Baptist views on feminism

[Ringo84]

You keep talking about logic but you haven't shown any.

Then show me where my logic is flawed.

Where is the logical fallacy of what I have said?

You don't see a logical fallacy in asking women to submit but not asking for the same level of submission from men, and then simply saying "because God said so" as a justification?

Just because something doesn't make sense to you, something you have no experience with, doesn't make it illogical.

Doesn't matter whether I have experience or not. Illogic is illogic. If you say "women must submit" but give no good reason for it, your belief is illogical - thirty-six years of marriage nonetheless.

Logically for 2 things to be equal they must be identical. Otherwise there is inequity.

I'm not identical to you, yet I'm equal to you. Therefore, your logic doesn't follow.

You can deny the truth that every human relationship has one who is dominant all you wish but it doesn't change the fact.

Just because relationships have someone who is dominant doesn't mean that women have to submit.

You haven't refuted anything you just keep repeating the same nonsense.

Why must women submit if there's apparently no good reason for them to do so?

I think the progressive forum would love this topic, you're preaching to the wrong choir.
You are beating a dead horse here man.

I wasn't aware that people who thought differently from you were not allowed to chime in on topics like this one.
Ringo

 

[MrJG]

I think maybe you're all arguing about semantics.

If so, who's really made the decision? Sure, you made the decision to trust your wife's judgment,but even if your wife gives you her views along with the option to turn them down, is this so different than what Ringo is talking about? Even if you don't label what you're doing "submission," isn't it still submission, in a sense? And aren't you still doing it because you're the leader and see it as best for your family? Would you call this scenario un-Biblical? Because your wife is never being physically forced to submit to you, it's her choice to do so, just like it's yours in this scenario.

If there are never times like that, I'm glad it works for you. But isn't this something that works differently for different people? Won't a man who has views like Ringo's still be the head of his household? Will it affect anyone else if he and his wife feel lead to interpret the Bible a little differently for their own family? What if God leads them a little differently because they're different people?

It is not semantics, the Bible is extremely clear on this subject.

Ringo is saying that there is mutual submission and no hierarchy (no one with authority of another). The idea of submission is somewhat Biblical but the idea of no hierarchy or no authoritative position is not Biblical. As Baptists (which this forum is asking the Baptist's opinion), we believe that if a humanistic philosophy does not line up with the Bible, then that philosophy should not be followed. What Ringo84 is trying to do is make the Bible line up with feminist ideas. It just isn't possible.

A man who has Ringo's views will not be the head of his household for very long. It won't really affect many other people, but since the Bible is clear that God has placed the man as the head of the house, God will judge the man for how his house was run. The Bible says the same thing to all people, it is just that people try to interpret it differently to fit their individual agenda.

Man is the head of the house and over the woman per the Bible.
"yea, let God be true, but every man a liar..."

 

[Ringo84]

Ringo is saying that there is mutual submission and no hierarchy (no one with authority of another).

Not in a relationship there's not. A marriage isn't the Army. Both the man and the woman have an equal stake in the relationship and should have an equal say also.

The idea of submission is somewhat Biblical but the idea of no hierarchy or no authoritative position is not Biblical.

I beg to differ. That may be the way your marriage works, but it isn't necessarily true for ALL marriages.

As Baptists (which this forum is asking the Baptist's opinion), we believe that if a humanistic philosophy does not line up with the Bible, then that philosophy should not be followed.

What is the Baptist position on following philosophies that make no logical sense?

What Ringo84 is trying to do is make the Bible line up with feminist ideas. It just isn't possible.

My purpose here has nothing to do with making the Bible "line up" with "feminist ideas" (such as the revolutionary idea that men and women complement each other), but trying to make this doctrine line up with common sense.

A man who has Ringo's views will not be the head of his household for very long. It won't really affect many other people, but since the Bible is clear that God has placed the man as the head of the house, God will judge the man for how his house was run. The Bible says the same thing to all people, it is just that people try to interpret it differently to fit their individual agenda.

I won't be the head of any house. My wife and I will have an equal stake in our relationship and will therefore submit to one another and share the power. Because in the real world, relationships require give-and-take from both parties - not just from the woman.

Man is the head of the house and over the woman per the Bible.

Men have never been "in authority" over women.
Ringo

 

[PrettyLittlePrincess]

It is not semantics, the Bible is extremely clear on this subject.

