Baptist views on feminism

[Ringo84]

You have just moved from the ridiculous to outright lies.

Point out the lies.

Why are you apparently trying to make this about me? I'm not at issue here. I thought we were debating female submission - not Ringo84.
Ringo

 

[mlqurgw]

The argument of Ringo84:
Husbands and wives must equally submit to each other.
They must equally submit to each other because they are equal.
They are equal because they are equal.
Therefore they are equal and must submit to each other.
This is a classic example of both begging the question and circular reasoning. Yet he denies that he is commiting either because he thinks he isn't.

 

[mlqurgw]

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.

Here you say one thing.

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

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

Here you contradict yourself and say something you know is untrue because you admitted that you have been given more reasons than you here claim. Do you really want me to go through all your posts and show the untruths?

 

[Ringo84]

That's not my argument.

Weren't you the person who claimed to have been married for thirty-odd years? In all of those years of marriage, do you find that your relationship with your wife requires sacrifice from both of you? In other words, do you find that for your marriage to work, it requires give and take from both you and your wife?

You submit to your wife out of love and devotion because you value your marriage and want it to succeed. You give and she takes. Your wife submits to you out of love and devotion because she values her marriage and wants it to succeed. She gives and you take. That's how real relationships work: sometimes you give (submit), and she takes. Other times, she gives (submits) and you take. It's a balancing act. One partner doesn't have to do ALL of the giving, and one partner doesn't have to do ALL of the taking. You share the burden by submitting to one another mutually, out of love.

As for men and women being equal, it doesn't matter whether or not two people are identical. The Declaration of Independence doesn't say "All men are created equally if they are identical to one another". God never said that "all are one under God if they are identical to one another". There is no hierarchy where one sex is "better" than the other. Where men lack in certain strengths, women make up for with their strengths. Where women lack in certain strengths, men make up for with their strengths. Together, they're a perfect fit - a perfect balance.

Am I making myself clear? I think part of the problem is the fact that I haven't expressed my ideas clearly enough to you. I think you'll find upon closer inspection that what I'm saying is hardly revolutionary at all.
Ringo

 

[mlqurgw]

That's not my argument.

It is exactly your argument. Go back and read your posts.

Weren't you the person who claimed to have been married for thirty-odd years? In all of those years of marriage, do you find that your relationship with your wife requires sacrifice from both of you? In other words, do you find that for your marriage to work, it requires give and take from both you and your wife?

Sure it requires sacrifice from both but that isn't what submission is about. You seem to have been brainwashed into thinking that submission is being lower than the one you submit to. That simply isn't the case. Submission is simply recognizing the authority of the husband. It has nothing to do with equality or being less. My wife isn't equal to me she is far my superior. Yet I am the head of our relationship. Believe me my wife has no problem or lack of freedom to tell me when she thinks I am wrong. Still she recognizes that if I am wrong we must go through the consequence together. I am not the king of our house I am the head of our house.

You submit to your wife out of love and devotion because you value your marriage and want it to succeed. You give and she takes. Your wife submits to you out of love and devotion because she values her marriage and wants it to succeed. She gives and you take. That's how real relationships work: sometimes you give (submit), and she takes. Other times, she gives (submits) and you take. It's a balancing act. One partner doesn't have to do ALL of the giving, and one partner doesn't have to do ALL of the taking. You share the burden by submitting to one another mutually, out of love.

No I don't submit to my wife I do my best to give her what she needs at whatever cost to myself. I love her and will give myself for her. But I do not submit to her. I am the head and she is the neck. The head doesn't turn unless the neck turns it. I may have the authority but she has the power.

As for men and women being equal, it doesn't matter whether or not two people are identical. The Declaration of Independence doesn't say "All men are created equally if they are identical to one another". God never said that "all are one under God if they are identical to one another". There is no hierarchy where one sex is "better" than the other. Where men lack in certain strengths, women make up for with their strengths. Where women lack in certain strengths, men make up for with their strengths. Together, they're a perfect fit - a perfect balance.

