How stupid are religious leaders?

04/22/2010 05:41:59 PM · #126

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And yet Paul greets Phoebe as a deacon of the church. What gives? I'll openly say I don't particularly like this verse and would chalk it up to a cultural choice or even having a specific reason within that church for such a prohibition.

Simple... you're reading the Word of Men.

Be it the word of men or the word of God, Paul obviously isn't as stringent as the verse might sound. He doesn't in one breath say women should never speak in church and then in the next greet Phoebe as a deacon. Even within the same letter Paul says, "And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her headâ��it is just as though her head were shaved." Do you think that Paul forgot in two chapters that women pray or speak prophecy? That's difficult to do while remaining silent.

We are going down a bit of a rabbit hole though since the conversation was about roles within marriage and not roles within the church. The two need not be the same.

Message edited by author 2010-04-22 17:42:42.

04/22/2010 05:56:57 PM · #127

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

We are going down a bit of a rabbit hole though since the conversation was about roles within marriage and not roles within the church. The two need not be the same.

The point was that you stated that you do share the belief in marriage in the traditional Christian/Biblical sense that does pretty much put women in a subordinate role.

Is that not true?

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

04/22/2010 06:06:09 PM · #128

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Do you think that Paul forgot in two chapters that women pray or speak prophecy?

You assume both were written by Paul. Most contemporary biblical scholars maintain that the latter verses could not have come from Paul.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/22/2010 06:09:49 PM · #129

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

We are going down a bit of a rabbit hole though since the conversation was about roles within marriage and not roles within the church.

Actually NO... I do believe the primary intent of the OP was to demonstrate just how some religious leaders would have us believe that earthquakes and other similar forms of natural disasters are the fault of women and loose morals.

Ray

04/22/2010 06:12:48 PM · #130

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

If you have no grudge, you wouldn't be trying to impose your personal views on DrAchoo's life, something you've been very vocal about other people doing, time and time again.

I'm not trying to impose my views on Jason. I'm merely disagreeing with him as to his opinion of what a marriage is as he represents his.

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

You don't even KNOW what ideas Jason or his wife HAVE. You are assuming things based on your own narrow view of what is right for women. Equality, believe it or not, means being able to CHOOSE the life you wish to live. No matter what that life is.

No, I'm not assuming anything, I'm just responding relative to what he's saying. I really don't care at all what you think my view of women may be, though it's patenly obvious you make your own assumptions.

And I certainly don't look to you on any level for definitions.

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Here's a shocker for you: Your beliefs don't get to dictate what that choice is.

Never said they did, never thought they should, never indicated as such, but you believe whatever you want regardless.....

Ed, why do you bother? You never agree with what anyone says, and you spend your time trying to suck the most negative aspects from the conversation and pick at them, obviously trying to inflame.

You don't actually seem to be interested in the conversations, just what you can grab onto and poke at......

What's your point?

04/22/2010 06:16:53 PM · #131

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
None of that really matters Scalvert. The point is, nobody has the right to say that Jason's relationship is in any way 'wrong', or 'not as close' as another, or anything else that has been spouted off...

Read the posts. I never suggested his relationship was wrong or inappropriate. His relationship is irrelevant to the question at hand because it bears little resemblance to the questionable precepts we're discussing as the will of God. Jason is arguing from his personal concept of God's will to defend questions of what the Bible actually says, and those are not equivalent. As much as he'd like us to look at only the "good" side of the Bible (why would there be any bad side?), the role of women is indisputably subordinate to men (also evidenced by his own observation of church leadership). Galatians' claim that all people are equal does nothing to dispel that women must submit in all mattersâ�� they cannot have any authority over men, period. At best, it directly contradicts the "word of God" that all are NOT equal, but of course that would whiff right over the heads of the faithful. Walk into an elementary school and loudly proclaim that women are never to teach, and I'll wager it becomes crystal clear what modern society thinks of a woman's place as mandated by the Bible... we mostly ignore it.

To answer the weak question, though, women of the time would prefer the Biblical concept over alternatives of the day for the same reason slaves did: it required that they be treated decently. Of course, they were still slaves, and this doesn't help your argument.

I didn't say YOU did, I said that it was happening. You, however, are condoning it by arguing a ridiculous comparison that in no way applies. Quite frankly, you're pretty much wrong here, you're doing exactly what you hate about religion, when religion does it, and you're purposely blinding yourself to it. Good job.

04/22/2010 06:18:31 PM · #132

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
If you have no grudge, you wouldn't be trying to impose your personal views on DrAchoo's life, something you've been very vocal about other people doing, time and time again.

