the Bible ask the wife/woman to submission to the man !!!!

[Songbird]

So many jokes, so little time.

Yeah, it's 6:30. Leave!

 

[Sleeppy]

Yes, I can see that view. I don't understand how it relates to the argument that men currently have authority over women, or what that involves exactly. All it conveys to me is a sense of superiority for no reason.

It's mostly true, as far as I can see. There aren't many women who aren't answering to the authority of men. As far as I know, men are usually in higher work positions, compared to women. Majority of people work.

The reason, I suppose, is because men have that inheritance. We are physically capable of greater strength, which translated into men's dominance at its earliest instance of question. The playing field is slowly being leveled out for women. It's a democracy in the U.S. As far as I know, majority is women. Why isn't there a female president?

The OP quotes are a reflection of that. They were true. The women of that period were more accepting to be submissive, whereas the men were willing to prove their dominance physically over those women who weren't submitting. And even over other men who in the minority would support women in their endeavor to become authorities over them.

Jesus came as a man, to conform with the notion of authority. If He had come as a woman, it would have been contrary to the greater acceptance and authority of that period. I doubt He would've had any followers. Those women would've easily been stoned, including the female Jesus, at the first sign of rebellion to the male dominant norms.

Even today, women might vote there way into higher positions, but they can't do it by physical force.

 

[Sleeppy]

If I exaggerated that more, I could endorse slavery and tell my slave it's biblical to do his/her servitude with joy, and that it's a Christ-like role. I could add your second paragraph (above) to this, and have an argument people used for hundreds of years.

It actually is Biblical, but with constraints. Why do you think the Israelites were allowed slaves? There's no commandment from Moses to Jesus that says slaves aren't allowed. Why?

If you understood my last few posts, you understand this as well. God didn't choose Israel because of their skin, or their hair, or anything of that nature, they were simply an example. It is because God gave them the authority to overpower these other nations that they were holding captives. The simple fact that God was instructing them, made the other nations inferior. Therefore, if the people of God were the only ones with the "godly" authority to instruct the other nations. If the guidelines in the Bible, especially by Jesus, were incorporated into the slavery of those times, the ungodly nations were actually benefiting. They were forced into the will of God, and thereby some of it's benefit.

Will can even be taken from the mind. That's where you have manipulators, and surgical procedures like the lobotomy. So, if anyone believes that free will originated with the body, it can be taken in a numerous number of ways. If it originates within a soul or spirit, only God can enslave it and throw it into hell.

When Jesus tells an evil spirit to do something, they do it because they will be overpowered and punished if they disobey.

 

[Songbird]

It's mostly true, as far as I can see. There aren't many women who aren't answering to the authority of men. As far as I know, men are usually in higher work positions, compared to women. Majority of people work.

The reason, I suppose, is because men have that inheritance. We are physically capable of greater strength, which translated into men's dominance at its earliest instance of question. The playing field is slowly being leveled out for women. It's a democracy in the U.S. As far as I know, majority is women. Why isn't there a female president?

The OP quotes are a reflection of that. They were true. The women of that period were more accepting to be submissive, whereas the men were willing to prove their dominance physically over those women who weren't submitting. And even over other men who in the minority would support women in their endeavor to become authorities over them.

Jesus came as a man, to conform with the notion of authority. If He had come as a woman, it would have been contrary to the greater acceptance and authority of that period. I doubt He would've had any followers. Those women would've easily been stoned, including the female Jesus, at the first sign of rebellion to the male dominant norms.

Even today, women might vote there way into higher positions, but they can't do it by physical force.

It actually is Biblical, but with constraints. Why do you think the Israelites were allowed slaves? There's no commandment from Moses to Jesus that says slaves aren't allowed. Why?