That was intended to show that you were being illogical in your thinking. While it is true that no two things can be equal without being identical, and if you had any understanding of logic you should have recognized the argument, that doesn't mean that they can't stand on the same ground.

Am I making myself clear? I think part of the problem is the fact that I haven't expressed my ideas clearly enough to you. I think you'll find upon closer inspection that what I'm saying is hardly revolutionary at all.
Ringo

I always knew what your point was. You made a big mistake is making a claim that it wasn't logical. As I said, you have an idea and idealism but lack real experience. Seeking to justify your position isn't the same as proving your position.

 

[Ringo84]

It is exactly your argument. Go back and read your posts.

Don't tell me what my argument is.

Sure it requires sacrifice from both but that isn't what submission is about. You seem to have been brainwashed into thinking that submission is being lower than the one you submit to. That simply isn't the case. Submission is simply recognizing the authority of the husband. It has nothing to do with equality or being less. My wife isn't equal to me she is far my superior. Yet I am the head of our relationship. Believe me my wife has no problem or lack of freedom to tell me when she thinks I am wrong. Still she recognizes that if I am wrong we must go through the consequence together. I am not the king of our house I am the head of our house.

I never said anything about submission being lower. What I said was that relationships require give and take from both parties. Both the man and the woman give to the other and take from the other.

No I don't submit to my wife I do my best to give her what she needs at whatever cost to myself. I love her and will give myself for her. But I do not submit to her. I am the head and she is the neck. The head doesn't turn unless the neck turns it. I may have the authority but she has the power.

Sure you do. Otherwise, your relationship wouldn't be balanced. One person doesn't bear the entire burden of submission. Both parties share the burden of submitting to one another out of love.

That was intended to show that you were being illogical in your thinking. While it is true that no two things can be equal without being identical, and if you had any understanding of logic

I don't get it. You're trying to show the illogic of my arguments by countering with an illogical argument?

I always knew what your point was.

If you truly understood my point, you wouldn't be arguing with me like this.

As I said, you have an idea and idealism but lack real experience.

Experience is overrated. It doesn't take thirty years of marriage to see that both the man and the woman submit in relationships. Love requires sacrifice, commitment, and submission to one's significant other/spouse.

Seeking to justify your position isn't the same as proving your position.

I'm not trying to justify anything. I don't need to justify my position to you. What I'm doing is trying to explain my position, as I feel like I haven't explained it well.
Ringo

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

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

You know what? You sport a Baptist icon so I assume you go to church...go ask your Pastor since you are dissatisfied with our answers.



Nuff said.

 

[mlqurgw]

Don't tell me what my argument is.

You certainly don't seem to know what it is.

I never said anything about submission being lower. What I said was that relationships require give and take from both parties. Both the man and the woman give to the other and take from the other.

But that is what your whole rationale is based on.

Sure you do. Otherwise, your relationship wouldn't be balanced. One person doesn't bear the entire burden of submission. Both parties share the burden of submitting to one another out of love.

No I don't. I sacrifice myself for her but she doesn't have the authority in the household for me to submit to her. I submit to Christ. I follow Him and she follows me as I follow Him.

I don't get it. You're trying to show the illogic of my arguments by countering with an illogical argument?

If it is illogical prove it. All you have done to this point is make claims without any proof whatsoever. You repeat your conclusion as though it proves itself. That is why your reasoning isn't according to logic. You have built no logical argument at all.

If you truly understood my point, you wouldn't be arguing with me like this.

I am the only one who is actually making an argument. I am arguing, as in a lawyer arguing his case, you are simply trying to justify your position. There is no real debate here. If you continue you will just keep digging yourself a bigger hole. The burden of proof is on you. You are the one who continually made the claim that submission by the wife is illogical. You are already at the point you are grasping at any straw you can find. You have shot yourself in the foot several times already.

Experience is overrated. It doesn't take thirty years of marriage to see that both the man and the woman submit in relationships. Love requires sacrifice, commitment, and submission to one's significant other/spouse.