I'm not trying to impose my views on Jason. I'm merely disagreeing with him as to his opinion of what a marriage is as he represents his.
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
You don't even KNOW what ideas Jason or his wife HAVE. You are assuming things based on your own narrow view of what is right for women. Equality, believe it or not, means being able to CHOOSE the life you wish to live. No matter what that life is.

No, I'm not assuming anything, I'm just responding relative to what he's saying. I really don't care at all what you think my view of women may be, though it's patenly obvious you make your own assumptions.

And I certainly don't look to you on any level for definitions.
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Here's a shocker for you: Your beliefs don't get to dictate what that choice is.

Never said they did, never thought they should, never indicated as such, but you believe whatever you want regardless.....

Ed, why do you bother? You never agree with what anyone says, and you spend your time trying to suck the most negative aspects from the conversation and pick at them, obviously trying to inflame.

You don't actually seem to be interested in the conversations, just what you can grab onto and poke at......

What's your point?

Wow, really? *pinches bridge of nose between fingers*

Alright, here we go:

1) I'm not trying to impose my views on Jason. "I can guarantee my relationship with lisa is closer than yours." Sound familiar? That's not 'disagreement'. That's a blatant backhand at his relationship based on YOUR preconceived notions. Live and let live only matters if it's others letting you live, right?

2) No, I'm not assuming anything, I'm just responding relative to what he's saying. All Jason's ever said is that his relationship is based on certain aspects of his religious teachings. You, and Scalvert, have ASSUMED that this means things far above anything Jason has actually said himself, in his own words. This is not debatable. Go back over your own posts. Again, live and let live, right? Or not?

3) And I certainly don't look to you on any level for definitions. Oh, yes, I forgot, you're a world class linguist.

4) Never said they did, never thought they should, never indicated as such, but you believe whatever you want regardless..... Again, I go back to your quote about your relationship vs. Jason's. If that quote doesn't indicate a belief that YOUR way is better than HIS way, I don't know what does.

Quite frankly Jeb, I didn't start this because it's you and I just love to grab 'negative aspects.' I started it because I saw an incredibly hypocritical attack on someone's life and marriage by a person that has usually fought against doing EXACTLY THAT. I'm sorry, but you can get as personally offended and self-righteous as you want, especially since you probably think "oh, it's just Ed", but this time you've simply gone too far.

In my mind if you want a level of acceptance and respect sent your way on your own views and beliefs (such as the right to gay marriage), then you must, at all times, extend the same level of respect and acceptance. Even to your biggest opponents. Even if they don't always extend it to you in the first place.

Fact is, you've made shameful inferences about Jason's marriage in this thread, and I don't care how much you may dislike me, or disregard me, or believe that you're above reproach, but I'll stand up for an injustice when I see it, and brother, I saw it.

Message edited by author 2010-04-22 18:31:52.

04/22/2010 06:25:21 PM · #133

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We are going down a bit of a rabbit hole though since the conversation was about roles within marriage and not roles within the church. The two need not be the same.

The point was that you stated that you do share the belief in marriage in the traditional Christian/Biblical sense that does pretty much put women in a subordinate role.

Is that not true?

it is not true since I would never use the word "subordinate". That's your own overlay.

04/22/2010 06:28:04 PM · #134

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

You, however, are condoning it by arguing a ridiculous comparison that in no way applies. Quite frankly, you're pretty much wrong here...

Please explain.

04/22/2010 06:28:24 PM · #135

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

We are going down a bit of a rabbit hole though since the conversation was about roles within marriage and not roles within the church. The two need not be the same.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

The point was that you stated that you do share the belief in marriage in the traditional Christian/Biblical sense that does pretty much put women in a subordinate role.

Is that not true?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

it is not true since I would never use the word "subordinate". That's your own overlay.

Okay.....play semantics if you will, but in the Christian tradition, is the woman ever responsible for the decisions of the marriage?

04/22/2010 06:36:04 PM · #136

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
You, however, are condoning it by arguing a ridiculous comparison that in no way applies. Quite frankly, you're pretty much wrong here...

Please explain.

You're arguing a worst-case scenario based on SELECT biblical passages and applying them to a generalized statement made by someone in a marriage that is based on some aspects of that bible. You are applying direct and erroneous assumptions to a relationship you HAVE NO BUSINESS EVEN TALKING ABOUT :)

Quite frankly, the fact that Jason is even responding to you and Jeb is amazing. The guy has some kind of fortitude.

