Men have authority over women

[Comprehend]

In the nicest possible way, of course.

of course, which BTW makes it all the more entertaining because they don't fully realize what is happening as you do it.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Because this is the world we live in, a modern democratic republic which is a political system unseen in the bible. If you advoate a move away from our current political system then you have to offer your defence for a more theocratic state. Our laws are based on modern political theory. If you want to change their base that is another matter.

I admit that my post is heavily in conflict with a sola scriptura reading of the bible. But that issue has yet to be solved in other theads. I admit your objection though I hold to my own interpretation.

Who is trying to change who sir? If your modern democratic republic is in conflict with my religion and we hold the majority of the votes, I guess we both know who will prevail.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

By "brainlessly" you meant "merely", didn't you?

I don't see a significant difference between the two. "Merely" referring to a verse as if it were an argument is evidence for "brainlessly" doing something, and pointing to this error is not a baseless insult but an observation of fact.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What do you want me to say? You asked for me to show where God said women are subject to men and I provided a verse in which God did this.

Again, it's commanded by God in Genesis. Are going to tell me that it wasn't actually God speaking in that verse?

How is the layman to know which is which? By what process do you pick and choose what is inspired and what is not? How do you know Jesus did or said anything the Gospels claim?

A very basic understanding of how Christians understand the Old Testament to relate to the New Testament would be very instructive at this point.

 

[erasmo]

I find it hard to see how many females can follow a religion that holds them inferior to males. As an athiest I find this aspect of the bible and the religion as a whole to be quite rediculous and looking from the outside in it is sickening that females put up with this. This part of christianity is not only seen here, for example, how many priests do you know that are female, or how about the number of Catholic popes that have ever been female.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I find it hard to see how many females can follow a religion that holds them inferior to males. As an athiest I find this aspect of the bible and the religion as a whole to be quite rediculous and looking from the outside in it is sickening that females put up with this. This part of christianity is not only seen here, for example, how many priests do you know that are female, or how about the number of Catholic popes that have ever been female.

Thats a good point your making! However it depends on the "mindset" of the person. In both males and females, there are different levels of intellect, those that constantly need to be challenged and those that would rather say "Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir!" (or mam if your a male). I have no problem accepting that men and women have different roles in life BUT I would never go along with the man purely and simply because he was male - especially if his "mindset" wasnt as strong as mine!
Some women find it very difficult to make decisions and want to be in a relationship where they are taken care of (again this can be to different degrees!). So I think thats why some people put up with it. Not all religions teach that women are below men though, there are different interpretations to the scriptures. For example women being made from mens ribs - some take that as meaning inferior where a some take it as because they were made from the same, they should be on the same level!

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I find it hard to see how many females can follow a religion that holds them inferior to males. As an athiest I find this aspect of the bible and the religion as a whole to be quite rediculous and looking from the outside in it is sickening that females put up with this. This part of christianity is not only seen here, for example, how many priests do you know that are female, or how about the number of Catholic popes that have ever been female.

I have my own criticisms of religious institutions that don't allow women to hold authority or decision-making power, since I don't believe them to operate in the same way that a family does. In fact, (and I know I'm not Christian, so take it for what it's worth), I'd love to see a female Dalai Lama!

But, again, in our family, I am in no way inferior to my husband. I truly believe he has to give up more of himself to provide for, to protect, and to care for me and the kids. He doesn't do this because I have no ability to, but it really works for us. If I had to do everything, I could, but I don't have to. I can defer a lot of the footwork to him.

I'm more a dreamer than a doer, and he's the opposite, so we complement each other really well. He also doesn't have the kind of ability that I do in my intuition and in being able to "see through" the kids and such. But, I have a tendency to procrastinate and hem-and-haw around. He just gets his nose to the grindstone and starts working. So, the way we generally work our marriage is that I tell him how I envision our home and our family in a way that makes me feel fulfilled and alive - and he mostly figures out a way to provide that. I can't make any suppositions here on how Biblically sound this arrangement is (or how much it matters since we don't call ourselves Christian), but we share authority and we submit our wills to each other.

At least when we don't stray from this, we do just peachy. We have our moments, but overall this is how we strive to strengthen our home and our marriage.

