| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/22/2010 09:02:02 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
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. |
We're not even talking about his marriage right now, but women in general, so get over it. |
Who said it was a response to the last few posts?
However, did the mighty Scalvert just show a crack in the Wall of Steadfast? ;D
|
|
|
|
04/22/2010 09:07:43 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
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? |
Try using valid comparisons. Any ethnic group, gender or race that is required to submit to another is second class. That's not an axion, it's the definition of the term (and regarded as a violation of human rights).
"As an informal term, second-class citizenship is not objectively measured; however, cases such as the American South under segregation, apartheid in South Africa, the people of India under the British Raj, Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland during the parliametary era and the marginalization of other religious and ethnic minorities and women in many countries worldwide, have been historically described as creating second-class citizenry."
Women are not really expected to submit to men in all matters in modern Western societies (I'm not making that claim), but that WAS the biblical expectation.
Message edited by author 2010-04-22 21:18:37. |
|
|
|
04/22/2010 09:17:08 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
However, did the mighty Scalvert just show a crack in the Wall of Steadfast? ;D |
Just brushing off an annoyance. I'm not interested in how his marriage works (although I maintain that's it's almost certainly a far cry from the Biblical authors' requirements). However, the concept of complete submission to a husband in general DOES matter— it's exactly what we're talking about. I'd like to think that 21st century family structures are a bit more equitable than those of gorillas. :-/
You're actually contributing less to the debate than those you accuse!
Message edited by author 2010-04-22 21:20:12. |
|
|
|
04/22/2010 09:28:54 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
However, did the mighty Scalvert just show a crack in the Wall of Steadfast? ;D |
Just brushing off an annoyance. I'm not interested in how his marriage works (although I maintain that's it's almost certainly a far cry from the Biblical authors' requirements). However, the concept of complete submission to a husband in general DOES matter— it's exactly what we're talking about. I'd like to think that 21st century family structures are a bit more equitable than those of gorillas. :-/
You're actually contributing less to the debate than those you accuse! |
Family structures come in all shapes and sizes and take all kinds. What you'd like to think is what I consider to be of no import. We all have to live our lives the way we want to, and if a woman (or man) decides that life means giving up some personal decisions/goals/dreams/whatever to be 'submissive' to their husbands (or wives), then even if we don't AGREE with it (and I don't, personally), we should still ACCEPT it. Unless it is proven to be a case of abuse, in which case then there's an obligation to step in.
So, believe it or not, I am contributing, if you were creative enough to see it. Right from the start I've been talking about the irony of the stances that have been taken in here regarding what the role of women should be in society in the opinion of a couple of very select people. The irony of course being that we're so adamant about religion accepting gay rights, yet we're not willing to accept some of the things the bible stands for. We don't have to agree with it, but outside of abusive situations, we have to be willing to accept it in others.
I'd like to think that we're all advanced and evolved enough in the 21st century to understand this.
Message edited by author 2010-04-22 21:30:43.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2010 09:32:39 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I'd like to think that we're all advanced and evolved enough in the 21st century to understand this. |
Sadly, you'd be dreaming :-(
R. |
|
|
|
04/22/2010 09:33:38 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I'd like to think that we're all advanced and evolved enough in the 21st century to understand this. |
Sadly, you'd be dreaming :-(
R. |
Oh, I know, that was a sarcastic statement ;D
|
|
|
|
04/22/2010 09:45:52 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
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. |
Classic Joke:
ATTORNEY: Did you take the subject's pulse before beginning the autopsy?
DOCTOR: No
ATTORNEY: Did you check to see if the patient was breathing?
DOCTOR: No
ATTORNEY: Did you check his eyes or reflexes?
DOCTOR: No
ATTORNEY: So, as far as you can say, the patient may still have been alive at the time you started the autopsy?
DOCTOR: No sir.
ATTORNEY: Why not? How can you be so sure?
DOCTOR: Because his brain was sitting in a jar of preservative on my desk.
ATTORNEY: But couldn't he still have been alive?