04/22/2010 06:57:14 PM · #137

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Better check your facts, hotshot. I pointed out that requiring women to submit to men makes them second class citizens by definition (you're welcome to argue otherwise), and I have have attempted to stick to that point throughout. It was Jason who has tried to conflate the issue with unrelated, more palatable concepts of submission and inapplicable comparisons to his marriageâ�� which I have pointed out repeatedly. That's not fortitude, it's the cowardice of trying to dodge the issue. The only assumptions I've made are that his relationship is NOT the same level of submission mandated by the Bible... that's Taliban stuff, and not much of an assumption really.

04/22/2010 07:04:53 PM · #138

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Quite frankly, the fact that Jason is even responding to you and Jeb is amazing. The guy has some kind of fortitude.

Or I'm just an idiot. I'm a sucker for trying to fight ignorance. Already in one day I'm ignoring Jenn's advice to just let it be. Woe is me.

I'll reply to Jeb and then maybe we find a way to wrap the conversation up.

Women are "responsible" for lots of decisions (meaning there is nothing wrong with them making them). Look at some parts of Proverbs 31 which talks about the "wife of noble character" (I won't quote it all for length):

A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies. Her husband has full confidence in her...She considers a field and buys it...She sees that her trading is profitable...She opens her arms to the poor and extends her hands to the needy...She is clothed with strength and dignity...She watches over the affairs of her household...Give her the reward she has earned, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.

That was written 3000 years ago, pretty progressive stuff.

The husband may be "responsible" for all the decisions (whether he makes them or not) when he accounts to God. In other words, the blame stops with him. Another reason it's obvious you don't get it is you speak like having the responsibility is an obviously good thing like somehow it only means we get to eat my favorite ice cream flavor or watch the TV I want to watch. It means when neither of us wants to make the decision, I need to step up. Do you think making decisions is always fun? You don't think Jenn doesn't say to me, "you need to step up and deal with your daughter's actions"? Is that enjoyable? Do far too many husbands counter with "hey, raising the kids is not my responsibility!"? It's ALL my responsibility. If something is going wrong, it's my problem. It doesn't mean that I bark orders about everything and nobody decides anything apart from me or that I don't listen to anybody. Would a good CEO ignore the advice of the accountant if the accountant knows better?

At the end of the day having the "responsibility" is a burden, not a gift. I am blessed because I have a highly competent partner that helps shoulder the load and has far more expertise in many matters. The longer I have been married the more I have learned to listen to her not only when she agrees with me, but when she disagrees. ESPECIALLY when she disagrees. She has a sensibility about some things I will never possess.

That's probably enough. I appreciate K10's defense in this thread as you and Shannon play whack-a-mole. He has a good way of cutting through the bullshit (even when I'm the target).

04/22/2010 07:08:07 PM · #139

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
You're arguing a worst-case scenario based on SELECT biblical passages and applying them to a generalized statement made by someone in a marriage that is based on some aspects of that bible. You are applying direct and erroneous assumptions to a relationship you HAVE NO BUSINESS EVEN TALKING ABOUT :)

Better check your facts, hotshot. I pointed out that requiring women to submit to men makes them second class citizens by definition (you're welcome to argue otherwise), and I have have attempted to stick to that point throughout. It was Jason who has tried to conflate the issue with unrelated, more palatable concepts of submission and inapplicable comparisons to his marriageâ�� which I have pointed out repeatedly. That's not fortitude, it's the cowardice of trying to dodge the issue. The only assumptions I've made are that his relationship is NOT the same level of submission mandated by the Bible... that's Taliban stuff, and not much of an assumption really.

Yes, pointing out that requiring women to submit to men was your first mistake, since it was in response to Jeb, and served only to enforce Jeb's assumptions. Each subsequent post, by you, was to point out biblical passages and other erroneous assertions when Jason tried to defend himself FROM such assumptions and enforcements. Jason isn't cowardly OR trying to "dodge the issue". You guys are trying to trap him into some kind of admittance of guilt that he doesn't have.

You are a mind-boggling specimen Scalvert. Mind-boggling.

Nullix

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/22/2010 07:28:54 PM · #140

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

You are a mind-boggling specimen Scalvert. Mind-boggling.

I think Scalvert and NikonJeb are instant messaging each other behind the scenes.

Scalvert: Hey, did you see what DrAchoo said. Let me twist it around and throw it back at him.
NikonJeb: I know how I can make them run in circles, just say they're using semantics.
Scalvert: Did you see what he said, I'll just ignore it. Besides, religion is for fools.
Scalvert: I know, I'll tell those Christians what their bible actually means. They really have no clue.
NikonJeb: I love rant.
Scalvert: Ya, me too.

