Rebellious Women

[greenguzzi]

A rather Pauline concept. Or at least, he upholds it as an ideal in 1 Thess 2:4 and 4:1.

That's the key here maybe. Some people just want to know what rules they need to follow, others want a relationship.
Blindly following rules is simpler I guess. But for some of us it's inadequate.
If Christianity was just a bunch of rules it would be like every other religion; thank God it isn't. I'd never have been led to it if it was.

 

[Paidiske]

Some rules are important; they provide structure and a sense of certainty and security. I don't have a problem with rules, per se.

It's when the rules are seen as the point that I think we've lost sight of the bigger picture.

 

[greenguzzi]

Some rules are important; they provide structure and a sense of certainty and security. I don't have a problem with rules, per se.

It's when the rules are seen as the point that I think we've lost sight of the bigger picture.

Yeah, that sounds right. Also when the relationship comes first, then it's ok to question the rules.

 

[pat34lee]

"Please God?" What a concept .....

And you would think that is what Christians would want to do, correct? So, why don't they do the things he said would please him?

 

[pat34lee]

Yeah, that sounds right. Also when the relationship comes first, then it's ok to question the rules.

But who decides when rules can be set aside and forgotten, or broken?

And who decides which rules?

 

[greenguzzi]

But who decides when rules can be set aside and forgotten, or broken?

And who decides which rules?

Well, in a relationship, the usual method is by discussion. Admittedly with God that's a bit more difficult than with other relationships. But that discussion is a huge part of being a Christian.
God had been generous though; he's given us creation, reason, the Holy Spirit, and His Word to communicate with us. And prayer to communicate with Him.
Hard work, but it's worth it.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The same is true of men.
All through society and most assemblies.

Too many women these days are living in rebellion.... They want to be disobedient to God's Word.......

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Some teachings are centuries old,
and opposed to HIS rules. Opposed to HIS WORD.

Some people for 20 or 40 years don't do what HIS WORD says,
and NO ONE inspires them to DO HIS WORD.
They
might not even be "HEARERS" for that matter,
since
HE sent a famine of the hearing of the HIS WORD.

And you would think that is what Christians would want to do, correct? So, why don't they DO the things he said would please him?

Few DO.

 

[Dave-W]

So, why don't they do the things he said would please him?

I think the answer to that is always the same: They hardened their hearts to His word.

"Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts ...."

 

[Na Nach Oi!]

Why do men here say the word feminism like its some sort of Satan Club. If I believe in myself and I want to be independent and have the same rights as men - that doesnt make me evil and it doesnt collapse the church

If you are financially independent (one of many points of feminism), why do you need men to be your provider?

We, men, WANT to be needed (to be your sole provider).

 

[Zoii]

If you are financially independent (one of many points of feminism), why do you need men to be your provider?

We, men, WANT to be needed (to be your sole provider).

Dont you think that women too enjoy the thought of a career? I dont need a man to be my provider. Im doing really well at school. Im waiting for my results but I want to do law and post grad for human rights law. I seriously dont need a guy to be my provider. Perhaps I may be the sole provider and my spouse looks after the kids. Whats wrong with that. The fact that men "want" to be has little to do with anything.

 

[Paidiske]

Men might want to be a provider (why? For ego reasons?), but that doesn't mean it's good for women to be dependent.

What happens when he dies? Or is injured and unable to work? Or runs off with someone twenty years younger? And she has no education or employment experience which will allow her to find work?

No thanks. Even if a woman chooses not to work for a time, perhaps while children are small, I always maintain it's important that we be able to support ourselves, because there are no guarantees in this life.

And honestly, if my only reason for staying with a man was that he was providing financially, that would be a pretty hollow sham of a marriage, wouldn't it? Surely we should choose marriage for better reasons than seeing a guy as a meal ticket?

I also think that the idea that all men want one sort of marriage is an absurdity. My husband far prefers our marriage to one where he was the sole provider and I was his domestic servant/financial dependent.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

We, men, WANT to be needed (to be your sole provider).

Why? Is your ego that fragile? I sure don't want to have to ask my husband for money...ever! For 20 years we've had separate careers, separate bank accounts and meet in the middle. I need my husband for plenty of things...however his money is not on that list. How about things like companionship, friendship, love, intimacy? I am married to my best friend in the world. We have loads of fun together, we laugh until we cry, think the same thoughts (seriously, "get out of my head" is heard often around here), and walk side by side on this crazy ride called life. What he provides for me is worth much more than a paycheck...and I've usually earned more money than he has for our entire marriage.