Ringo is saying that there is mutual submission and no hierarchy (no one with authority of another). The idea of submission is somewhat Biblical but the idea of no hierarchy or no authoritative position is not Biblical. As Baptists (which this forum is asking the Baptist's opinion), we believe that if a humanistic philosophy does not line up with the Bible, then that philosophy should not be followed. What Ringo84 is trying to do is make the Bible line up with feminist ideas. It just isn't possible.

A man who has Ringo's views will not be the head of his household for very long. It won't really affect many other people, but since the Bible is clear that God has placed the man as the head of the house, God will judge the man for how his house was run. The Bible says the same thing to all people, it is just that people try to interpret it differently to fit their individual agenda.

Man is the head of the house and over the woman per the Bible.
"yea, let God be true, but every man a liar..."

At the risk of sounding like a child, that wasn't what I was asking. I was asking you to consider something from Ringo's point of view and to see the similarities between what all of you are saying and what he's saying.

I know what the Bible says, and if/when I come to that point in my life, I'll decide how to apply it. But, as for this argument, your views don't look as a different to me as all of you seem to think. I was wondering if I was wrong in that assumption. Am I? Consider it.

 

[MrJG]

Then show me where my logic is flawed.

You don't see a logical fallacy in asking women to submit but not asking for the same level of submission from men, and then simply saying "because God said so" as a justification?

Doesn't matter whether I have experience or not. Illogic is illogic. If you say "women must submit" but give no good reason for it, your belief is illogical - thirty-six years of marriage nonetheless.

Why must women submit if there's apparently no good reason for them to do so?

Ringo

Your logic is flawed in that though the Bible clearly tells us how marriage should be you are denying and replacing it with the human idea of marriage.

Hmmm....God the Creator of all, the Most High, the Father, and Christ the Son, the Propitiation for our sins, the God made Flesh to die for us. I would say that "because God said so" is the ONLY REASON WE NEED.

Once again, "God said so" is the best reason and is the only necessary reason. Are you then going to argue that God is illogical, because that seems like what you are saying.

Not in a relationship there's not. A marriage isn't the Army. Both the man and the woman have an equal stake in the relationship and should have an equal say also.

I beg to differ. That may be the way your marriage works, but it isn't necessarily true for ALL marriages.

What is the Baptist position on following philosophies that make no logical sense?

My purpose here has nothing to do with making the Bible "line up" with "feminist ideas" (such as the revolutionary idea that men and women complement each other), but trying to make this doctrine line up with common sense.

I won't be the head of any house. My wife and I will have an equal stake in our relationship and will therefore submit to one another and share the power. Because in the real world, relationships require give-and-take from both parties - not just from the woman.

Men have never been "in authority" over women.
Ringo

While it may not be true for all marriages, it is certainly the Biblical plan for marriage.

The Baptist position is to ALWAYS follow the Bible which ALWAYS makes sense to those who are willing to listen.

We don't need to make anything line up with our human common sense when God has already ordained how things should be.

 

[edie19]

If a rule is unequal and illogical, why follow it?

God is a logical being, so it follows that His commandments should be logical. Assuming that's true, why is this commandment so illogical?
Ringo

you do recognize don't you that many here don't think it's illogical, that many of us think it is sound and reasonable

again - someone submitting doesn't make them a doormat, neither does it mean that they have nothing to contribute

all of the Christian men (yes they're conservative) I know who hold to this commandment adore their wives, treat them with the utmost respect (in fact are more respectful of their wives specifically and women in general than their more liberal counterparts) and most importantly value their wives counsel

you're hung up on a word

 

[MrJG]

you do recognize don't you that many here don't think it's illogical, that many of us think it is sound and reasonable

again - someone submitting doesn't make them a doormat, neither does it mean that they have nothing to contribute

all of the Christian men (yes they're conservative) I know who hold to this commandment adore their wives, treat them with the utmost respect (in fact are more respectful of their wives than their more liberal counterparts) and most importantly value their wives counsel

you're hung up on a word

Amen Sister!

 

[Ringo84]

Blood washed:

Your logic is flawed in that though the Bible clearly tells us how marriage should be you are denying and replacing it with the human idea of marriage.

Show me where my logic is flawed.

Hmmm....God the Creator of all, the Most High, the Father, and Christ the Son, the Propitiation for our sins, the God made Flesh to die for us. I would say that "because God said so" is the ONLY REASON WE NEED.