DOCTOR: Well ... I suppose he could have been practicing law someplace.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2010 09:55:24 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
We all have to live our lives the way we want to, and if a woman (or man) decides that life means giving up some personal decisions/goals/dreams/whatever to be 'submissive' to their husbands (or wives), then even if we don't AGREE with it (and I don't, personally), we should still ACCEPT it. Unless it is proven to be a case of abuse, in which case then there's an obligation to step in. |
Where did I state otherwise? I only said the position relegates women to an inferior class. Whether or not they (or we) accept it is a separate issue. I didn't suggest they couldn't live that way if they chose to and it didn't harm anyone, although I doubt many would. People tend to want to have a say in their own relationships and family matters. |
|
|
|
04/22/2010 09:57:56 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Family structures come in all shapes and sizes and take all kinds. We all have to live our lives the way we want to, and if a woman (or man) decides that life means giving up some personal decisions/goals/dreams/whatever to be 'submissive' to their husbands (or wives), then even if we don't AGREE with it (and I don't, personally), we should still ACCEPT it. |
This is all true up to a point, but the original bone of contention was that Jason was trying to justify the biblical stance, and doing so by using his marriage as an example. If that's how he and his wife have agreed to live, super, that's their right, but despite your contention that only a few select people here believe in equality for women, I think you'll find that if you stop women arbitrarily on the street and ask them if they feel they should yield ultimate resonsibility to their husbands, you won't get anywhere close to a majority.
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Right from the start I've been talking about the irony of the stances that have been taken in here regarding what the role of women should be in society in the opinion of a couple of very select people. The irony of course being that we're so adamant about religion accepting gay rights, yet we're not willing to accept some of the things the bible stands for. We don't have to agree with it, but outside of abusive situations, we have to be willing to accept it in others. |
Not if it tramples the rights of another or goes against the basic premise of equality in a free society.
Why is this not obvious?
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I'd like to think that we're all advanced and evolved enough in the 21st century to understand this. |
Sure.
Just like you're understanding the direction of the thread. It's never been about Jason's marriage, that's his business. It's about the premise of his belief system in today's world where equality is supposed to be a given.....it is already a law, and I never did get the answer to the question about his vows......were they the same ones I took? The ones for an equal sharing of life, for better, for worse?
|
|
|
|
04/22/2010 10:09:31 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
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. |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Classic Joke:
ATTORNEY: Did you take the subject's pulse before beginning the autopsy?
DOCTOR: No
ATTORNEY: Did you check to see if the patient was breathing?
DOCTOR: No
ATTORNEY: Did you check his eyes or reflexes?
DOCTOR: No
ATTORNEY: So, as far as you can say, the patient may still have been alive at the time you started the autopsy?
DOCTOR: No sir.
ATTORNEY: Why not? How can you be so sure?
DOCTOR: Because his brain was sitting in a jar of preservative on my desk.
ATTORNEY: But couldn't he still have been alive?
DOCTOR: Well ... I suppose he could have been practicing law someplace.
|
I always liked this one.......
When God made man there was only one. The various parts argued about who would be boss. The hands said they should be boss, because they did all the work. The feet thought they should be boss, because they took man where he could do the work and get food. The stomach thought it should be boss, because it digested the food. The heart thought it should be boss, because it pumped the blood that allowed the food to be digested by the stomach. The brain said, “I have to send all the signals to get each of you to do your job, therefore I am the boss!” The asshole said, “I’ll show you who’s boss!” So he closed up and wouldn’t let anything pass. After a few days, the stomach achedâ€Â¦ the hands were practically helplessâ€Â¦ the feet could not carry the body . . . the heart was about ready to stop pumping bloodâ€Â¦ the brain’s signals were being ignored.
TO ALL THIS, THERE IS A MORAL. YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE A BRAIN TO BE A BOSS â€Â¦. JUST AN ASSHOLE.”
|
|
|
|
04/22/2010 10:11:41 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
We all have to live our lives the way we want to, and if a woman (or man) decides that life means giving up some personal decisions/goals/dreams/whatever to be 'submissive' to their husbands (or wives), then even if we don't AGREE with it (and I don't, personally), we should still ACCEPT it. Unless it is proven to be a case of abuse, in which case then there's an obligation to step in. |
Where did I state otherwise? I only said the position relegates women to an inferior class. Whether or not they (or we) accept it is a separate issue. I didn't suggest they couldn't live that way if they chose to and it didn't harm anyone, although I doubt many would. People tend to want to have a say in their own relationships and family matters. |
You were so obliquely talking about "women as an inferior class" that I didn't even know we were speaking so broadly. I'm talking about marriage not about women and men in general. Is your boss a woman at work? You should submit to her. Is your coach a woman? You should submit. Is Sarah Palin president? Well, then you should leave the country, but you get my point.