But, in defense of Christian women who see their husbands as the heads of their households, these men are not.............ARE NOT...........out on a power-trip. Husbands who take their roles seriously as heads of household should be the most selfless and giving men they can be who seek to take care of their wives. I've heard before a cliche or two stating something along the lines of "A happy wife means a happy life" or "If mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy."

An unwise husband will tend to forget that bit of truth and try to make the household all about him and his ego.

I hope I'm making sense in all this. :help: Good husbands are ALL about making their wives happy. I side with Christian women who would appreciate this, and who would not stand for a man who does not live up to the Christian values that she would want for her "nest."




Peace,
Mystic

 

[Slightly Perfect]

when married, men and women are not equal partners. The man is in charge.

If you don't have a problem with men having authority over women, then you are a true Christian. If you think men and women should be equals in marriage, you're not a true Christian.

That's cute. Do you own slaves, too? Or, maybe the wife is a substitue for the slave(s).

 

[ChristineES]

I find it hard to see how many females can follow a religion that holds them inferior to males. As an athiest I find this aspect of the bible and the religion as a whole to be quite rediculous and looking from the outside in it is sickening that females put up with this. This part of christianity is not only seen here, for example, how many priests do you know that are female, or how about the number of Catholic popes that have ever been female.

We have that right to follow that religion. I don't think I am inferior to my husband by any means, although I can see why you would see that. It is not ridiculous in my view to follow a faith that suits you. If it does not suit you(which as an atheist, it does not suit you) then no one can force you to follow it. We have free will to do what we want.

I make my own decisions about myself, such as going back to college and what clothes I wear. I have made clear that if a woman wants to do something, then her husband will let her do it if he has respect for her. If a man is unreasonable, then he is not respecting her and is breaking his vows. I can't make you understand what I am saying. But as I said earlier, it is my own choice. Don't try to rescue someone who does not need or want to be rescued.

 

[Bishka]

But, in defense of Christian women who see their husbands as the heads of their households, these men are not.............ARE NOT...........out on a power-trip. Husbands who take their roles seriously as heads of household should be the most selfless and giving men they can be who seek to take care of their wives. I've heard before a cliche or two stating something along the lines of "A happy wife means a happy life" or "If mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy."

Amen
:clap

 

[Prometheus]

That's cute. Do you own slaves, too? Or, maybe the wife is a substitue for the slave(s).

I think you misinterpreted the point of my post.

 

[lillitruthseeker]

the whole idea that women are inferior is a myth -- women are the most oppressed people on the face of the earth -- this whole subject makes me really sad and angry at the same time -- the whole world has been out of balance since women were oppressed -- none of the war and hunger and sadness the world has suffered since religion evolved would have happened if women were treated equally -- until the balance of power is right there will never be peace in the world -- people blame women for everything and its really the weaknesses and ego's of men that have caused all this turmoil -- i will never ever submit or subscribe to the idea that any man has control or authority over me -- i love being a women and i know that i am not inferior -- i can get a man to do anything for me -- what man can get a women to do anything for him without manipulation or force ? all i have to do is smile --- muaaahhhhh (insert evil laugh)

 

[FindLogic]

In my humble opinion, you have to read the Bible as a whole. Get the "Big" picture so to speak and look at the context in which words were said.

Oh yeah? Well I'm not too sure on who to side with here when I read the bible, the good old maniac from the OT, or Lucifer. Kind of difficult to distinguish between them in determining who's more evil.
As for men having authority over women, pain in childbirth etc... sounds like an evil God to me.:sad:

 

[DeepShadow]

As for men having authority over women, pain in childbirth etc... sounds like an evil God to me.

For someone with a name like "findlogic" you do a decent job of cherry picking.

 

[DeepShadow]

I find it hard to see how many females can follow a religion that holds them inferior to males.

Nor can I. I've submitted a model for rulership among peers. Do you have evidence against it?

As an athiest I find this aspect of the bible and the religion as a whole to be quite rediculous and looking from the outside in it is sickening that females put up with this.

I'm glad you put in the qualifier, in bold above. That appears to be the problem.

This part of christianity is not only seen here, for example, how many priests do you know that are female, or how about the number of Catholic popes that have ever been female.

Again, rulership--even based on gender--does not prevent equality, even if it becomes a crutch for weak-minded men to exercise unrighteous dominion. I'm not a specialist in Catholicism, but how many male nuns do you know?