Once again, "God said so" is the best reason and is the only necessary reason. Are you then going to argue that God is illogical, because that seems like what you are saying.

"Because I said so" or "because God said so" is something you tell five year olds when they ask why they can't have a cookie. When you're adults who are debating issues such as this one, "because I said so" isn't even close to being enough of a reason for asking women to disproportionately submit.

So I ask again: what are the logical reasons behind asking women to submit but not asking men to do the same?

While it may not be true for all marriages, it is certainly the Biblical plan for marriage.

Why?

We don't need to make anything line up with our human common sense when God has already ordained how things should be.

If there's no logical reason for a rule to exist, why follow it?


edie:

you do recognize don't you that many here don't think it's illogical, that many of us think it is sound and reasonable

So?

again - someone submitting doesn't make them a doormat, neither does it mean that they have nothing to contribute

I know that. It only means that women are asked to sacrifice more for the relationship due to outdated and illogical rules that disproportionately ask them to submit.

all of the Christian men (yes they're conservative) I know who hold to this commandment adore their wives, treat them with the utmost respect (in fact are more respectful of their wives than their more liberal counterparts) and most importantly value their wives counsel

I'm glad to hear that. But do they contribute to the relationship by submission as much as their wives?
Ringo

 

[MrJG]

Blood washed:

Show me where my logic is flawed.

"Because I said so" or "because God said so" is something you tell five year olds when they ask why they can't have a cookie. When you're adults who are debating issues such as this one, "because I said so" isn't even close to being enough of a reason for asking women to disproportionately submit.

So I ask again: what are the logical reasons behind asking women to submit but not asking men to do the same?

Why?

If there's no logical reason for a rule to exist, why follow it?

Ringo

I told you where your logic was flawed. You are denying the Biblical plan for marriage because you don't think it is logical. Does that mean you are more logical than God?

"Because God said so" is what we tell people who need to be saved. God said they need to be saved. If it works in a matter such as salvation why wouldn't it work for this. It does work for this. I am not saying it, God said it. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you take it up with Him.

 

[edie19]

Ringo - again, the husband is commanded to love his wife as Christ loved the church - as a result the husband's sacrifice is far greater than the wife's - Jesus the Christ gave His life.

I'm sorry to say this, but you're so very caught up in being right that you truly don't appear to be paying attention to what folks (many of us married for a long time) here are saying - that submission is not a sacrifice, that it doesn't mean the wife has no input, merit or value or that her opinion has no weight. The 2 sides - a man loving his wife as Christ loves the church and the woman submitting to her husband as head of the household is, in fact, the perfect balance.

 

[Ringo84]

You are denying the Biblical plan for marriage because you don't think it is logical. Does that mean you are more logical than God?

If God is a logical being (and I believe that He is), then He would have logical reasons for what He asks us to do. Since this doctrine has no logical foundation, perhaps this commandment is not from God.

"Because God said so" is what we tell people who need to be saved. God said they need to be saved. If it works in a matter such as salvation why wouldn't it work for this.

Because I'm asking for something more logical than rationales given to five year old children. Surely you're not suggesting that there is no good reason for this so-called command?

It does work for this. I am not saying it, God said it. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you take it up with Him.

I'm taking it up with you, as you're the one who is suggesting that women submit more in a relationship than men.
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

Ringo - again, the husband is commanded to love his wife as Christ loved the church - as a result the husband's sacrifice is far greater than the wife's - Jesus the Christ gave His life.

Loving someone to that degree does take sacrifice, but not the same kind of sacrifice as asking someone to submit to the other. It would seem, then, that women are given a disproportionate burden.

but you're so very caught up in being right

It has nothing to do with being right but simply challenging people to think about what they're advocating.

folks (many of us married for a long time)

I don't care how long you've been married. One doesn't need to be married to understand this issue.

submission is not a sacrifice

Loving someone enough to surrender your will to someone else's is not a sacrifice?

that it doesn't mean the wife has no input, merit or value or that her opinion has no weight.

As thrilled as I am to hear that, I still fail to see what makes men so special that they are supposedly given the burden of "command" (for lack of a better term).

The 2 sides - a man loving his wife as Christ loves the church and the woman submitting to her husband as head of the household is, in fact, the perfect balance.

