When Should Women Obey Their Husbands?

[Robert.Evans]

That is what I pack as my concealed, too. A stainless Colt Government MK IV 380. A nice little gun.

*

haha... what are you people like! You sit there judging me and then carry a gun to kill people with. Madness!

 

[Robert.Evans]

According to the law it is in many places, and soon everywhere. Too bad for you folks, great for everyone else.

*

As mans laws, sure, but not God's laws. So use what you use and do what you so, but at the end, pay the piper.... there is always the piper to pay.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

This is not what "headship" means in the godly sense. I Iike how you said "he admonishes and guides toward what is Godly." That is true. The husband is to admonish and guide, but not to make decisions unilaterally.

Well, if the buck stops with him, then yes. Ultimately, he does make decisions unilaterally, or at least he is supposed to.

For consenual power-distinct relationships, I don't have a problem with that. For relationships that establish that this is how it is supposed to be without consent from both partners, where there is shame or coercion, I have a big problem with that and feel there is no place for that in a marriage.

There is no rightful place for dominance in marriage.

You are having a conversation with a domme right now. FYI.

He is to take the lead, but they are to be equal partners. The ultimate accountability before God is to fall upon his shoulders, though they are both accountable to God for their own actions. The patriarch answers first and foremost to God, whether by God's own voice through the Holy Spirit, or by the voice of His servants, the prophets and elders of the church. Secondly, he is accountable to his wife, for they are to be united in the eyes of the Lord.

You are saying what I was saying. And this I believe creates problems in the convenience of discourse.

Husband answers to God first, then prophets and elders. THEN he is accountable to his wife.

Wife answers to God first, then husband.

So understand how easy it is for the husband to admonish and call his wife to task if she is running amok, but how difficult it is for a wife to call her husband to task if he is running amok according to this set up.

They must not live secret or dual lives, and should keep nothing from each other, otherwise they could not be each others' companions and advocates (this same principle goes for our individual relationships with God). If the husband is acting according to the will of God, and the wife also, they will discuss and pray about family decisions, and the Holy Spirit of God will be their confirming witness of what is right. The wife will rarely have to rely solely on the husband's word, for ninety nine percent of the time she will be able to discern the righteousness of it. In the times she does not know if it be right, she can take confidence in his divinely appointed role as patriarch and that God will warn her if he steps amiss.

This only works if both spouses find themselves in agreement 99% of the time and experience the Holy Spirit the same way 99% of the time.

The real world, unfortunately, doesn't work that way. Everybody is different with different perspectives, different histories, different emotional attachments and revulsions, and even within the same faith system different interpretations of doctrine and church sermons.

In working with women who have escaped coerced patriarchal marriages, the intentions always begin with good intentions, but ultimately the wife is assumed to either see things her husbands way or, well, to be wrong. And especially wrong if she were to speak up and offer something different.

A husband can easily say to her "I know you sound reasonable, but how am I to know that Satan isn't deceiving you and trying to deceive me?"

And truly believe he is acting in accordance to his role as head of the marriage.

*When a man and a woman enter into the eternal covenant of marriage, they form a three-dimensional relationship with God. Not only is the man and woman bound together by that covenant, but they are both bound to God forming a triangular relationship, with Him being at the pinnacle. As the husband and wife obey God's commandments, they both draw closer to Him and simultaneously to each other. You see? Their salvation becomes co-dependant. The husband cannot offend his wife without offending himself as they are to be one flesh by covenant.

All throughout patriarchal constructs, the assumption of interpretation is made through the Male Default. That women experience life, death, health, children, and doctrine not through her own perspective with her own relationship with a deity, but through her husband's interpretation of her perspective.

Systemic patriarchal constructs are inherently abusive. Only when individuals consent to power-distinct relationships can the risk of abuse be lessened. Only when power-distinct relationships realize that the subs have the power by defining the boundaries, and not the dominants, can there be checks and balances in real time within households.

When you and others insist that if the buck stops with the husband, but the husband is also the one who admonishes and guides, in power-distinct relationships this places all the power into the hands of fallible humans who are all too prone to making mistakes.

In power-distinct relationships, the healthier and more ethical structure is the dominant admonishes and guides, but the buck stops squarely with the sub.

Hence, "safe word." This structure lessens risk for abuse and rape.

My problem with systemic patriarchal or matriarchal constructs is that the risk for abuse and rape is entirely too high.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Correct. Now that wasn't difficult was it.

No, it isn't difficult to understand a position. But understanding a position and disagreeing with it isn't difficult either. And that is exactly what I have been doing....understanding it, and disagreeing with it.

Vehemently disagreeing with it.

 

[savagewind]

Funny.
I have already said it depended on who you are speaking of. You think of the secular world perhaps, or those not truly enlightened. But why would you think it meant all the time about everything? The man is the head of the
woman and the woman is the help-meet which means she is the ''counterpart'' to the man.
That does not imply she has no brain.
If she were a counterpart, one would expect her to be able to communicate with the man. (I don't even know why I have to explain all these things). And the woman only has to defer to the man if he is within the confines of the law... and that ultimately comes from ''love your fellow man'', which means he can do no harm to her.... but that does not mean the woman takes advantage of that to manipulate situations.

Being allowed to do things is not licence to do them. Keeping people off the grass so as not to damage it, does not mean the sons and daughters cannot go on it. But it might be seen as the right thing to do, to not go on it, as it would be taking advantage of someone's good nature.