04/22/2010 07:30:41 PM · #141

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Women are "responsible" for lots of decisions (meaning there is nothing wrong with them making them). Look at some parts of Proverbs 31 which talks about the "wife of noble character" (I won't quote it all for length):

A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies. Her husband has full confidence in her...She considers a field and buys it...She sees that her trading is profitable...She opens her arms to the poor and extends her hands to the needy...She is clothed with strength and dignity...She watches over the affairs of her household...Give her the reward she has earned, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.

That was written 3000 years ago, pretty progressive stuff.

Actually, it sounds like a description of what someone is wishing to find, not necessarily the norm.

Just out of curiosity, what is the reward, and why aren't her actions and accomplishments not their reward of their own, and acknowledged in a manner indicative of equal worth as a man?

Maybe there should have been more to this passage for quoting if you were trying to explain how women were viewed in places of authority and accomplshment.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The husband may be "responsible" for all the decisions (whether he makes them or not) when he accounts to God. In other words, the blame stops with him. Another reason it's obvious you don't get it is you speak like having the responsibility is an obviously good thing like somehow it only means we get to eat my favorite ice cream flavor or watch the TV I want to watch.

You have GOT to be kidding!!! Anyone who has ever had their own business NEVER views responsibility as a bonus, a good thing, some kind of benefit. It ALWAYS means that you're the only one to pick up the pieces when everything crumbles.

How on earth could you possibly have gotten the idea that I view responsibility as some sort of prize.

Geez.....you guys talk about ME making assumptions!

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It means when neither of us wants to make the decision, I need to step up. Do you think making decisions is always fun? You don't think Jenn doesn't say to me, "you need to step up and deal with your daughter's actions"? Is that enjoyable? Do far too many husbands counter with "hey, raising the kids is not my responsibility!"? It's ALL my responsibility. If something is going wrong, it's my problem. It doesn't mean that I bark orders about everything and nobody decides anything apart from me or that I don't listen to anybody. Would a good CEO ignore the advice of the accountant if the accountant knows better?

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

In a marriage that makes sense to me, it's all about shared responsibility.....neither partner is responsible for it all.

If you cannot see that, I don't know what to tell you. It's NOT equal, it's not amenable to two people who want to have equal shares of both good and bad times......that whole "For better, for worse, in sickness and in health...." BOTH parties are supposed to agree to that in the wedding vows.

Are those not the same vows you and your wife spoke?

That doesn't sound to me like there's any delineation of responsibility that isn't agreed to equally.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

At the end of the day having the "responsibility" is a burden, not a gift. I am blessed because I have a highly competent partner that helps shoulder the load and has far more expertise in many matters. The longer I have been married the more I have learned to listen to her not only when she agrees with me, but when she disagrees. ESPECIALLY when she disagrees. She has a sensibility about some things I will never possess.

But it sure sounds to me again as if it's not shared equally. You say she helps shoulder the load, not that she is completely and totally *as* responsible as you are.

Why is that?

04/22/2010 07:31:53 PM · #142

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm a sucker for trying to fight ignorance.

Problem is, you're fighting FOR ignorance (see thread title). No matter how you try to avoid it, even your last response describes superior and inferior roles, not a relationship of equals. Though you flatly declare otherwise, I seriously doubt your wife has NO responsibility for the family. What if you wanted 12 children and she wanted to stop at 2? From a religious standpoint, she has no say in the matter, and I SERIOUSLY doubt most women would be OK with that.

I'm sure many men took advice from their wives on political matters in the 19th century too, but the wives' lack of an equal vote still made them second class citizens. Even if women accept that role, even if the husband bears the awesome "burden" of control, even if you try to paint some cozy corporate comparison, you still can't escape that you're describing women as inferior to men. Sorry.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

04/22/2010 07:33:17 PM · #143

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

You are a mind-boggling specimen Scalvert. Mind-boggling.

Originally posted by Nullix:

Yeah......it's a plot to see how hard we can beat our heads against the wall time and time again trying to make sense out of why anyone would try to live their life by some contradictory rules written 2000 years ago that even you guys cannot agree upon, much less coherently, and consistently explain.

Louis

Nikon D800

04/22/2010 07:36:01 PM · #144

At issue is what I think is Jason's double-speak, his insistence on a head honcho in a Christian love relationship, done in my view only in order to align his actions with the articles of his faith, while at the same time insisting that the head honcho is an equal to the -- er -- foot honcho. "Equal but different" doesn't really work in a true partnership when referring to matters of responsibility -- in my opinion, of course. In that respect, the structure seems archaic, and it's simply against that fact that my sense rebels.

04/22/2010 07:41:06 PM · #145

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

pointing out that requiring women to submit to men was your first mistake, since it was in response to Jeb, and served only to enforce Jeb's assumptions.

