I'm sorry, dear Terry (peace to you!), but I have a view comments, still, if you will bear with me.
The Apostle Paul made clear that a ministerial servant had to be a husband of one wife.
The male ministerial servants, yes, and the married male ministerial servants. Women were ministerial servants, too (had to be because men couldn't just show up at a widows house. Just wasn't done.) Also, the whole "husband of one wife" didn't mean they (or the overseers) HAD to be married. It meant that they could only be married to one wife... at a time. Was this with reference to polygamy (as the WTBTS suggests)? Nope. It had to do with adultery. A man who divorced a wife except on the grounds of fornication or adultery... and married another... was an adulterer. Because only death severed the marriage bond. Thus, if a man divorced a wife on other grounds... then married another... he was a man of TWO wives. Overseers and male MS's, however, had to be men who either were still with the original wife or had only taken another after the original had died.
The view of marriage as an influence for good upon men is clear from scripture. It is security for women and a proper environment for children.
Ummmm... I have to vehemently disagree, if we're talking about what is clear "from scripture." The desirable thing was for a man to remain single because a wife (and, logically, children) could be a distraction. Which is why my Lord remained single. There certainly was no law AGAINST marriage, but there are as many accounts of marriage being detrimental, to either the husband OR the wife, as there are it being beneficial. I give you Lot, Job, Samson, Jezebel, Abigail, David, Solomon, Ananias, etc.
You'd think that after the reputation of Eve upon mankind marriage would be anathema. Yet, oddly, this is not the case.
Eve upon mankind?? I mean, sure, there are a whole lot of guys out there who try and blame man's plight on Eve. Most of them are the weakest of men when it comes to the desires of their own flesh. Rather than taking responsibilities for their own actions, they follow Adham... and blame a woman/women.
Why?
See above, dear one.
Women spread sanity by insisting on order, respect, structure and predictability in the home.
What "order"? Order established by MEN. And WHY? Because MEN have said it is their place to do so!! Paul is a HUGE culprit of this (I do not allow women to... such and so"; "women are men's glory"; "be in subjection to your husbands"; etc., etc.). Yet, Christ NEVER said such things of women. Indeed, he dismissed his own disciples chagrin and disapproval and spoke to women directly. On several occasions.
Men are forced to NEGOTIATE for women's favor rather than merely taking what they want.
Forced??!! You obviously miss an entire segment of mankind's history... and present. You know, when men pillaged and plundered and took women... or when women were given away to whomever their father wished (usually, whoever paid the most). But forced to negotiate today? Have we not moved beyond the days when we were just pieces of wood, such that a man can just come along and say, "Hey, look at the grain on that one! Yeah, that'll complete my kitchen just right! I'll take it/her"?? Sorry, dear one, but what you just stated SMACKS of the perspective of those who thought U.S. slavery was "okay." No negotiating for man's labor, nope. Just take the men (women and children) you want. EVERYONE should have to negotiate for the kind of favor you're speaking of. Women as well as men. (Good Lord, ladies, can you imagine if WE could just take any man we wanted... without "negotiating" for his favor?? LOLOLOLOLOL! Gone would be all of the pain we physically undergo... and chemicals we subject our bodies to... just to be attractive to those louts! LOLOLOLOLOL! "C'mere, Og! I'm taking YOU home!" LOLOLOLOLOL! Yeah... right...)
The benefits to a family, tribe and nation from co-operative women far outweighs any temporary solace from forcing them slave-like to perform perfunctory duties.
Ummmmm... isn't that merely fulfillment of the catching more flies with honey theory?
The more enlightened the society the more elevated is the status of women.
Yes!
Don't let the visible political POWER STRUCTURE fool you! You only have to look at the greatest figure (arguably) in all of history: ALEXANDER THE GREAT to see this is true. Alexander's mother had complete and absolute influence upon her son. His view of himself, of Greece and of power came directly from her maternal management, instruction and control over him. Alexander changed the structure of the entire world!
Yes, but there's more to it than this, which I'll get to in a sec.
Julius Ceasar may have been the greatest General Rome ever had but Cleopatra was able to persuade, cajole and entice this noble Roman into elevating her and their son into a postion of highest favor. When he was assassainated she did the same with his best friend, Marc Antony.
Not that I agree with your take here, but I have to ask: who's FAULT is that? A strong woman's? Or weak men?
History presents women of influence with a nasty sideways slap by labeling them pejoratively.
Yes and it's not always warranted!
But, the truth is clear. David was, we are told, a favorite of Jehovah. David was utterly under the power and influence of Bathsheba. Whatever it took to obtain her favor he was willing to do.