If you understood my last few posts, you understand this as well. God didn't choose Israel because of their skin, or their hair, or anything of that nature, they were simply an example. It is because God gave them the authority to overpower these other nations that they were holding captives. The simple fact that God was instructing them, made the other nations inferior. Therefore, if the people of God were the only ones with the "godly" authority to instruct the other nations. If the guidelines in the Bible, especially by Jesus, were incorporated into the slavery of those times, the ungodly nations were actually benefiting. They were forced into the will of God, and thereby some of it's benefit.

Will can even be taken from the mind. That's where you have manipulators, and surgical procedures like the lobotomy. So, if anyone believes that free will originated with the body, it can be taken in a numerous number of ways. If it originates within a soul or spirit, only God can enslave it and throw it into hell.

When Jesus tells an evil spirit to do something, they do it because they will be overpowered and punished if they disobey.

These are topics I'm not debating, especially as I don't view the Bible as having any kind of divinity or authority in and of itself.

I simply find the woman submission directive harmful, less effective than egalitarianism, and clung to for reasons that stem from lengthy justifications rather than observation of real results.

 

[Sleeppy]

These are topics I'm not debating, especially as I don't view the Bible as having any kind of divinity or authority in and of itself.

I simply find the woman submission directive harmful, less effective than egalitarianism, and clung to for reasons that stem from lengthy justifications rather than observation of real results.

The first post is completely according to the topic you were debating. It's also according to observation, and has little justification. Is it not true to your observation?

The second also has its relation, but I understand if it's too far off the specifics of the OP, for you.

 

[riley2112]

:hugkiss:I don't worry about it , my wife lets me be the boss.

 

[Meow Mix]

As far as I'm concerned at this point, weak men (who desire delicate flowers in gilded cages) and weak women (who are willing to be that flower) deserve each other; and neither will have a rich or fulfilling relationship in all of their days if they abide by such nonsense -- and it will be nobody's fault but their own.

 

[pwfaith]

On another note, it's nice to see you around, pwfaith.

Thanks! It's been a busy few months. And I got a new laptop for Christmas :trampo: No more trying to read between broken lines of my screen (thanks to the XBox controller that had been dropped on it), or trying to remember which keys are which and trying to type without them (thanks to my toddler removing them), or virus' :woohoo:Makes posting and reading online SO much easier!

 

[Songbird]

Thanks! It's been a busy few months. And I got a new laptop for Christmas :trampo: No more trying to read between broken lines of my screen (thanks to the XBox controller that had been dropped on it), or trying to remember which keys are which and trying to type without them (thanks to my toddler removing them), or virus' :woohoo:Makes posting and reading online SO much easier!

Yay for a new laptop! Haha, I totally understand toddler and keyboard incompatibility!

 

[Sunstone]

These are topics I'm not debating, especially as I don't view the Bible as having any kind of divinity or authority in and of itself.

I simply find the woman submission directive harmful, less effective than egalitarianism, and clung to for reasons that stem from lengthy justifications rather than observation of real results.

Not bad reasoning, for a girl.

 

[Songbird]

Not bad reasoning, for a girl.

I batted my eyes while I wrote it.

 

[pwfaith]

That's exactly what I meant when couples forgo opportunities to develop conflict-resolution skills by this style of relationship. It may solve some short-term conflicts, but imo, it fosters resentment on the part of the spouse who feels pressured into submitting and creates more long-term problems. It seems much healthier to simply discuss things more fully. Personally, when it comes to something like getting a dog, if one of us really didn't want one and the other did, we probably wouldn't get one because doggie inconveniences would then cause tension.

...and it's odd to me that this kind of decision is viewed in context of submission. I'd call it a normal discussion with a reasonable result.

I can't speak for other couples but submission does not mean forgoing opportunities to develop conflict resolution. Perhaps in extreme fundie type relationship but that is not what is meant biblically for the relationship to be like. People grossly misunderstand the nature of the submissive/spiritual leader relationship. I can only speak for our relationship personally but trust me we've had MANY opportunities over the years to develop our conflict resolution skills and communication skills :lol

There was a time when we misunderstood this too. When we were married early on, we fought at lot. Probably not as much as some other couples but likely just as much as most. 2 people joining their lives ='s natural conflict, imo. We're both pretty strong willed people too. In order for the relationship to work there MUST be great amounts of mutual respect as well. It is not all 'give, give, give' or the woman giving 100% while the husband gives nothing. We don't believe any marriage is really 50/50, but rather 80/20. Sometimes I give 80% and he gives 20%, other times he is the one giving 80% and I'm only able to give 20%.