Get your story straight. My post was directly to Nullix. Jason immediately jumped in with a personal attack on me, yet still hasn't shown my post to be erroneous:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Nullix:
I'm offended you would call the mother of my 3 boys 2nd class citizen...

The wife who submits herself?

Essentially you just did the same. A group of people required to submit to another due to race, gender, etc. makes them 2nd class citizens by definition.

This probably explains a lot about your personality if you view submission as being second class "by definition"...

04/22/2010 08:15:58 PM · #146

Originally posted by scalvert:

Get your story straight. My post was directly to Nullix. Jason immediately jumped in with a personal attack on me, yet still hasn't shown my post to be erroneous: A group of people required to submit to another due to race, gender, etc. makes them 2nd class citizens by definition.

I'm not sure how I show the error in an axiomatic statement. Do I just say, "no, it doesn't"?

Is a post-doc student a 2nd class citizen when they submit to the mentoring of a professor?
Is a patient a 2nd class citizen when they submit to the care of a physician?
Am I a second class citizen when I submit to the authority of lawmakers?

Maybe I'm just rebelling against the term "2nd class citizen" because it seems so broad. The patient does not becomes inferior in all respects when they listen to their doctor. Obviously this isn't the case.

Listen to Paul talking about the Church. "equal but different" is highly expressed.

Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

04/22/2010 08:37:14 PM · #147

Here's my issue.....

Submit is pretty clear. This is from:

//dictionary.reference.com/browse/submit

I use Dictionary.com 'cause they cull from many sources.

I don't see how there's any confusion about the definition.

Submit-Show Spelled [suhb-mit] Show IPA verb, -mitÂ·ted, -mitÂ·ting.
â��verb (used with object)
1. to give over or yield to the power or authority of another (often used reflexively).
2. to subject to some kind of treatment or influence.
3. to present for the approval, consideration, or decision of another or others: to submit a plan; to submit an application.
4. to state or urge with deference; suggest or propose (usually fol. by a clause): I submit that full proof should be required.
â��verb (used without object)
5. to yield oneself to the power or authority of another: to submit to a conqueror.
6. to allow oneself to be subjected to some kind of treatment: to submit to chemotherapy.
7. to defer to another's judgment, opinion, decision, etc.: I submit to your superior judgment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1325â��75; ME submitten < L submittere to lower, reduce, yield, equiv. to sub- sub- + mittere to send

â��Synonyms
1. comply, bow, obey, agree, resign. See yield.
I don't care how you go about refgerring to the parties, but in my mind, second class citizen is better than slave, and if you don't like that verbiage, fine, then give us the word that indicates the less than equal relationship to the one to whom submission is directed.

Jason, you can't just say "context", or that we don't understand the biblical reference, there is a distinct separation/heirarchy that positively puts women in a secondary role as put forth by your quotes, and by your own words tonite.

PLEASE try to explain how if only one of the parties is responsible, which you said that you are, the other is not secondary.

04/22/2010 08:48:44 PM · #148

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Is a post-doc student a 2nd class citizen when they submit to the mentoring of a professor?

In this application, absolutely, as it's recognized that the professor is the superior person in this relationship. It's decidedly a heirarchy as the professor has *all* the power over the outcome of the exchange.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Is a patient a 2nd class citizen when they submit to the care of a physician?

Different application of the word, and the submission is voluntary for the person's own health and well-being.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Am I a second class citizen when I submit to the authority of lawmakers?

To an extent.....again, it's a predetermined relationship, entirely voluntary by virtue of your agreeing to abide by the lawmakers you voted into office.

Just because these scenarios are voluntary doesn't make them any less of a situation where someone doesn't hold the power over another.......the scenarios are agreed upon.

This isn't the same thing as a marriage, or any other kind of relationship that should be equal. Do you submit to the people you consider your closest friends? Would you consider a relationship where at the end of the day, every day, you never had the last word of authority?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

Are you serious with this analogy? Your making the case for me, Shannon, Louis, and a whole host oif others with this....

The head, with its brain, controls all the other parts. You can still live without a foot, hand, legs, arms, and a whole host of other body parts, but the head is, well......the head, in more ways than one. The head is the head of the "family", and it definitely gets the final say for the most part.

Bad analogy......8>)

04/22/2010 08:52:17 PM · #149

I think the main issue that most people bagging on Achoo here are forgetting is this:

Even if his wife HAS decided to COMPLETELY SUBMIT to his 'authority' (which none of you can even begin to know is the case or not), it STILL DOESN'T MATTER.

It's not your life, not your marriage, and not your concern.

Period. End of story. Game over.