look at the titanic when it sunk they put women and children on the life boats first and many men went down in the frozen ocean, no one question whether that was abusive to men.. if u look at wars men die women stayed home protected. IF you look at health and longevity with living women outlive men, why because a man's value comes from doing, a Women is valuable just by being a women & her ability for sex and the production of offspring.. this why so many men identify themselves by what they do because they know this is the only way they will have value in society or to women.. This same women who writes this article if we would go out dinner would insist I pay because I'm a man or if the ship was sinking would insist she gets on first because she was a woman.. Or if we were under threat she would say stand up like a man and fight to save me.. The story of the white feather girls in europe during the 1st world war comes to mind they would run around throwing feathers of cowardice on men who would not enlist in a war that killed so many, but we never hear about these things.. So in conclusion her criticism of Dr. Monroe is unfounded by the facts of history or gender relations and only speaks to feminist propaganda because man throughout the history of society has always been the disposable less valued gender and women the treasured and protected gender because our survival depended on it.. Dr. Munroes wife ain't complaining, in fact she looks quit happy, not a suprise because real men treasure there women.. what Dr. MUNROE talks about is leadership not abuse, abuse is unGodly..
dfitzerl 11 years, 8 months ago on THE WATCHWOMAN: Myles Munroe's dangerous doctrine for women
THE WATCHWOMAN: Myles Munroe's dangerous doctrine for women
Is it possible that you view the presentation with a particular bias?
The context of the presentation is not about rulership but relationship and responsibilities. Most of the best CEOs in the world never give an order, yet they are the head of their company. It is their job to be responsible for and encourage/challenge the organization they lead to develop and succeed. Not force it to. But they are the ones who have to answer to their Boards/Shareholders. Submit is a cuss word to todays woman even though in biblical terms it simply means to respect. It has nothing to do with "value" but everything to do with "roles". You go on your job and submit to your supervisor who has been given responsibility for you but you do not think that it is proper to submit to your husband who is given responsibility for you and your family IF (big word) he is in submission to God himself. Neither of these is suppose to be unconditional submission. They are both conditional on the appointed person acting in accordance with the laws and principles of the organization they are apart of. If you don't understand the principles God expects the husband to operate under I can understand why you may reject the idea of him (or anyone else) being your leader. I don't hear anyone complaining about the role called "mother" that God appointed to women. We all accept it as appropriate. No man feels less equal because he is not apointed to the role of mother by God.
Additionally, there is nothing in God's word "that creates a foundation and justification for the abuse of women throughout the world". God is all about unconditional love (agape). He challenges us to love (agape) our neighbours (especially our wives, even to die for them). His word says that if we do that we will have fulfilled all His laws for love (agape) can not create harm.
I respectively suggest that the individual statements you highlight should be read in the context of the entire message and not as messages of the own and not from the perspective that they make women less equal.