That from one who has no experience.

I'm not trying to justify anything. I don't need to justify my position to you. What I'm doing is trying to explain my position, as I feel like I haven't explained it well.
Ringo

You are right you haven't done a good job. You can't explain it, all you do is repeat it as though we must take your word for it. You offer no real reasons in any logical manner to show it and any reason you do offer is based on the assumption that your conclusion is true. If submission by the wife is actually illogical then show it to be so by a reasonable logical argument.

 

[Ringo84]

You know what? You sport a Baptist icon so I assume you go to church...go ask your Pastor since you are dissatisfied with our answers.

That's a thought. Still, I'm actually more curious to see what fellow Christians say about this issue and how they justify it than what my pastor thinks.
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

You certainly don't seem to know what it is.

I know very well what it is, but I don't think you understand it that well.

But that is what your whole rationale is based on.

No it's not. My rationale is based on the belief that men and women both sacrifice and submit in healthy relationships. Women being equal to men is a side issue.

No I don't. I sacrifice myself for her but she doesn't have the authority in the household for me to submit to her. I submit to Christ. I follow Him and she follows me as I follow Him.

She submits to you and you submit to her because you're in a relationship where sacrifice and submission to one another is key to keeping the relationship going.

If it is illogical prove it.

Haven't I already done that? You want me to explain to you why your belief that two must be identical to be equal is fallacious?

All you have done to this point is make claims without any proof whatsoever.

You need proof that the give and take that happens in a relationship come from both the man and the wife equally? I thought you were the one who had all the experience with marriage.

You repeat your conclusion as though it proves itself. That is why your reasoning isn't according to logic. You have built no logical argument at all.

Haven't you been listening to anything I've said? I explained it to you over and over again: relationships require commitment. Commitment requires submission and sacrifice from both parties. Otherwise, one partner is bearing a disproportionate amount of the load. How much more clear do I have to be?

I am the only one who is actually making an argument.

Really? Because I haven't seen much in the way of argument.

you are simply trying to justify your position.

I'm trying to explain my position to you, but you are either unwilling or unable (or both) to understand it. I debated this exact same issue elsewhere on this forum. Someone else got my point right away. I've talked until I'm blue in the face (as it were) here, and we're going over the same ground over and over again. I don't think it's because I'm not explaining myself well but because you refuse to accept what I'm saying - regardless of whether it's wrong or right.

The burden of proof is on you.

I beg to differ. The burden of proof is on you to explain why women would have to be the ones to disproportionately submit when both men and women submit in relationships.

You are the one who continually made the claim that submission by the wife is illogical.

That's not what I said. I said that it's illogical to ask the woman - and only the woman - to submit and not ask for the same level of submission from the man.

You are already at the point you are grasping at any straw you can find. You have shot yourself in the foot several times already.

I'm grasping at straws? I'm not the one trying to make Ringo84 into an issue here. That's you.

That from one who has no experience.

You keep throwing your eons of experience with marriage in my face as though that makes you an expert. While it's true that there are some aspects of marriage I can't understand until I experience them myself (ie: the type of love that comes from being married to someone for decades), one does not have to be married to understand the dynamics of a relationship. Your experience in marriage is noted, but it doesn't make you any more of an expert than me.

You are right you haven't done a good job.

No, I take back my earlier claim to have not explained it well. As I said above, I don't think the problem here is with me, but your inability and unwillingness to even understand my position.

You offer no real reasons in any logical manner to show it and any reason you do offer is based on the assumption that your conclusion is true.

Again, that's the pot calling the kettle black.
Ringo

 

[mlqurgw]

I know very well what it is, but I don't think you understand it that well.

Oh I do. That is why I gave you a syllogism of your argument. Though you don't wish to acknowledge it anyone who actually reads the thread can see it.

No it's not. My rationale is based on the belief that men and women both sacrifice and submit in healthy relationships. Women being equal to men is a side issue.