That's not an equal balance, as it requires different things from the man and the woman. In the real world, both the man and the woman mutually submit to the other - they both sacrifice for their spouse and for their family. Relationships require submission and sacrifice from both parties, as relationships are two-way endeavors.

A truly equal balance would require submission from both the husband and the wife.
Ringo

 

[mlqurgw]

Then show me where my logic is flawed.

Your logic is flawed because you are begging the question. You assume the conclusion rather than prove it. Actually you haven't put forth any sort of logical argument you have just claimed that what you think is true is logical. What you are doing isn't logic at all it is rationalizing.

You don't see a logical fallacy in asking women to submit but not asking for the same level of submission from men, and then simply saying "because God said so" as a justification?

I believe it to be true just because God said so but I have made that only part of my argument against you. Since you don't believe the Bible it is pointless to try to prove anything to you from it. That is why I used other arguments as well. Arguments from nature and from logic. You haven't made any reasonable refutation of my points. So yes I do believe it is very logical for the woman to submit. If your wife doesn't submit to you you will submit to her but one of you will be dominant.

Doesn't matter whether I have experience or not. Illogic is illogic. If you say "women must submit" but give no good reason for it, your belief is illogical - thirty-six years of marriage nonetheless.

I have given very good reasons for it you just don't want to accept them. If you need for me to I can make a little simpler for you by giving you a syllogism.

I'm not identical to you, yet I'm equal to you. Therefore, your logic doesn't follow.

No you are not equal to me. I believe you are superior to me in education and intellect. Again logically to be equal must mean identical.

Just because relationships have someone who is dominant doesn't mean that women have to submit.

No it doesn't but it is the best way. Men are built different than women mentally and physically and their natural strengths is designed for dominance. Sure there are dominant woman but it isn't generally the case.

Why must women submit if there's apparently no good reason for them to do so?

There are many good reasons for her to do so. She is relieved of the responsibility that goes with being the head. She can enjoy the love and devotion of her husband that comes with respecting his position as head of the family. She can focus her time on the things God has given her to do. And she would be obeying God.

I wasn't aware that people who thought differently from you were not allowed to chime in on topics like this one.
Ringo

Since this wasn't directed to me I will not respond to it.

 

[Ringo84]

Your logic is flawed because you are begging the question. You assume the conclusion rather than prove it.

I'm begging no question. All I've done is ask why women have to submit, and I've gotten little in the way of reasoning behind such a rule beyond illogical arguments about the order of creation and rationales that are given in response to five year olds.

Actually you haven't put forth any sort of logical argument

Any argument that you will accept, perhaps.

you have just claimed that what you think is true is logical.

Where did I say that?

I have given very good reasons for it you just don't want to accept them.

When was it that you gave good reasons to show why women must submit?

I believe it to be true just because God said so but I have made that only part of my argument against you. Since you don't believe the Bible it is pointless to try to prove anything to you from it.

I knew it would happen eventually in this discussion: since I don't agree with you on a minor point of doctrine, I don't believe the Bible. Not only is that illogical, but it's a cop-out.

Arguments from nature

What are the arguments from nature?

You haven't made any reasonable refutation of my points.

According to whom?

If your wife doesn't submit to you you will submit to her but one of you will be dominant.

Why does it have to be either/or?

I believe you are superior to me in education and intellect.

I don't necessarily think that's true. By arguing against the apparent illogic of this doctrine, I am not implying lack of intelligence in those who believe that women should submit, but simply implying that there is no good reason for the doctrine.

Again logically to be equal must mean identical.

Logically, that doesn't follow.

No it doesn't but it is the best way.

Why?

Men are built different than women mentally and physically

So? I'm built differently than you mentally and physically, but I'm equal to you.

She is relieved of the responsibility that goes with being the head

She's not relieved from responsibility. As a member in the relationship, the woman has an equal investment in making the relationship work. That means having the ability to make decisions that affect her marriage.

She can enjoy the love and devotion of her husband that comes with respecting his position as head of the family.

A woman wouldn't get love and devotion as a coequal "head"?

She can focus her time on the things God has given her to do.

Staying barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen?
Ringo

 

[mlqurgw]

I'm begging no question. All I've done is ask why women have to submit, and I've gotten little in the way of reasoning behind such a rule beyond illogical arguments about the order of creation and rationales that are given in response to five year olds.



Any argument that you will accept, perhaps.