Submission is all about having the right heart attitude. It is not and should NEVER be about feeling pressured to submit. There have been times I didn't want to submit and I didn't. During those times our marriage was rocky. I didn't resist submission b/c I felt pressured to do it by my DH though. I resisted it b/c I was being stubborn and selfish. I wanted *my* way and only *my* way. Marriage shouldn't be like that. It was not an issue with my DH, it was an issue with my heart attitude that needed to change. I was proud. I have seen first hand the kind of marriages proud people have, and it's not the kind of marriage I want. I've also seen how they typically end up - bitter, angry and/or divorced. There was a time when I was actually too submissive. I distinctly remember once when DH and I got into a "discussion" and he told me I was being too submissive. Honestly, I was confused. I thought I was suppose to be submissive, how could one be TOO submissive. I was young, immature and frankly just had an unseasoned heart and understanding of this part of marriage. As we talked more and more, I came to understand biblically we are seen as one flesh, we are suppose to be best friends, partners, teammates, companions, etc. Not leader and follower. While my husband IS the spiritual leader for our family and there are some times where ultimately a decision will just be his to make, the process that leads to that decision is to be as a team and made together if at all possible. In 12 yrs of marriage I cannot honestly think of one time he has had to make a decision without me, big decisions at least.

Recently we have had several friends marriages end or at least go through some pretty brutal issues. In thinking over every single one of them, not one of them has followed this biblical guide. In every single one of them there is a battle for "leadership", there is pride, and less communication. DH and I frequently comment about TV shows and the roles displayed in married couples. Look at shows like King of Queens and Everybody Love Raymond. Those men are completely controlled by their wives, and they look like total morons. It drives me absolutely batty to hear them try to have a discussion about something. They can't communicate. I always sit back thinking "why don't you just say what you're thinking, why beat around the bush and hide so much" It's one of my BIGGEST pet peeves on TV.

I know people talk about having an "equal marriage", but I'm sorry I think that's total BS. Marriage is rarely completely equal. Someone is always having to give in, compromise is part of life. It should never however always be the same person having to compromise though. Marriage is a give and take, and shouldn't be always give or always take by either spouse. That's not a marriage or a friendship. That's just living together.

I do try to live by the Bible verse "A soft answer turns away wrath." and Thumper's mothers words of wisdom "If you can't say something nice... don't say nothing at all." If I can't speak softly or say something nice, I try not to speak UNTIL I can People have this idea that submission is being a doormat, always agreeing with everything your DH says, does, wants, never communicating or getting in disputes. People who think that are well, wrong! To live like that isn't normal, or what God expects. God expects husbands and wives to live in mutual respect, loving one another, caring about each other more than they care about themselves and in doing this both will listen to what the other has to say, take it into careful consideration, etc. I know b/c my husband loves me like Christ loves the church, he will talk to be about the important things and he desires my input. That's Christ-like love. He will value and use my input to make those important decisions. I know that b/c he loves me my input is extremely important and I try to give him the absolute best godly advice I possibly can. It's easy to submit to his decisions b/c I know they come from a deep love for me, us as a couple and for us as a family - a love so deep it can hardly be described. It's not easy to submit. It's easy to be a doormat and just let him do whatever. BTDT and it was easy to just remove myself from all responsibility and let it just fall on him. It takes work to sacrifice your own pride and put your faith first and follow my husband sometimes. I'm a selfish person sometimes and I know it, but I don't want to be, but I'm thankful to have been able to see God work in my husband over the years. It wasn't always easy to be submissive to him. He'll admit to that lol He was arrogant and harsh at one point (learned from his father). and we were both stubborn. I'm thankful we have grown as a couple and individuals to a point where we can readily work together and be the people God has called us to be and fulfill the roles God has give us as submissive wife and godly spiritual leader.

