Men have authority over women

[MaddLlama]

I live in Oregon which is very liberal. Same sex marriage is still being pushed here. Do you agree or disagree wiht same sex marriages in light of your statement and this Thread? Please explain your answer.

What does that have to do with his post or this thread? Or, did you not know that "sex" is also a synonym for "gender"?

 

[DeepShadow]

I consider my husband to be the head of our household, but in no way does he have authority over me. We consider each other to share authority in the home.

I think this is a good point: Prometheus, do you believe "headship" for men destroys inequality?If women were selected to rule over men, wouldn't that also be sexist? Seems to me that having a single head of household would always appear to be sexist against whoever isn't the head. The key is to see if that goes beyond appearances, and if if is, fix it.

In many military training exercises, a leader is chosen at random from the group. They are all peers, equals, yet they need a clear leader to act as head so that the group can operate. Do you think there is an advantage in having a clear leader?

Perhaps having men as heads of households was equally arbitrary, decided at the beginning of time by a cosmic coin toss. The alternative would be to have each house select their own using a basis that would appear to grant authority but would actually be backed by fiction.

Reminds me of Churchill's comment that democracy was "the absolute worst form of government, except for everything else."

 

[DeepShadow]

The point is that there is not equality.

Is male headship so impossible to reconcile with equality?

What the man says goes.

Now that's actually false, Biblically speaking. Women are told to submit to their husbands insofar as he submits to Christ. Therefore, if the man says anything contrary to the will of Christ, the woman has no obligation to follow.

He is the ruler.

And if he's a good ruler who uses Christ as a model for rulership, he will seek to elevate the people under him. Christ said we will be judged by our stewardships, and men "rule" over their families as stewards, not autocrats.

 

[bible truth]

Is male headship so impossible to reconcile with equality?



Now that's actually false, Biblically speaking. Women are told to submit to their husbands insofar as he submits to Christ. Therefore, if the man says anything contrary to the will of Christ, the woman has no obligation to follow.



And if he's a good ruler who uses Christ as a model for rulership, he will seek to elevate the people under him. Christ said we will be judged by our stewardships, and men "rule" over their families as stewards, not autocrats.

Dear LDS Members,

It is quite obvious why I will only discuss and debate with DeepShadow from the LDS Faith. DeepShadow is the only one I'm able to communicate and understand. All of the other dialogs between LDS members are meaningless chattering in the wind. If anyone is sincerely interested in understanding the essentials of Biblical Christianity that divides us from the official LDS faith, please encourage Deepshadow to continue with our discussions. - BT

 

[Nanda]

No, I would not take my wives name

Why not? Honestly, and in all sincerety, I am not trying to be nasty or pick a fight, this is just something that interests me greatly. Before we were married, my husband used to insist that I had to take his name, and I, in return, insisted that he should take mine - not that I actually wanted him to, I just wanted him to see how his insistance made me feel. He eventually came to understand my position. So why would you not take your wife's name? Is it because it's not traditional?

 

[MaddLlama]

Can we stop this train for a second? Because I have a question...

In a Biblical sense, what exactly does it mean when it says that men are the "head of the household" or somesuch.
I think a big reason people object to this idea is that the phrase conjures up images of 1950's sitcoms where women are extremely submissive and without real importance (other than being domestic) and the men make all the decisions. Somehow I doubt this is what it means in a Biblical sense.
I don't know if anyone else is confused, but if we could throw some definitions and explanations out there, it would help me at least.

 

[MaddLlama]

Dear LDS Members,

It is quite obvious why I will only discuss and debate with DeepShadow from the LDS Faith. - BT

Yes, I understand why. Because he's a man, and you agree with him. Therefore there's nothing to debate.

 

[DeepShadow]

Because he's a man, and you agree with him.

True on the first point....

 

[Comprehend]

Dear LDS Members,

It is quite obvious why I will only discuss and debate with DeepShadow from the LDS Faith. - BT

Yes, it is.

You are afraid of the rest of us and you have therefore chosen to debate with the guy who is probably most capable of cleaning your clock...

good choice.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Can we stop this train for a second? Because I have a question...

In a Biblical sense, what exactly does it mean when it says that men are the "head of the household" or somesuch.
I think a big reason people object to this idea is that the phrase conjures up images of 1950's sitcoms where women are extremely submissive and without real importance (other than being domestic) and the men make all the decisions. Somehow I doubt this is what it means in a Biblical sense.
I don't know if anyone else is confused, but if we could throw some definitions and explanations out there, it would help me at least.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pater_familias

 

[MaddLlama]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pater_familias

Ok, but I'm still confused. All that says is that men have the power to make decisions over the life and death of the people under his hosuehold. Is it really a biblical commandment to let an unwanted child die of exposure? The wiki article also says nothing about women.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ok, but I'm still confused. All that says is that men have the power to make decisions over the life and death of the people under his hosuehold. Is it really a biblical commandment to let an unwanted child die of exposure? The wiki article also says nothing about women.

From the wiki article:

The power held by the pater familias was called patria potestas, "paternal power." Potestas is distinct from auctoritas, also held by the pater. Under the laws of the Twelve Tables, the pater familias had vitae necisque potestas—the "power of life and death"—over his children, his wife (in some cases), and his slaves, all of whom were said to be sub manu, "under his hand."

Ephesians 5:

22Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

Ephesians 6:

1Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2"Honor your father and mother" (this is the first commandment with a promise), 3"that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land." 4Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

5Slaves,[a] obey your earthly masters[b] with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, 6not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as servants[c] of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, 8knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free.