In Mormonism, we assign separate roles to men and women. When I was younger, I wanted to be a Primary president when I grew up. That's not a role offered to men. Is that sexist, or simply separate equality? I think it's the latter. Can you prove me wrong?

 

[DeepShadow]

Deep Shadow, I like your analysis using systems psychology to make a pragmatic assesment.

Thanks! I've been building that model for a while now.

My only contention is how does this merge with modern political theory.

Depends on what aspect of political theory. Game theory would appear to mesh quite well. Matter of fact, that's kinda where I got the idea.

The subordination of women in the home, necessary or not, might only have validity as a general rule in more tribal systems where the family is the basic unit of political power. Here a clear leader is needed.

A clear leader is beneficial in any financial, emotional, or physical emergency. I don't see how those lessen outside of a tribal system.

But in a socity that espouses equality and liberation wouldn't it be better to allow the issue of leadership to be settled on a case by case basis.

As I've said before, equality is a separate problem. If a leader among peers isn't acknowledging the equality of those peers, that's bad leadership, and it needs to be remedied, with or without a change in leadership.

In a tribal society an unsuccesful family represents a much higher loss in resources than an unsuccessful family today does.

Sure, for the society. For the family, the loss is pretty much the same.

If a tribal family fails people starve, primitive agriculture methods mandate the need for large families as a labor supply and low life expectancy requires giving birth to children at a much younger age. In this case it is easy to see how a mandated arbitrary head of the household would be an advantage.

A clear leader is always an advantage. In this case, the potential damage to society comes not through the lack of food production, but through the next generation that grew up lacking that advantage.

BUt in todays technological society which has a much higher percapita production rate a higher failure rate for families is more acceptable. So a trail and error method of assessing leadership abilities becomes more feaseable.

I figure it ain't broke, don't fix it, but I'm willing to admit that trial and error is what's going on. So let's call it an experiment in meme theory: may the best idea win. See you in a thousand years.

I liken this to the diffrence between aristocracies and democracies. Just like a tribal family needs a firmly determined head so does a larger political unit, the state.

Pound's a pound the world around. Any political system is composed of family units, regardless of structure. Weak bricks make weak buildings.

But now we can afford periods of weak or ineefective govenment.

Here I strongly disagree. We can afford periods of weak or ineffective economic controls, because economics has corrective cycles that need only low intervention to keep going. The only such cycles in political theory require a body count, and that's unacceptable.

Our productivity surplus allows the state to weather periods of less than optimal leadership. Perhaps this is true of the family as well? Your thoughts?

If you're talking about the strength of the system compensating for the weaknesses of individuals, then I agree. But it sounds like you're talking about the political system compensating for the failure of the families, and that's not a matter of surplus. Either way, it sounds like you are confusing economics with politics. Easy to do, but the differences can be crucial in an issue like this.

 

[Prometheus]

In Mormonism, we assign separate roles to men and women. When I was younger, I wanted to be a Primary president when I grew up. That's not a role offered to men. Is that sexist, or simply separate equality? I think it's the latter. Can you prove me wrong?

Look up the definition of sexism again. Yes, it clearly is. There is no such thing as "separate but equal."

 

[ChristineES]

There will always be things that some people can do that others can not do. For instance, I could not work as a police officer because I can't imagine ever having to kill anyone, it is for that same reason I could not fight in a battle.
Another instance is that I don't have a lot of physical strength, so I could not work at a job that requires a lot of strength. That is not sexism, but realism. Everyone has limitations somewhere and no one can do all things.

 

[DeepShadow]

Look up the definition of sexism again.

I'll do that. Meanwhile, why don't you offer something to support this:

There is no such thing as "separate but equal."

Why on earth not?! In any other field, things can be categorized by type separate from a judgement of superiority. Why is this distinction--so fundamental in reasoning--impossible in gender roles?!

 

[Panda]

If a man can do the job so can a woman and vice versa. Woman serve in the police force and are just as effective as men. In fact men are starting to be encouraged to become primary school teachers here.

Just because they are a woman does not mean they can't do everything you do just as well.

Here is the defanition of sexism
sex·ism (sĕk'sĭz'əm)
n.

1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

Saying someone can't go a job because of their gender is sexism. Therefore your statement previously is sexist.