Any brain know stop? This one doesn't.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
When Should Women Obey Their Husbands?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
I disagree. Anyone who is expected to obey somebody else regardless of their opinions is obeying and in a more submissive position than the head of that entity.
If you describe the husband as the "head" in a marriage in all things, how do you describe the wife? She is not the head, therefore she is the _______ (fill in the blank).
Descriptors are very helpful in determining nuances, by the way.
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
You are speaking for secularists I suppose.
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
The OT ''obey'' is mostly covered by the Hebrew: ''shama'' which means ''hear''.
The NT is mostly ''hupakouo'' which appears to mean ''hear under'', ''listen attentively,'' ''conform to''. Though there are other words in the OT and NT none of them specifically seem to mean obey.
So without going into a big study on this, it might be better to say ''listen to'' or ''conform'' rather than obey. There is probably little difference in the end, but perhaps we think of slave when we think of obey.
Either way, the lord gave his word to those who ''hear '' or were ''attentive to'' and they passed it onto others and in turn it arrived with us. So it is up to the woman to ''hear'' the word of her husband and be ''attentive to it''. This does not, for those faint of heart, mean she cannot engage her brain and communicate in a discussion with him, as women have always done. But as the man is head of the woman, though this might be seen in the sense of created first, it should also be seen as he being the one where the buck stops. This of course requires great humility from women, and western women in particular, who seem to have great difficulties with it.
The NT is mostly ''hupakouo'' which appears to mean ''hear under'', ''listen attentively,'' ''conform to''. Though there are other words in the OT and NT none of them specifically seem to mean obey.
So without going into a big study on this, it might be better to say ''listen to'' or ''conform'' rather than obey. There is probably little difference in the end, but perhaps we think of slave when we think of obey.
Either way, the lord gave his word to those who ''hear '' or were ''attentive to'' and they passed it onto others and in turn it arrived with us. So it is up to the woman to ''hear'' the word of her husband and be ''attentive to it''. This does not, for those faint of heart, mean she cannot engage her brain and communicate in a discussion with him, as women have always done. But as the man is head of the woman, though this might be seen in the sense of created first, it should also be seen as he being the one where the buck stops. This of course requires great humility from women, and western women in particular, who seem to have great difficulties with it.
I "hear" you are split. You begin well and I agree! Then you return to your default and say it does mean obey. Also, I "hear" you insulting people who do not share with you the truth according to Robert.The OT ''obey'' is mostly covered by the Hebrew: ''shama'' which means ''hear''.
The NT is mostly ''hupakouo'' which appears to mean ''hear under'', ''listen attentively,'' ''conform to''. Though there are other words in the OT and NT none of them specifically seem to mean obey.
So without going into a big study on this, it might be better to say ''listen to'' or ''conform'' rather than obey. There is probably little difference in the end, but perhaps we think of slave when we think of obey.
Either way, the lord gave his word to those who ''hear '' or were ''attentive to'' and they passed it onto others and in turn it arrived with us. So it is up to the woman to ''hear'' the word of her husband and be ''attentive to it''. This does not, for those faint of heart, mean she cannot engage her brain and communicate in a discussion with him, as women have always done. But as the man is head of the woman, though this might be seen in the sense of created first, it should also be seen as he being the one where the buck stops. This of course requires great humility from women, and western women in particular, who seem to have great difficulties with it.
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Obey is more to do with listen to. It does not prevent communication.
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
The simple bottom line is it means obey, but that does not mean it is like a master to a slave, that is why i said it takes great humility. And as pointed out, it depends on who you are speaking of, believers or secularists.
I know. Thank you. I say listen (which is translated "obey") means "take into consideration". No need to talk about it always. It means consider the man's way. Does it EVER mean plain old obey? I say NO!. A man does not consider a womans way naturally. When he does it is a special occurrence for many, but not all. Woman though are naturally inclined to consider her husband's way. Perhaps the writer means to say women should not deny their natural inclination to submit. It is not a rule TO submit. It is a rule (and not a law) to keep her natural inclination to submit.
I think no one finished the sentence. She is not the head, therefore she is the heart (fill in the blank).
right, I can hear you.
I only speak for myself. I make it a point to refrain from speaking for others.
What is the bolded part based off? Is it doctrinal, anecdotal, evidence-based?
How is a man "naturally" not as considerate of a woman's way as it is vice-versa?
Thanks for filling in the sentence I offered. Is there a reason why that sentiment isn't as expressed as much as reiterating the headship of the husband? In my time as a Christian, that sentiment was actually never expressed. It was always an admonishment toward women to submit to the leadership to their husbands. There was never any admonishment toward men to submit to the "heartship" (or however it is expressed) of their wives.
And if that is the role, how do husbands submit to their wives in such a manner?
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Good.
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
hmmm... right. You not speaking about society? that just don't sound right, does it?
You just have to take a look at the world.
They love them.
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
And if the man loves, and I think it says the woman respects the man.... we must consider why it does not have it say that the woman also should love, but rather, respect. Takes us back to ''hearing the word of your man'' does it not, to ''conform'' to what he says. Obey is perhaps too strong a word nowadays for sensitive feminist.
It is in a woman's best interest to "conform" but not if what he wants her to conform to is bad. OK? Some people have God saying conform for good or bad. That is not A Father speaking.
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
It depends on who you speak of, as I have already said. If it is two people who are enlightened to the highest degree, then there should be no problems. Only if one of them is not and the other is, or if they both are not will you then see problems... but those problems are of the world, and some of them were the examples that you gave.
To do all the work while being more-or-less ignored and abused until the pain is so great that it causes significant problems for the whole, if not death? Because that's the role of the "heart" in relation to the "head".