 

[ChristineES]

I am beginning to see the whole flaw in this argument. As Christians we have a different idea of what submission means. If both a husband and wife are true Christians, then they will obey all the laws. The husband who follows Jesus's commands would never abuse his wife, he would listen to her and take her thoughts into mind when decisions are made. He would not make a decision that a wife is totally against if he obeys Jesus commands.

The nontheists seem to think that the husbands abuse their wives and that is acceptable in the Bible when it is not. They take one verse out of the bible out of context to prove their points (Christians do the same thing). That is the contrary. I posted that a man is supposed to RESPECT his wife, which you ignore completely. If you respect someone you would never abuse said person, nor would you make decisions that would be against the the one you respect beliefs.
1Pe 3:7 Husbands, likewise, live together according to knowledge as with a weaker vessel, with the wife, showing her honor as also a fellow heir of the grace of life, in order that your prayers may not be hindered.
That verse clearly says that a husband should honor his wife and that if he does not his prayers are hindered. He also says that women are a "fellow heir" of the grace of life!

 

[bible truth]

I am beginning to see the whole flaw in this argument. As Christians we have a different idea of what submission means. If both a husband and wife are true Christians, then they will obey all the laws. The husband who follows Jesus's commands would never abuse his wife, he would listen to her and take her thoughts into mind when decisions are made. He would not make a decision that a wife is totally against if he obeys Jesus commands.

The nontheists seem to think that the husbands abuse their wives and that is acceptable in the Bible when it is not. They take one verse out of the bible out of context to prove their points (Christians do the same thing). That is the contrary. I posted that a man is supposed to RESPECT his wife, which you ignore completely. If you respect someone you would never abuse said person, nor would you make decisions that would be against the the one you respect beliefs.
1Pe 3:7 Husbands, likewise, live together according to knowledge as with a weaker vessel, with the wife, showing her honor as also a fellow heir of the grace of life, in order that your prayers may not be hindered.
That verse clearly says that a husband should honor his wife and that if he does not his prayers are hindered. He also says that women are a "fellow heir" of the grace of life!

I'm always minstered by Christians who correctly share the Word of God.
Jesus Christ always and perfectly submitted to the will of God the Father. By the grace of God, we are learning to submit to the will of God and to each other.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I am beginning to see the whole flaw in this argument. As Christians we have a different idea of what submission means. If both a husband and wife are true Christians, then they will obey all the laws. The husband who follows Jesus's commands would never abuse his wife, he would listen to her and take her thoughts into mind when decisions are made. He would not make a decision that a wife is totally against if he obeys Jesus commands.

The nontheists seem to think that the husbands abuse their wives and that is acceptable in the Bible when it is not. They take one verse out of the bible out of context to prove their points (Christians do the same thing). That is the contrary. I posted that a man is supposed to RESPECT his wife, which you ignore completely. If you respect someone you would never abuse said person, nor would you make decisions that would be against the the one you respect beliefs.
1Pe 3:7 Husbands, likewise, live together according to knowledge as with a weaker vessel, with the wife, showing her honor as also a fellow heir of the grace of life, in order that your prayers may not be hindered.
That verse clearly says that a husband should honor his wife and that if he does not his prayers are hindered. He also says that women are a "fellow heir" of the grace of life!

Not to mention, of course, the obscene thinking that anyone who trusts in Jesus is under a curse.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Dear BT: I will not answer your post.....in the long run you do not care about what I have to say, so there is no point in indulging you.

Secondly, this thread has nothing to do with the "LDS members" of this forum.....so your way off topic.

Lastly, I heard through the "grapevine" that you wouldn't debate Katzpur because you think she reported your disrespectful and demeaning post.....well she didn't,
I should know....

Any more questions towards me....please open a new thread and pm me where to go.

Thank you,

darnell

 

[Wandered Off]

The nontheists seem to think that the husbands abuse their wives and that is acceptable in the Bible when it is not.

What some of us find abusive is that your genitalia would be the determining factor in who has the final say on every single decision.

 

[ChristineES]

Not to mention, of course, the obscene thinking that anyone who trusts in Jesus is under a curse.

It is true what you say here. As a Christian I would never say to someone that they are going to hell. After all that is a judgement and the Bible clearly says that God alone can judge and that we will be judged the way we judge others. I would never even say to a nonbeliever that they are going to hell, that is not what I am supposed to do.

I believe that we can teach The Word without being abusive about it. After all, Jesus first and greatest commands are about love. (Loving God and loving your neighbor).
I know that some of you think that I am being PC (politically correct), but I can assure that I am not. I am following Jesus words and commands.

 

[ChristineES]

What some of us find abusive is that your genitalia would be the determining factor in who has the final say on every single decision.

I personally believe that if a husband listens to his wife, he will make a decision that is right for both of them or all of them if they have children. That is not abuse in my book. But I choose to live that way.

 

[MaddLlama]

From the wiki article:



Ephesians 5:

22Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

Ephesians 6:

1Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2"Honor your father and mother" (this is the first commandment with a promise), 3"that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land." 4Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

5Slaves,[a] obey your earthly masters[b] with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, 6not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as servants[c] of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, 8knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free.

How do you translate that into a modern context then?

Households today are obviously not the same as they were at the time the Bible was written, so what does it mean today? Does it mean that women should defer all their opinions to their husband?