Then why did you make such an issue of being equal? Men and women don't both submit they do both sacrifice. Submission is an issue of authority not of equality. I submit to my boss even when he is wrong. It isn't a matter of equality but one of authority. I agreed to submit to his authority when I took the job. A healthy relationship recognizes authority. Trouble comes when authority is discounted.

She submits to you and you submit to her because you're in a relationship where sacrifice and submission to one another is key to keeping the relationship going.

Sacrifice, love and commitment is key to keeping the relationship going. Mutual submission is a denial of the authority of one which is a denial of the natural order not to mention God's order. Two dominant personalities will not get along well.

Haven't I already done that? You want me to explain to you why your belief that two must be identical to be equal is fallacious?

Yes I do. Not only do I want you to I expect you to since you have made the claim that it is illogical. If you can prove it do so.

You need proof that the give and take that happens in a relationship come from both the man and the wife equally? I thought you were the one who had all the experience with marriage.

I never said that give and take doesn't happen in a marriage. But it is never equal. One always gives more than the other. That is just the way it is.

Haven't you been listening to anything I've said?

I am very good at reading and comprehending. I know what you're saying and why but I disagree. Not with your view entirely but with your manner at arriving at it and the conclusion your reach.

I explained it to you over and over again:

No, you have just repeated it over and over.

relationships require commitment.

No disagreement there. Commitment is vital. Far to many give up because there is no commitment.

Commitment requires submission and sacrifice from both parties.

No it doesn't. Commitment requires tenacity, perseverance, forgiveness and forgetfulness.

Otherwise, one partner is bearing a disproportionate amount of the load.

Love is bearing a disproportionate amount of the load. I would much rather bear the load and her not be burdened.

How much more clear do I have to be?

It is clear that you have no idea what you are talking about concerning logic or marriage.

Really? Because I haven't seen much in the way of argument.

Only because you have ignored it. You haven't answered any point of actual argument I have made. You have built a straw man and sought to tear it down.

I'm trying to explain my position to you, but you are either unwilling or unable (or both) to understand it.

I understand it I just disagree with it.

I debated this exact same issue elsewhere on this forum. Someone else got my point right away.

I got your point but you haven't proven it. You have made unsubstantiated claims. We are supposed to accept your ideas because you think they sound logical? Build a logical argument and prove your conclusion. The problem is that you can't because it is a rationalization instead of a logical conclusion.

I've talked until I'm blue in the face (as it were) here, and we're going over the same ground over and over again. I don't think it's because I'm not explaining myself well but because you refuse to accept what I'm saying - regardless of whether it's wrong or right.

If you are right and your conclusion is true show it to be so by a logical argument.

I beg to differ. The burden of proof is on you to explain why women would have to be the ones to disproportionately submit when both men and women submit in relationships.

I am not the one who repeatedly said it was illogical. The burden of proof is on you. You have been given reasons why it is women who are to submit but gave them no consideration and resorted to calling the Scriptures metaphorical stories that are possibly mythical. Most you didn't even answer.

not what I said. I said that it's illogical to ask the woman - and only the woman - to submit and not ask for the same level of submission from the man.

But you haven't shown how it is illogical you have only repeated over and over and over again that it is. Prove by logic you claim.

gring at straws? I'm not the one trying to make Ringo84 into an issue here. That's you.



You keep throwing your eons of experience with marriage in my face as though that makes you an expert. While it's true that there are some aspects of marriage I can't understand until I experience them myself (ie: the type of love that comes from being married to someone for decades), one does not have to be married to understand the dynamics of a relationship. Your experience in marriage is noted, but it doesn't make you any more of an expert than me.



No, I take back my earlier claim to have not explained it well. As I said above, I don't think the problem here is with me, but your inability and unwillingness to even understand my position.



Again, that's the pot calling the kettle black.
Ringo

It seems that I have done something that makes the original text disappear when I type so I will leave the rest till later.

 

[Ringo84]

Oh I do. That is why I gave you a syllogism of your argument. Though you don't wish to acknowledge it anyone who actually reads the thread can see it.