Also it gets paid lip service but then forgotten that I said I personally don't have a big problem with switching the roles within a marriage. If the wife "wears the pants" then so be it if that works best. However, I do think traditional roles have a rooted basis in the physiology of being male and female and probably most often work as they have traditionally been defined. I just feel that the ideal marriage is not one where the two partners are mirror images in their roles and responsibilities. The idea marriage is one where the partner's separate roles and responsibilities complement and strengthen and support the other.
Geez, is there anything wiki doesn't have an article for? Complementarianism I will not be held responsible for every word of that article, but I do think it sums up what I've been trying to say. Do note that complementarianism stands in contrast with chauvinism. |
|
|
|
04/22/2010 10:22:52 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Geez, is there anything wiki doesn't have an article for? Complementarianism I will not be held responsible for every word of that article, but I do think it sums up what I've been trying to say. Do note that complementarianism stands in contrast with chauvinism. |
Originally posted by Wiki:
The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God's image. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to his people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.
– Article XVIII. The Family. Baptist Faith and Message 2000 |
Jason, this is the same old, same old, and is dependent upon the woman agreeing to give up her position of equality. You know that no woman had any part in writing this.
If that isn't chauvinism, I don't know what is.
I'd also like to point out the date of the source of the Wiki article.......NOT good!
Message edited by author 2010-04-22 22:24:47.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2010 10:31:29 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Jason, this is the same old, same old, and is dependent upon the woman agreeing to give up her position of equality. You know that no woman had any part in writing this.
If that isn't chauvinism, I don't know what is.
I'd also like to point out the date of the source of the Wiki article.......NOT good! |
OK. That's fine. It's your error, not mine. |
|
|
|
04/22/2010 10:36:08 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Jason, this is the same old, same old, and is dependent upon the woman agreeing to give up her position of equality. You know that no woman had any part in writing this.
If that isn't chauvinism, I don't know what is.
I'd also like to point out the date of the source of the Wiki article.......NOT good! |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK. That's fine. It's your error, not mine. |
How so?
|
|
|
|
04/22/2010 10:37:04 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You were so obliquely talking about "women as an inferior class" that I didn't even know we were speaking so broadly. I'm talking about marriage not about women and men in general. Is your boss a woman at work? You should submit to her. Is your coach a woman? You should submit. Is Sarah Palin president? Well, then you should leave the country, but you get my point. |
Your comparisons are still hopelessly flawed (though I agree on Palin). Bosses, politicians and other authority figures are in those positions because of their education, skills, elections, etc., NOT just because they're male or white. Those that derive their power over others from divine birthright, like heirs to the throne, belong to a higher class. Therein lies the difference, and it's the reason women have had to fight for centuries for the right to attend school, vote or become bishops. You cannot hide from this basic fact of history or deflect it away with semantics.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I said I personally don't have a big problem with switching the roles within a marriage. If the wife "wears the pants" then so be it if that works best. |
Then you confirm my suspicion that you don't really follow the religious guidelines you're trying vainly to defend. The roles are supposed to be set in stone, as it were, and women are forbidden to wear the pants. The Bible is explicit that men are created for God and women are created for men. It's a class hierarchy that is precisely what my original post referred to. |
|
|
|
04/22/2010 10:39:05 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I appreciate K10's defense in this thread |
I think I've been yanko'd. :P
|
|
|
|
04/22/2010 10:40:31 PM · #167 |
I give up....I will never understand the immense amount of work it takes to try to apply biblical ways to life so far removed from the way it was back then.
It just doesn't make sense to me on any level.
Message edited by author 2010-04-22 22:54:15.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2010 10:58:20 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I give up....I will never understand the immense amount of work it takes to try to apply biblical ways to life so far removed from the way it was back then.
