Posted on 03/29/2017 11:45:05 AM PDT by Delta 21
The President is chewing the press up.
Most woman won’t obey a man just because he is a man and rightly so. A society like today has too for things to do than live as property to some man. This interpretation sounds more Islamic than Christian.
Different roles in the family are only possible where there is a family for starters. Other than the role of commander and commandee in a nuclear family there are many shared roles either parent can do and should do. Unfortunately, the problem in our society is far deeper than such a simple solution. When the society is subsidizing the birth of (later) vicious bastards such concepts become trivial and irrelevant.
One of the major problems is because there are no father figures in their “family’ which actually causes a devaluation of feminine figures. Who would encourage the subjugation of highly accomplished woman to a wastrel husband or a crack head?
If you don’t believe the Bible then none of this will make sense to you even though the idea that your intrinsic value as a person does not depend upon your particular role should not be beyond your grasp. Most people know that they have as much intrinsic value as their boss. Same with women.
If you do believe the Bible, you should know better.
There is nothing in Christianity which suggests that women are to be subordinate to men. What if the husband is a Moslem, is the woman to be commanded to raise their children as Moslems? What if he is an atheist? Is the woman supposed to tamely submit to his beliefs?
Old Testament proclamations were issued when civilization among the Hebrews was limited to a pastoral society which no longer exists. Is the adultress to be stoned? Once again this is a Islamic concept, not Christian.
God never intended that the Bible cover all possible situations in the future. Again that is an Islamic concept.
Should we be marrying sisters as was done in Old Testament times?
Sacrifices by killing animals also went out of style, should that be resumed as well?
That is simply not true. You seem to have ignored Scripture in the New Testament cited in the article which clearly states that the woman is subject to the man and gives the reasons why.
You don't seem to be aware that we are under the New Covenant of the grace of Jesus Christ contained in the New Testament of the Bible which is where these Scriptures live. We are no longer under the Old Covenant of the Old Testament. It seems that you either don't know the New Testament, or don't believe it, or don't care.
When my wife was alive we had a marriage between equals. Each did different things but not through any “compulsion”. When she passed I had to assume many of her roles. She had the last word in appointing the decor, the home organization and was allowed to drive which is probably on the forbidden list. Because of my training I had most say financial decisions after speaking with her. The idea of some man bossing her around against her will is hilariously ludicrous.
I note you avoid the issue of what should be done when the husband is any idiot, a bum, a drunkard or a Moslem. A quote or two in the New Testament does not overcome the far different civilization we live in.
Who said anything about that?
when the husband is any idiot, a bum
Being a bad husband doesn't relieve the wife from her honoring and obeying him any more than a bad wife relieves the husband from loving her as Christ loves the church.
when the husband is a drunkard or a Moslem [Muslim?]
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Ephesians 5:22-24.
If a wife is being physically abused or threatened, my judgment is she should leave for a safe place until things can be straightened out or for good if they can't. "As it is fit in the Lord" - God has called us to peace (1 Corinthians 7:15).
I'm giving you this even though you don't seem to receive it. As I said, it seems to me you don't believe the Bible, don't know it, or don't care.
That is a ludicrous proposition utterly out of phase with Christ’s injunctions.
Submission is against someone’s will.
I watch the programs describing the obsessive and possessive husbands who the wives try and get away from and frequently wind up dead. Apparently the killers believe as you do that their wives are nothing but property and chattel.
Leaving for good is not an option with your view since it goes against the Biblical injunction not to divorce.
Who says?
Apparently you think you are wiser than the Lord and His Word which plainly says, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord" (Eph 5:22).
obsessive and possessive husbands will frequently kill their wives
Ah, the old women's lib trick - husbands with godly wives must be "obsessive and possessive killers" but that is an irrational, unsupported conclusion and a lie from the pit of hell.
God made man and women and God has given them their respective roles. If you don't like it, your argument isn't with me it's with God, but you have no reasonable argument at all.
Who says? Try a dictionary.
The Lie here is you claiming I said something I did not say.
The only roles created by God is male and female. Nothing else. Not who has to clean house, who has to cook who has to watch the sheep. When women make the mistake of marrying a man who is her inferior in every way her obeying him would be a family disaster.
Men are almost always physically stronger but not mentally nor morally. In fact, the latter is true in most cases.
God does not want anyone to submit to immoral spouses.
You ignore and deny plain Scripture. I am not talking to a reasonable person. As I have said, you either don’t believe the New Testament of the Bible, don’t know it, or don’t care.
This discussion is going nowhere because you insist that your personal opinion trumps plain Scripture. I think we’re done.
Contrary to your belief we no longer live in isolated groups of pastoral people. Many changes result from that fact.
An Islamic interpretation of the Bible is blasphemy.
Your complete rejection of Scripture portions you don’t like is also blasphemy and a waste of my time.
Go join the Mohammedans and stone a woman for adultery.
Good bye and good luck.
In the meantime, the women’s movement is complicit in the infanticide of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of infants deaths. Your heresy can’t deny that fact, Jack.
Keep arguing with yourself since you enjoy making up things I never said.
You never said anything, are utterly confused, and a complete waste of time. Go away.
Funny that you are arguing about “nothing”.
No at first I assumed I was dealing with a reasonable person only to find I was dealing with slippery, irrational confusion.
Bye.
My confusion is questionable but I do understand the meaning of “subjection”.
Do you seriously think that women like Ruth subjected themselves to their husbands?
You are confused about the plain text of the New Testament Scripture. Your position on the New Testament of the Bible upon which which you avoid comment or reasonable response is likely that you don’t know it and what you may be aware of you don’t believe.
But you dodge and weave pretty good.
As I said before, I think we’re done here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.