When Should Women Obey Their Husbands?

[Robert.Evans]

Indeed.

Great discussion. I have just woke you up or something?

 

[savagewind]

Really! So I need you to say that do I..haha. I have not changed my position. You are just understanding it better once you climb down off the chandeliers.

I do not think so. You say it is righteous it says obey. That is the wrong track.

I agreed that what we believe God tells us permeates society.

 

[Willamena]

Great discussion. I have just woke you up or something?

No. I woke up November 10, 2006. But thanks for asking.

 

[oldbadger]

All conditions. There are no exceptions.

1 Peter 3
3 Wives, respect and obey your husbands in the same way.

Ephesians 5:22-33
22 A wife should put her husband first, as she does the Lord. 23 A husband is the head of his wife,

Colossians 3:18
Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.​

Nope. If there were they would have been mentioned.

The Bible tells her to.


Don't know about the morality of it all, but it cannot be countenanced.

Absolutely. There are are no exceptions to the law.

Absolutely. There are are no exceptions to the law.

1 Peter 3
3 Wives, respect and obey your husbands in the same way.

Ephesians 5:22-33
22 A wife should put her husband first, as she does the Lord. 23 A husband is the head of his wife,

Colossians 3:18
Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.​

I showed your post to Mrs B.
As she read it her right thumb and forefinger started to bang together and she smiled a certain toothy smile. These are not good signs, so I explained that when you quote the bible it is sometimes 'tongue in cheek'.
She said, 'Well that's better than fist in cheek. Is that geezer married, or what?'
I told her I didn't know, and she told me to ask you.
I always habitually obey.... so.....

'Skwim.... are you married, or what?'

 

[savagewind]

I shall stand by this (I can not find the original)

I am talking about society as a whole.

MAN not listening to WOMAN may be a good reason why some woman would take control. Will those women in control listen to men? They do but we are talking of society as a whole. Should they? Oh yes. In the real scenario will they? Probably not.

 

[oldbadger]

Everyone paints in broad strokes first and then cleans up what is left. That is normal. It seems you always to things the opposite way round.
The woman is not ''submissive'' to the man. She is different to the man. Just because she listens to him does not make her least to him. That is a failing of the secular society and the greed orientation of the world

Hi Robert.
My Missus wants to know if you're married.
She told me to ask you.

Here we go....
'Robert Evans..... are you married?'

 

[freethinker44]

It is part of our promordail past. The bigger male is largely going to beat the smaller male in battle.

They do say that if you are tall in business you are more likely to be successful. We follow are primordial mindset, that is why it is not always easy to change it nor wise to do so.

Just because it's in our nature doesn't make it right.

With intelligence we are able to transcend our nature, so any argument that implies a behavior is acceptable because of nature is a fallacy as long as the behavior comes from an intelligent (relatively) animal such as humans.

 

[Skwim]

I showed your post to Mrs B.
As she read it her right thumb and forefinger started to bang together and she smiled a certain toothy smile. These are not good signs, so I explained that when you quote the bible it is sometimes 'tongue in cheek'.
She said, 'Well that's better than fist in cheek. Is that geezer married, or what?'
I told her I didn't know, and she told me to ask you.
I always habitually obey.... so.....

'Skwim.... are you married, or what?'

I'm happily married with tongue in cheek.

 

[Draka]

And who is this ''someone'' I wonder. Shall I take the title ''someone''? So where is this ''sheer bile'' or the ''hateful vile repulsive notions about women''? oh and don't let us forget (as this will sound good) ''and actually, men''. Go and quote some, please do. This is the thread to expose the bile. This is the bile thread, so let's bring it on.

I don't have enough time in the day to go through and quote nearly each and every post you have made in this, and other threads. I hardly think I need to bother either as everyone else that has read your tripe already knows what I am referring to and even if I do post it for you to see you still won't see where you are wrong. You refuse to see how you are in the wrong. How what you say is remarkably offensive and so very very wrong. it does not matter how many times you are corrected, how many times you have been shown you are wrong, you ignore all of it and keep on truckin with the most absurd and insulting stuff that you can. Some of the worst I believe I've seen on this forum in the nearly 10 years I've been here.

Perhaps you have a problem with someone who has an opinion different to yours, and someone you can't control, hmmm

Nope, many people have opinions that differ from mine, don't have problems with that. I don't control anyone (with the exceptions of my children when need be), and don't intend to start. It's not something I'm interested in. I just have problems with immense ignorance and hate-filled rhetoric.

 

[Draka]

I'm happily married with tongue in cheek.

Whose cheek?

 

[Revoltingest]

Whose cheek?

Which cheek?

 

[savagewind]

I was wondering too what he means by tongue in cheek. I wonder if his post was genuine or was it for inflaming a conversation?

 

[Draka]

Which cheek?

Which type of cheek?

 

[Skwim]

Whose cheek?