 

[CavalryWorshipCenter]

One must remember that Pail's epistles are also letters to the early church. Where he says for women to be quiet he is simply asking for a courtesy that some of the illiterate women of that day refrain from speaking while he's teaching. Remember the gospel was new and most women couldnt understand the mosaic law let alone the new covenant. Men are to be the priests of their homes and imitate Christ. Thats all that should be said would Christ be a total control freak, no.

 

[pwfaith]

The problem is, that's not exactly what certain Christians promote. They may start with just what you said, then go onto say the wife is supposed to submit more, and they couch it in pretty words - how the wife is being Christlike, or in God's will, or something to make it sound wonderful. To me, that's an insidious form of manipulation. If I exaggerated that more, I could endorse slavery and tell my slave it's biblical to do his/her servitude with joy, and that it's a Christ-like role. I could add your second paragraph (above) to this, and have an argument people used for hundreds of years.

Mutual submission is perhaps the same thing I support, but without the connotation of doing something unpleasant or difficult. Deference, give-and-take, and compromise are how I'd describe it. To me submission generally involves fuzzycuffs, a whip, and a lot of leather...

Who said anything was wrong with that kind of submission too?

I find it interesting that at the very beginning of this whole passage on marriage the first verse in that section is "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." Yet people still think it is only the wife that has to submit. But it clearly says "submit to one another" first and foremost.

Great commentary I found on this passage:

When we submit to one another, it means we consider the other persons feelings as important as our own.

These verses do not mean that a wife is supposed to be a slave to her husband. But the wife needs to submit herself to her husband as a partner in marriage. The husband and wife must be in agreement in order for a marriage to work, and they must learn how to communicate their feelings to each other. A wife should not make an important family decision without submitting it to her husband just as a husband should not make an important decision without considering his wife’s feelings and concerns.

This statement may come as a surprise to those who have been used to place undue stress on a husband’s authority over his wife. To be sure, he has that authority and should exercise it, but never in a domineering manner. The comparison with Christ as head of the church reveals in what sense the husband is the wife’s head. He is her head as being vitally interested in her welfare. He is her protector. His pattern is Christ who, as head of the church, is its Savior!

How much should husbands love their wives? As much as Christ loved us by dying for us. Husbands need to be willing to make sacrifices for their family. They must be willing to sacrifice their own wants and ambitions for the good of the marriage. If husbands would concentrate on the teaching in this verse, we would have fewer marital problems.

Just as Christ cleanses his church, we can have a positive influence on our spouse. It is easier to follow the Christian walk when those around us are also setting a good Christian example.

Cherish -- Husbands must cherish their wives. They must be concerned for their welfare, and they must not be afraid to express their love. If we cherish someone, we want only the best for them.


Nurture -- Husbands need to nurture their wives. I think this means help them to reach their full potential -- encourage them and assist them in their endeavors. There’s an old saying "Behind every successful man is a woman." But I think it’s equally important that behind every successful woman is her husband helping, nurturing, and encouraging her.
​

Seriously I cannot count the number of women I have heard talk about how they don't feel their husbands listen to them, encourage them, romance them, treat them with respect, help them - be it around the house or with the kids, etc - just sit around playing video games all day, or stay out with the guys while she is stuck at home with the kids, how much they so desperately want their husbands to acknowledge them and the work they do around the house, hold them, and show them love. Or how many men have talked about how their wives bad-mouth them to their friends, talk down to them at home, complain about everything they do, nag them, don't have time for them, are too tired for them, etc. It's sad. Neither is showing the other respect or love. That's not what God desires Breaks my heart. People fail to continue to communicate, for a variety of reasons imo, they get too busy, don't make time to communicate, don't think it's important enough to - even over the "little things", are too proud to just listen to the other person rather than always being on the defense, etc. That's not limited to Christian or non-Christian marriages. It happens in both. I think people just fear the term "submission/submit" b/c of the incorrect understanding and misuse of it over the years. I have talked to SO many non-Christians who have almost the same marriage we have, they act much the same way we do in our roles, yet they are just SO afraid of that word and the connotations they think it has (most of which are just untrue).