 

[Na Nach Oi!]

Why? Is your ego that fragile? I sure don't want to have to ask my husband for money...ever! For 20 years we've had separate careers, separate bank accounts and meet in the middle. I need my husband for plenty of things...however his money is not on that list. How about things like companionship, friendship, love, intimacy? I am married to my best friend in the world. We have loads of fun together, we laugh until we cry, think the same thoughts (seriously, "get out of my head" is heard often around here), and walk side by side on this crazy ride called life. What he provides for me is worth much more than a paycheck...and I've usually earned more money than he has for our entire marriage.

I don't know you, but judging based on your statement here, you are good wife, indeed, because you are successful to control your hypergamy nature. But, that requires some sort of mental gymnastic to control it. It is very hard, isn't it?

Naturally, MOST women would leave (or do the worst of all, to cheat on) their husbands if they know their husbands earn less.

In God's eyes, husbands are still the rulers, the head of families (Gen 3:16) although he earns less than you do and you shall submit to him (Eph 5:22).

 

[Paidiske]

Hypergamy? "Marrying up" is intrinsic to womanliness now?

I've really heard it all. If women have a propensity to "marry up" it's because society has had a propensity to put us in vulnerable situations (see above comments about the need to be able to support ourselves), not because it's something in our "nature" which needs to be controlled.

Sheesh. The idea that most women would leave or cheat on a husband earning less is deeply offensive to me (as a faithful wife who is the household breadwinner) and would, I imagine, be just as offensive to all the other faithful wives who out-earn their husbands.

 

[Zoii]

I don't know you, but judging based on your statement here, you are good wife, indeed, because you are successful to control your hypergamy nature. But, that requires some sort of mental gymnastic to control it. It is very hard, isn't it?

Naturally, MOST women would leave (or do the worst of all, to cheat on) their husbands if they know their husbands earn less.

In God's eyes, husbands are still the rulers, the head of families (Gen 3:16) although he earns less than you do and you shall submit to him (Eph 5:22).

Just to bring you up to speed with the 21st century [you have me a lil fired up here]

The choice of a woman to leave her husband has ZERO to do with him earning less - where on earth do you get this stuff from!!!

And if being a Christian means a man has to rule me then fine - I want nothing to do with the religion. I don't need a man to rule me - I will not submit to anyone - and if someone wants to marry me then its because we love each other and we will walk through life as partners in life - not one leading/ruling over the other.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Just stumbling back on this conversation, but I agree that point is offensive.

The only thing that makes me faithful to my husband is that he earns more than me? Never mind my belief in fidelity in marriage, my desire not to sin against God, and the just plain foolish idea of messing up your marriage and potentially your mental and physical health by fooling around? (And never mind those times when I earned more ... )

What are people thinking???

 

[ValleyGal]

I have financially supported my husband 100% for more than five years. And I have been 100% faithful. I would not even care if he'd only brought home a couple of hundred a month - ANYthing to contribute. My problem is not with the fact I earn more than him; it is with the fact that he disregards my repeated requests to contribute SOMEthing to the home. I have had the integrity to keep my word, keep the vows I have made when I married him. And IF we divorce, it has nothing to do with going against my vows. Sometimes the only way to really love someone is from a distance and allow them to feel and experience the consequences of their own action or inaction.

Yes, I am offended at this point. And no, I am NOT going to "submit" except to the love of Christ. The love of Christ may need to be in painful boundaries.... but even still, it is in my husband's best interest.... for now.

 

[Zoii]

I'd really like to understand better how the church says that some things in the OT dont have to be applied in the way its worded now while others do.

take this statement today :"In God's eyes, husbands are still the rulers, the head of families (Gen 3:16) although he earns less than you do and you shall submit to him (Eph 5:22).". It implies that since this verse is located in the OT we have to obey it precisely as written.

But then theres Deut 22: If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out loud enough for help...

OR
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young girl, the rapist must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father and then the girl must marry the rapist

We accept that to act in this way is criminal and absurd that a girl would be forced to marry her rapist and wouldnt do that so we dont accept those verses or adjust the meaning to our present century. So my question is - why the debate over men leading because while it had relevance back 2000+ years ago - it doesnt have the same relevance now

 

[ValleyGal]

The idea that man will rule over woman comes as a result of the fall and is not a command. Some men like to use the Bible out of context in order to rule over women. But women are not letting that happen anymore (for the most part).