Nah, that's my secret.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Empowerment isn't granted. It is claimed. Men did not give women power. Women fought for our rights. Men who came to the realization of how better it is for society that women have equal rights didn't give anyone anything, they began to stand by us.
In so doing, we both stand together and against injustice. This is where the battle of the sexes calms down.

And the lords did not give men power in the UK, we had to fight for it, not that anyone is bothered about that. But men still gave the vote to women, even if it was because of their actions, a lot of which were illegal.
Husbands usually stick by their wives. They then look after their own interests, as women do with men. In other words, it is more money into the house.

I don't do that. You misunderstand me. I speak only for myself and based on my own studies and experiences.

Do not speak for me. That is rude.

I did not mean ''you'' specifically but women generally

This is your understanding of evolutionary theory and it's application into the social sciences?

No wonder you post the things you do.

We follow the divine print which is expressed consciousness in physical terms, yes. It explains evolution.

That is exactly what feminists set out to do, ending violence against women and to establish personhood and autonomy for women. I encourage you to read the essays of prominent 19th century and First Wave feminists to get a better idea of the philosophical origins.

I'll pass if you don't mind. Destroying the family is not right, and I never, in my wildest dreams, thought women could have done it.

I advise talking with more feminists. If you are speaking with or hearing from RadFems who are more separatists, and who also discriminate against trans women as much as the most fundamentalist religion members, then you are paying attention to the absolute fringe elements of the movement.

Whether it is the sharp end of the spear or the blunt end makes no difference. One uses the other and follows the other. There is no difference.

Name three mainstream feminist scholars who say unequivocally that women are superior and that men are not to be needed. If your claim about the majority of feminism to be such, then finding these sentiments should be easy for you. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I think anyone could if you listen to the right women or search the net. I am not saying they will will be ''mainstream'' feminists. They will have to watch their manners if they are within mainstream media.

No. More associated with socio-economic conditions than gender absences. Fact

It is fact that single parent families are more problematic. It is fact that feminism went out to destroy the family.

No, not guilt. Awareness. That includes opening up shelters not just for women and men overall, but for queers, trans, and non-binary people.

I disagree that men have become placid. I find that to be a very sexist and a disrespectful statement against men.

You would do. But it is fact nevertheless.

Looks like you're insecure about following a Goddess.

In all seriousness, though, protect an institution or protect human lives, if one had to make a choice between the two, what is the most ethical or moral? Choose wisely.

The only way to the Father is through the son, not the daughter.
The law was given but not kept; that does not mean the law is wrong, but that people have to keep it.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I don't have enough time in the day to go through and quote nearly each and every post you have made in this, and other threads.

Oh I am so disapointed.

I hardly think I need to bother either as everyone else

Oh, ''everyone else'' eh...okay.

that has read your tripe

''Tripe''... nice.

already knows what I am referring to and even if I do post it for you to see you still won't see where you are wrong.

So I am wrong and it's not you. Rigghhhttt!

You refuse to see how you are in the wrong. How what you say is remarkably offensive and so very very wrong.

Show me the offensive.

it does not matter how many times you are corrected,

I have been corrected now then have I? When was this exactly.... or do you mean you have given me YOUR opinion?

how many times you have been shown you are wrong, you ignore all of it and keep on truckin with the most absurd and insulting stuff that you can.

Show me the insults. Don't forget, you said my words were ''tripe'' which might be seen as ''insulting''. Pot and kettle coming to mind??

Some of the worst I believe I've seen on this forum in the nearly 10 years I've been here.

Bout time for a change then.

Nope, many people have opinions that differ from mine, don't have problems with that.

Really? It just sounded by the above that you do.

I don't control anyone (with the exceptions of my children when need be), and don't intend to start. It's not something I'm interested in. I just have problems with immense ignorance and hate-filled rhetoric.

So don't read your own posts then.... but carry on misunderstanding someone else's

 

[Robert.Evans]

Just because it's in our nature doesn't make it right.

With intelligence we are able to transcend our nature, so any argument that implies a behavior is acceptable because of nature is a fallacy as long as the behavior comes from an intelligent (relatively) animal such as humans.

We have to allow for those of more primordial nature. It is they who are most likely to do the most damage. If you think all of the human race walks round with big colourful dickie bows, you're wrong.

 

[Robert.Evans]

No. I woke up November 10, 2006. But thanks for asking.

And unless you're about nine years old, I would think that means you now don't believe. Care to answer that, or is it more riddles?

 

[Robert.Evans]

I do not think so. You say it is righteous it says obey. That is the wrong track.

I agreed that what we believe God tells us permeates society.

I do not understand the first part of that. Care to fill in the missing words.

 

[freethinker44]

We have to allow for those of more primordial nature. It is they who are most likely to do the most damage. If you think all of the human race walks round with big colourful dickie bows, you're wrong.

We don't have to accommodate those who live by their "primordial" nature. We don't have to allow that at all, that's what we built prisons for.