 

[pwfaith]

Yes, I can see that view. I don't understand how it relates to the argument that men currently have authority over women, or what that involves exactly. All it conveys to me is a sense of superiority for no reason.

IMO this is another common misunderstanding. Leadership does not = authority over. It can, but does not inherently. Christian leadership isn’t about authority. I have been a leader multiple times in various types of venues. At times it did require me to be authoritative, other times it simply meant I was their guide, the lead in the group, but no one person was in authority over anyone else. I think this is a myth people have of what it means to be a Christian leader.

 

[CavalryWorshipCenter]

A man can not and probably will not submit to his wife, a woman can not and probably will not submit to her husband unless the first submit to the Cross of Christ.

 

[Sunstone]

A man can not and probably will not submit to his wife, a woman can not and probably will not submit to her husband unless the first submit to the Cross of Christ.

That's a rather damning indictment of the Cross of Christ.

 

[Sunstone]

I think the husband should have a jackboot and use it on his wife's neck, but never in a domineering manner. Just tenderly. Like the Bible says.

 

[lunakilo]

very good suggestion , but if she decide to go work there after the mariage?

Again if the husband and wife agreed before the marriage that it is not acceptable to work there, then she should not.
If this is a kind situation which the husband and wife have never discussed before then they need to do so now. Hopefully either the husband or the wife would be back down so that a solution could be found.

Either the wife would realize that this is an issue which is hurtful to her husband and she might decide that making her husband happy by not working at the strip club is more important than her wish to work there.
Or the husband would be convienced by the wifes reasons for wanting to work at the strip club and decide that his love and trust in her is more important to him than his own discomfort at the situation.

If no compromise can be made and no solution can be found then the marriage is in trouble.

An example from the real world:
My husband and I were a couple for a long time before we got married.
One of our main points of dispute was that I wanted children and he didn't.
We argued over this for years until I finally told him that this was useless.
This was not a point I was willing to compromise on.
If he didn't want to have children, he would have to find someone else not to have them with.

If he had felt as strongly as me about this we would have boken up.
But fortunately he decided that he would rather have children with me than not have children without me.
We now have the two most fantastic children in the world

or if he discover that she was a stripper (she hide this secret from him ) , what suppose he do (in the western ) cases for your opinion ?

In this case I smell foul play.
If she has deliberately kept this secret from him it must be because she knew he would not approve.
So if she knows he will not approve but marries him anyway and then insists on going out to do something she knows he will not like then she is a bad wife (in my opinion)

I could understand that she might want to hide the fact that she was once a stripper from him for fear of loosing him if she knows he would not approve (But I personally think that honesty is very important, so If I were her I would tell my husband and hope he would not leave rather than marrying him and live in constant fear that he would find out about my past and then leave), but to hide it from him only to throw it in his face after they are married is just wrong.
If I was that husband I would divorce her on the spot.

the main reason is money , but maybe the hiding reason she use the trust of her husband to cheat on him .

Money could indeed be a good reason for taking a lousy job.
Maybe her reason for working there is that it is the only way she can think of to earn enough money to pay off the family's financial debt.

So what if she is using that story as a cover to cheat on her husband.
Even if the husband forbade her to work there her wish to cheat on her husband would not go away.
Most likely she would just find some other way to cheat on him.

Wouldn't it be better to trust her and if she ends up cheating she is a lousy wife and he should leave her.

 

[lunakilo]

I said in normal situation , it's never happen
for sick or for old (expired , sorry for this exemple) , it's maybe happened

I cant imagine mariage without sex .

I totally agree with you here

I am sure there could be many reasons why a married couple would not have sex, but it is not the norm.