If you understood it half as well as you claim, we wouldn't be going around and around like this.

Submission is an issue of authority not of equality. I submit to my boss even when he is wrong. It isn't a matter of equality but one of authority. I agreed to submit to his authority when I took the job. A healthy relationship recognizes authority. Trouble comes when authority is discounted.

That's you and your boss. A marriage isn't a hierarchy. Both the man and the woman have authority because they're both plugged into the relationship.

Mutual submission is a denial of the authority of one which is a denial of the natural order not to mention God's order. Two dominant personalities will not get along well.

Since the man and the woman both share the relationship equally, they both have the authority in the relationship. So there is no authority that only men have.

Yes I do. Not only do I want you to I expect you to since you have made the claim that it is illogical. If you can prove it do so.

To a degree, I understand what you're trying to say: that men and women have different strengths and therefore will never be equal. On that point, I agree.

That doesn't mean, however, that men and women will never be equal. According to the Constitution, I'm equal to you regardless of whether or not we are identical. According to God, we are equal regardless of whether or not we are identical. Logically, even though we may have different strengths and weaknesses, that doesn't necessarily prove that you are somehow "superior" to me or that I am "superior" to you.

But it is never equal. One always gives more than the other. That is just the way it is.

It doesn't have to be that way. Men and women can shoulder the responsibility equally and give as equally as possible. You act as though that's impossible. I tend to believe that men and women can exist in coequal relationships where both give and take in equal amounts.

I know what you're saying and why but I disagree. Not with your view entirely but with your manner at arriving at it and the conclusion your reach.

Then what's the problem here?

No it doesn't. Commitment requires tenacity, perseverance, forgiveness and forgetfulness.

Yes it does. You submit to your partner by staying true to them for the rest of your life. She submits to you by staying true to you for the rest of her life. You both submit, because that's what a relationship entails.

It is clear that you have no idea what you are talking about concerning logic or marriage.

You're entitled to your opinion - even if that opinion is wrong.

Only because you have ignored it.

I've read every word you've typed. "Submission in a marriage only happens from the woman. Relationships are never structured in such a way that both partners equally share the burden. Women submitting to men is the 'natural order'. Two people are not equal if they are not identical"

Have you been listening to what I've said?

You haven't answered any point of actual argument I have made.

That simply is not true. I have addressed every argument you have made. Just because you may not like my counterarguments doesn't mean that you can simply dismiss them.

You have built a straw man and sought to tear it down.

A Strawman is defined thusly by wikipedia:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

Show me the straw man.

I understand it I just disagree with it.

Fair enough.

I got your point but you haven't proven it. You have made unsubstantiated claims. We are supposed to accept your ideas because you think they sound logical? Build a logical argument and prove your conclusion. The problem is that you can't because it is a rationalization instead of a logical conclusion.

The other member got it because they were listening. You don't seem to be.

I have made "unsubstantiated arguments"? The fact that two people don't have to be identical in order to be equal is unsubstantiated? The fact that submission is a two-way street in relationships is unsubstantiated? The fact that women submitting and not asking the same from men is unsubstantiated?

I am not the one who repeatedly said it was illogical. The burden of proof is on you

The proof is in the pudding. The verse supposedly asks for something from women that isn't asked from for men. Illogical.

You have been given reasons why it is women who are to submit but gave them no consideration

I addressed every one of the points you made above. You ignored it.

and resorted to calling the Scriptures metaphorical stories that are possibly mythical.

More distortions, as I only said that the Garden of Eden story was metaphorical. I never declared that ALL Scripture was metaphorical.

Most you didn't even answer.

That simply isn't true, as I have answered every argument you've made in this thread. Go back and check it yourself.

But you haven't shown how it is illogical you have only repeated over and over and over again that it is. Prove by logic you claim.

It's like two countries. To one country, you say: "I want you to play by these rules. You are not to do x and y and z". To the other country, you say: "All you have to do is treat the other country nicely. The same rules don't apply to you".