It just doesn't make sense to me on any level. |
bye bye now. |
|
|
|
04/22/2010 11:02:08 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Then you confirm my suspicion that you don't really follow the religious guidelines you're trying vainly to defend. The roles are supposed to be set in stone, as it were, and women are forbidden to wear the pants. The Bible is explicit that men are created for God and women are created for men. It's a class hierarchy that is precisely what my original post referred to. |
That accusation doesn't even make sense. I was allowing for a difference in interpretation from others. I am not a fundamentalist. However, my own marriage fits the traditional roles as presented in the Bible. I do agree though when I let you tell me what I am arguing and not arguing, it's pretty easy for you to win. Classic Shannon. Classic. |
|
|
|
04/22/2010 11:25:08 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
However, my own marriage fits the traditional roles as presented in the Bible. I do agree though when I let you tell me what I am arguing and not arguing, it's pretty easy for you to win. Classic Shannon. Classic. |
It's pretty easy for you to win when "traditional roles as presented in the Bible" is only defined by what you have personally chosen to believe. I don't think we need to go as far as noting the requirement that brides must be virgins to agree that modern concepts of marriage are very different from those of 2000 years ago. You are almost certainly NOT following the Biblical roles as described, but traditions that have evolved over time. People generally pick and choose whichever religious guidelines fit their own expectations and ignore the rest. Otherwise, the Word of God would seriously limit your photo opportunities...
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." Thy entries are DNMC! ;-) |
|
|
|
04/22/2010 11:36:09 PM · #171 |
|
|
|
04/23/2010 05:39:45 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by Article XVIII. The Family. Baptist Faith and Message 2000:
The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God's image. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to his people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation. |
Let me take a swing at this one.
A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband
You notice the husband is referred to a servant leader. He's a servant to his family. He's submitting himself to the family.
I have a biblical story for you about servant leaders.
There was this leader along time ago. Back in those days, people didn't travel by car, they traveled by animals. The roads were covered in dung and mud and their feet reflected this. Before he went away, he took his followers asside and washed their feet to show the example of a servant leader. Cleaning the feet was a huge act of humility.
That's what the husband needs to do for his family and wife. Be humble enough to clean the muck; get down and dirty and do anything for his family. If a husband is not willing to do this, he doesn't deserve a wife to submit to him.
The article says a husband and wife are equal worth. They both give (or submit) themselves to each other other in different ways. One as a servent leader the other as a gracious submitter.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2010 05:51:50 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." Thy entries are DNMC! ;-) |
But by your usual very literal they meant what they meant interpretation, wouldn't I be safe because digital photographs are not "graven" (ie. engraved)? The uber-literal interpretation cuts both ways. :P
Message edited by author 2010-04-23 17:54:06.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2010 05:53:37 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Article XVIII. The Family. Baptist Faith and Message 2000:
The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God's image. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to his people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation. |
Let me take a swing at this one.
A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband
You notice the husband is referred to a servant leader. He's a servant to his family. He's submitting himself to the family.
I have a biblical story for you about servant leaders.
There was this leader along time ago. Back in those days, people didn't travel by car, they traveled by animals. The roads were covered in dung and mud and their feet reflected this. Before he went away, he took his followers asside and washed their feet to show the example of a servant leader. Cleaning the feet was a huge act of humility.
That's what the husband needs to do for his family and wife. Be humble enough to clean the muck; get down and dirty and do anything for his family. If a husband is not willing to do this, he doesn't deserve a wife to submit to him.
The article says a husband and wife are equal worth. They both give (or submit) themselves to each other other in different ways. One as a servent leader the other as a gracious submitter. |
The verse just before the instruction to wives says, "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." He probably would have saved a lot of confusion if he'd just stopped there instead of going into detail of how that was done. :)
|
|
|
|
04/25/2010 08:35:19 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." Thy entries are DNMC! ;-) |
But by your usual very literal they meant what they meant interpretation, wouldn't I be safe because digital photographs are not "graven" (ie. engraved)? The uber-literal interpretation cuts both ways. :P |
I wouldn't want to bet the farm on it Doc, but the part after the "Graven image" might be a tad problematic.
Ray :O) |
|