Oh, no, no, no, no! THIS one you have wrong, really wrong. Bathsheba was minding her own business, taking a bath. David, who SHOULD have been at battle saw her and desired her. HE... called HER... to HIM. And what choice did she have? You don't say no to a king, dear one. Not back then. Heck, not until about a hundred or so years ago. Prior to that, kings... and all other manner of heads of state... and particularly clergy... didn't take "no" for an answer. From ANYONE. But you suggest that David even killed to obtain Bathsheba's favor - he HAD her favor, dear one. She was PREGNANT. He killed Uriah to get him out of HIS way... so that Bathsheba wouldn't be able to leave him... for her HUSBAND (whom she loved).
Women have found a way to build structure into the power grid of a man dominated rule by the most practical and sane methodology all through history. Women understand the weakness of men. They can exploit it and transform the weakness into social order.
They HAD to, dear one. Look at the RULE. Women could be... and in some places can STILL be... annihilated just for looking at a man. Men had ALL of the power. Women had only one. That they were smart enough to use it, yes, has had consequences on both men AND women. Besides, men were greatly barbaric, as well. Women wanted... needed... to protect their children, which men would kill without a second thought.
MEN NEED WOMEN.
Ummmmmm... while I would LOVE to agree, again I have to disagree. SOME men need women. Given the numbers of homosexual, celibate, imprisoned, and other men, I have to say that your statement is way too general. For some men (and quite a lot of them, actually), our only purpose for existing is to either be a receptacle... or an incubator. Do you not recall when China was ordering the death of female newborns??
The smartest women are able to negotiate concessions without men being aware they are making them.
(Smiling) Yes, we are. If, however, men weren't so dense , oblivious, and obstinate, most of us wouldn't have to resort to that. Now, I am not trying to excuse those of us who connive and manipulate to get what we want, when such is unnecessary or purely selfish. But men do that, too. They just use money (or jewelry... or flowers - LOLOLOLOL!)... versus "womanly wiles".
Wives, daughters, mothers, teachers, king-makers: women.
Husbands, sons, fathers, teachers, religious leaders, politicians, judiciary, generals, armies, king-makers, king-breakers: men (and women, but primarily men).
Barak Obama and Michelle. Hillary and Bill. George W. and Laura. J.F.K. and Jackie.
First, you're taking your generalized position and basing it on the structure and culture of ONE country... and a western one, at that. Even so, it is this way in THIS country because (1) the women of THIS country fear no representation (without a woman SOMEWHERE involved) as well as desire evidence of stability from their leader; and (2) the men of the country would never allow an "eligible bachelor" loose around their wives.
The wives are essential.
Yes, we are! Primarily so that you guys have clean socks, clean sheets, and a warm meal every now and then. For some, the "fringe benefits" of a warm bed apparently don't hurt, either!
Christianity was spread by the direct influence of women behind the men who made the world change.
Funny... when one researches "christianity" VERY FEW women's names come up. I mean, much has been made about Mary the Magdalene... and Mother Theresa. But who else? Not many and I will tell you why (this goes back to what I meant I would get to later, above):
STRONG women tend to be run by religion and religious leaders a whole lot less than weaker women. Strong women not only tend to question such leader(ship) but even put it to task. Isabella. Elizabeth I. Joan of Arc. Even Mary the Magdalene is reported to have stood up to the Apostles. Deborah. Jael. And others.
The women "behind" the men you're thinking of don't tend to be doormats... which is the kind of women religion usually seeks out and draws - women who'll buy the WHOLE pie... hook, line, and sinker. Hillary didn't run to religion when Bill "toyed" with the intern. She could have. Michelle didn't run to religion when Barry denounced his relationship with Rev. Wright. She could have. And Jackie, a Protestant, actually ticked her husband off when she changed to HIS religion, Catholicism. JFK was hoping to convert to Protestantism because the U.S. had never had a Catholic president and he believed being Catholic would lose him the election. His FATHER... is the one who suggested he convert, not his mother... and not his wife.
So, I understand, Terry, how it may LOOK like women should be blamed for spreading christianity. But I think a more accurate way to look at it would be one man (clergy) who knowingly has HIV... sleeping with a lot of unsuspecting women... who then sleep with other men. Yes, the women now transmit the disease, but that wasn't really their intent. It was, however, the clergy's intent - they weren't concerned with infecting women: they were more intent on the goal of infecting other men... and did it in the quickest, easiest way possible. By seducing women. In order to get to their husband's coffers.
You're spreading the blame way too thin, dear one. I would offer, don't blame men OR women... but blame false christs, false prophets, charlatan religious leaders, and their ilk. Male... or female. Becausw they're the source of the "virus."
Again, I bid you peace!
Your servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