Does that sound logical to you?

It seems that I have done something that makes the original text disappear when I type so I will leave the rest till later.

Fair enough. I'll be here.
Ringo

 

[mlqurgw]

I'm

grasping at straws? I'm not the one trying to make Ringo84 into an issue here. That's you.

I am not making you an issue I am showing you how your thinking is flawed. I am showing you why your method of argument, if it can actually be called argument, doesn't work. It has nothing to do with you personally.

That from one who has no experience.

You keep throwing your eons of experience with marriage in my face as though that makes you an expert. While it's true that there are some aspects of marriage I can't understand until I experience them myself (ie: the type of love that comes from being married to someone for decades), one does not have to be married to understand the dynamics of a relationship. Your experience in marriage is noted, but it doesn't make you any more of an expert than me.

I only mentioned that I have been married for 36 years once. You are the one who keeps bringing it up. I have pointed out twice, I think, that you have no experience. Until you have experienced what it is for two sinners to live together in unity you can't understand the dynamics of it. You can dream about it and fashion all sorts of ideas but you don't really know anything real until you experience it. Until you are a parent you don't know what it is to be a parent. It is something you can't understand or actually know anything about until you are one. You can form opinions about what it ought to be and how it ought to work but it is only opinion and bears no weight because there is no real experience behind it.

You are right you haven't done a good job.

No, I take back my earlier claim to have not explained it well. As I said above, I don't think the problem here is with me, but your inability and unwillingness to even understand my position.

As I said, I do understand it I just don't agree with it.

You offer no real reasons in any logical manner to show it and any reason you do offer is based on the assumption that your conclusion is true.

Again, that's the pot calling the kettle black.
Ringo

Those who read the thread can decide for themselves who has actually put forth arguments.

 

[Ringo84]

I am not making you an issue I am showing you how your thinking is flawed.

My thinking isn't flawed.

I am showing you why your method of argument, if it can actually be called argument, doesn't work. It has nothing to do with you personally.

I know that. I'm simply trying to argue for my point of view. Whether you think my methods work or not is irrelevant.

I only mentioned that I have been married for 36 years once. You are the one who keeps bringing it up. I have pointed out twice, I think, that you have no experience. Until you have experienced what it is for two sinners to live together in unity you can't understand the dynamics of it. You can dream about it and fashion all sorts of ideas but you don't really know anything real until you experience it. Until you are a parent you don't know what it is to be a parent. It is something you can't understand or actually know anything about until you are one. You can form opinions about what it ought to be and how it ought to work but it is only opinion and bears no weight because there is no real experience behind it.

You only mentioned your years of marriage once, but you keep bringing up how I'm "inexperienced", as though you think that when I marry the future Mrs. Ringo84, I'll suddenly discover why it is that women should submit and men should not.

I buy that there are some aspects of marriage that I can't understand, but I don't buy that I will suddenly understand the doctrine of one-sided submission once I'm married. If it doesn't make sense now, I doubt it will make much sense in the future.

I don't have anything against you personally either. I just think that some Christians simply believe the one-sided submission doctrine without giving it much thought. That isn't your fault. It's just the way it seems to be.
Ringo

 

[mlqurgw]

My thinking isn't flawed.

Sure it is. I have already shown you how it is. All of your reasons for holding your stance assume that your stance is true. Your thinking is a rationalization not a logical conclusion.

I know that. I'm simply trying to argue for my point of view. Whether you think my methods work or not is irrelevant.

Method of arriving at a conclusion is very relevant. You can't defend a position well, if at all, with a poor method of thinking. The method you use to argue is very relevant as well. If you make claims you must be prepared to defend them. Your entire defense has been to repeat your claims. You claimed that women submitting to their husband is illogical but you have never once shown the logic that you claim. You have not put forth premises that lead to any logical conclusion necessarily. If you can show us syllogistically why it is illogical then you may have a leg to stand on. You are the one who brought logic into the discussion but you haven't given us any logical reasons to support your view. You seem to assume that it is common sense but it isn't. Your stance may sound good but it simply doesn't work either logically or realistically.