No not funny. It is what everyone else here is saying and you disagreeing with. Because they speak from a secular view you do not hear? Why?
For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light Luke 18:8
14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, Romans 2:15

 

[Revoltingest]

Haha.... to an English man, that is funny... going to dinner, so pack my gun, just in case the soup is cold

Well, you've never been to Detroit, which is one of the most violent cities in the country. Last nite, I noticed how every other house was demolished or gutted by fire or vandals....bars on windows, barbed wire on fences, graffiti everywhere. It's hard to explain concealed carry to ferriners who aren't allowed guns. Handguns don't address most disagreements like cold soup (I had tacos & roasted chicken). They're almost idle things which are employed only in rare & threatening circumstances.

 

[Revoltingest]

....the mysandristic bull that comes from your mouth.....

Hey, now....that's unduely harsh.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Hey, now....that's unduely harsh.

I think it is fair, considering she says the same comes from me. I'm all for equality me.

 

[Robert.Evans]

No not funny. It is what everyone else here is saying and you disagreeing with. Because they speak from a secular view you do not hear? Why?
For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light Luke 18:8
14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, Romans 2:15

The first part sounds as though you are against me, and the second part with. so which is it?

 

[savagewind]

The first part sounds as though you are against me, and the second part with. so which is it?

I don't understand the question.

 

[maggie2]

Under what conditions, if any, should a woman habitually obey her husband? Are there any conditions under which a woman should not obey her husband?

If a woman should habitually obey her husband, why should she habitually obey her husband? Is a woman who does not habitually obey her husband acting in an immoral manner?

If a woman believes her husband is a fool, should she still habitually obey him? If a woman believes her husband is abusive, should she still obey him?

Bonus Question: Why is nearly every woman on the Forum secretly in love with Debater Slayer despite his appalling taste in socks?

You're kidding me right? Are you actually serious about these questions?

I'll tell you when a woman should obey her husband - when the house is on fire and he tells her to get out. When a car is coming and she's going to cross the street and he yells stop. When there is danger to her, him or another human being then she should obey her husband if his instructions will resolve the situation. Otherwise she is free to be an equal human being with any man, including her husband and has no obligation to obey him whatsoever.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think it is fair, considering she says the same comes from me. I'm all for equality me.

Isn't the best equality to emulate the finer points in one's foe?
(Of couse, I fail at actually practicing that philosophy.)

 

[Ingledsva]

The law applies to those who don't keep it, firstly.
Secondly, ever thought of eating only vegetables etc? Why do you feed the need to kill? Is it a power thing... men do it, so you have to do it, to prove you can kill just like a man?

And might I add, I can't believe the mysandristic bull that comes from your mouth also.

Do you believe in God? My guess is no, but you used to.

Christian religious law only applies to Christians.

Why would I eat veggies only? I'm an omnivore.

You don't listen do you. I wasn't raised to be a passive idiot. I was raised in Alaska just like the other boys and girls. I was taught to hunt and fish, and live off the land.

I am Agnostic. Also, I don't believe God (if there is one) has revealed any religion to humans.

Humans make up their religions.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

It is a myth. And There is not enough time from their children, to now, for all the diversity we have in humans.

But that is YOUR misunderstanding of scripture. We all have some, you just have more than most

Really? LOL! Your Bible gives the genealogies, which is how Christians figure the time from Adam's children to now. NOT ENOUGH TIME! Would you like to explain how I am misunderstanding?

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Someone else's crimes? Where? And as for being a ''f-lse book'' and ''know''ing it, that my dear, is only in your gun toting mind.

What do you call killing the First born because Pharaoh wouldn't let the Hebrew go? And I might add that your Bible says God said he was going to make it so Pharaoh wouldn't let them go! So straight out murder of the innocent.

It says God killed David's baby, because David committed a crime, etc.

The flood story. Obviously no infants were guilty of anything. Killed for someone else's supposed crimes.

*

 

[Robert.Evans]

Really? LOL! Your Bible gives the genealogies, which is how Christians figure the time from Adam's children to now. NOT ENOUGH TIME! Would you like to explain how I am misunderstanding?

*

You are listening to them, that is how. And it is not all of them.

 

[Ingledsva]

haha... what are you people like! You sit there judging me and then carry a gun to kill people with. Madness!

MY, you really feel threatened by me don't you.

Why don't you try backing off the red-herring attacks on everything I mention, and stick to the thread.

I mean REALLY? Do you need to attack my use of weapons, and hunting, and eating meat? LOL!

If I mention Kewpie dolls in a conversation, - what is your ridiculous attack going to be? How dare I mention ugly Satanic items? LOL!

 

[Robert.Evans]

What do you call killing the First born because Pharaoh wouldn't let the Hebrew go? And I might add that your Bible says God said he was going to make it so Pharaoh wouldn't let them go! So straight out murder of the innocent.

It says God killed David's baby, because David committed a crime, etc.

The flood story. Obviously no infants were guilty of anything. Killed for someone else's supposed crimes.

*

Okay, take your point. But that is a big story. Why not look at bombs dropped on the Middle East that kill innocent people. If God was in control then, why not now? So what would you say to that if it was written into a modern bible and you read it? What is the difference.

 

[Robert.Evans]

MY, you really feel threatened by me don't you.

Why don't you try backing off the red-herring attacks on everything I mention, and stick to the thread.

I mean REALLY? Do you need to attack my use of weapons, and hunting, and eating meat? LOL!

If I mention Kewpie dolls in a conversation, - what is your ridiculous attack going to be? How dare I mention ugly Satanic items? LOL!

What makes you think I am threatened? Lost me there, along with the doll until you explained it.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Oh, and by th e way, a lot of what you say tends to be wrong, that is why I keep answering everything you say. It is called a discussion.