Where did I say that?



When was it that you gave good reasons to show why women must submit?



I knew it would happen eventually in this discussion: since I don't agree with you on a minor point of doctrine, I don't believe the Bible. Not only is that illogical, but it's a cop-out.



What are the arguments from nature?



According to whom?



Why does it have to be either/or?



I don't necessarily think that's true. By arguing against the apparent illogic of this doctrine, I am not implying lack of intelligence in those who believe that women should submit, but simply implying that there is no good reason for the doctrine.



Logically, that doesn't follow.



Why?



So? I'm built differently than you mentally and physically, but I'm equal to you.



She's not relieved from responsibility. As a member in the relationship, the woman has an equal investment in making the relationship work. That means having the ability to make decisions that affect her marriage.



A woman wouldn't get love and devotion as a coequal "head"?



Staying barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen?
Ringo

Apparently you have little to no actual knowledge of what logic is. Begging the question is a logical fallacy which I explained in the very next statement to you. Begging the question is assuming the conclusion in your premises. It is very close to and often called circular reasoning. That is why I said that you aren't using logic but rationalization. Logic is a process of reasoning to arrive at truth. Rationalization is coming up with reasons to justify a position whether it is true or not. There is no point in continuing a discussion with you on this as you ignore every reasonable argument and simply repeat your mantra. Like most liberals you are a great amount of talk but no real substance. A knat is a very noisy and annoying insect. You may take a few swats at it for a while but eventually you just ignore it because it is of little consequence.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

It's gotten to the point where it seems you are arguing now and have gone beyond debate.
The Mr. Spock routine has gotten old for me.

Cya on other threads.

 

[Ringo84]

Begging the question is a logical fallacy which I explained in the very next statement to you. Begging the question is assuming the conclusion in your premises.

I know what Begging The Question means, and I haven't been doing it.

That is why I said that you aren't using logic but rationalization. Logic is a process of reasoning to arrive at truth. Rationalization is coming up with reasons to justify a position whether it is true or not.

How am I rationalizing? You come up with reasons why women should supposedly submit, and I respond to what you said and offer points of my own to consider. That isn't "rationalizing" but debating.

There is no point in continuing a discussion with you on this as you ignore every reasonable argument and simply repeat your mantra. Like most liberals you are a great amount of talk but no real substance. A knat is a very noisy and annoying insect. You may take a few swats at it for a while but eventually you just ignore it because it is of little consequence.

That all sounds to me like an excuse to end the argument because you have little else to contribute.

Ringo are you a Baptist or do you just play one on CF? There are some comments in your posts that lead me to believe that you are not.

If I say I'm a Baptist, I'm a Baptist.

The Mr. Spock routine has gotten old.

So sorry to have inconvenienced you by actually making you think about a doctrine and the logic behind it.
Ringo

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

So sorry to have inconvenienced you by actually making you think about a doctrine and the logic behind it.
Ringo

You haven't inconvenienced me at all actually....you've pretty much annoyed the pants off of me by not answering questions and basically ignoring what is being said to you in response to your inferred claim that you are more wise than God on this matter(that about sum it up here?)

 

[Ringo84]

you've pretty much annoyed the pants off of me by not answering questions and basically ignoring what is being said to you in response to your inferred claim that you are more wise than God on this matter(that about sum it up here?)

That's the pot calling the kettle black. I've asked over and over why women women be asked to submit when men submit in their relationships also, and I've gotten very little in the way of arguments except "Goddidit". Then, when I've demonstrated why such thinking doesn't make much sense, I've gotten little more than "I know more than you because I've been married for three hundred years" and "God said it, end of story" - which doesn't take much thought at all.

I've never claimed to be wiser than God. What I've said was that if God is a logical being (and I believe that He is), then He would have better reasons for women to submit disproportionately than the non-reasons that have been given here.
Ringo

 

[mlqurgw]

I know what Begging The Question means, and I haven't been doing it.



How am I rationalizing? You come up with reasons why women should supposedly submit, and I respond to what you said and offer points of my own to consider. That isn't "rationalizing" but debating.



That all sounds to me like an excuse to end the argument because you have little else to contribute.




If I say I'm a Baptist, I'm a Baptist.



So sorry to have inconvenienced you by actually making you think about a doctrine and the logic behind it.
Ringo

You have just moved from the ridiculous to outright lies.