You only mentioned your years of marriage once, but you keep bringing up how I'm "inexperienced", as though you think that when I marry the future Mrs. Ringo84, I'll suddenly discover why it is that women should submit and men should not.

I have used that sparingly actually. You have brought up experience and your lack of it much more than I. And please don't put words in my mouth. I have never said or even implied that you or anyone else will suddenly discover why a women should submit when they get married. I have shown why your lack of experience is relevant and even illustrated why.

I buy that there are some aspects of marriage that I can't understand, but I don't buy that I will suddenly understand the doctrine of one-sided submission once I'm married. If it doesn't make sense now, I doubt it will make much sense in the future.

It may never make sense to you. But I am willing to bet that one day when you are married that you will find out that one of you does submit. You will either submit to her or she will to you and it will be fairly one sided. Even the animal kingdom shows this to be true. Look at any group of animals and you will find one dominant that is usually male. Not always but usually.

I don't have anything against you personally either. I just think that some Christians simply believe the one-sided submission doctrine without giving it much thought. That isn't your fault. It's just the way it seems to be.
Ringo

Giving something thought and thinking correctly aren't necessarily the same thing. Rationalization isn't a good way of thinking. It is the common way but not a good way. It is what politicians and criminals, as though there is any difference in them, use to justify the things they do. Logic deals with facts and seeks to arrive at truth. The method of logic determines whether claimed facts are really facts. If they are then a logical conclusion can be drawn from them.
Fact: the Bible clearly teaches that the wife is to submit to her husband.
Fact: those who believe the Bible believe that the wife should submit to her husband.
Therefore in a Bible believing home the wife should submit to her husband.
To refute this you must show that either one or both of the stated facts are wrong. You can't show the first one wrong because it is an objective fact that can be observed by everyone. You must then try to show the second one wrong. To do that you must prove that one can believe the Bible and not believe the Bible at the same time. That would be a contradiction and therefore a fallacy. We can do the same thing with a non-Biblical argument but it would be more complex. If you want I will do it but I think you get my point. At least I hope you do. It isn't enough to just think on a subject you must think correctly.

 

[Ringo84]

Sure it is. I have already shown you how it is. All of your reasons for holding your stance assume that your stance is true. Your thinking is a rationalization not a logical conclusion.

You keep claiming that my arguments are rationalizations, but that doesn't make it true.

Method of arriving at a conclusion is very relevant. You can't defend a position well, if at all, with a poor method of thinking. The method you use to argue is very relevant as well. If you make claims you must be prepared to defend them. Your entire defense has been to repeat your claims.

Thanks, but I don't need advice on how to debate from you.

You claimed that women submitting to their husband is illogical but you have never once shown the logic that you claim. You have not put forth premises that lead to any logical conclusion necessarily. If you can show us syllogistically why it is illogical then you may have a leg to stand on. You are the one who brought logic into the discussion but you haven't given us any logical reasons to support your view. You seem to assume that it is common sense but it isn't. Your stance may sound good but it simply doesn't work either logically or realistically.

Then you haven't been paying attention, as I have already discussed the logic of my arguments.

But just to reiterate: if you ask for women to submit and don't ask the same from men, you're disproportionately asking too much of the woman.

I have used that sparingly actually. You have brought up experience and your lack of it much more than I. And please don't put words in my mouth. I have never said or even implied that you or anyone else will suddenly discover why a women should submit when they get married. I have shown why your lack of experience is relevant and even illustrated why.

No you haven't. You've brought your experience into nearly every answer. You didn't outright claim that I would suddenly understand submission once married, but you've implied it by talking about how I don't "understand" relationships and how much I supposedly have to learn about them.

It may never make sense to you. But I am willing to bet that one day when you are married that you will find out that one of you does submit. You will either submit to her or she will to you and it will be fairly one sided. Even the animal kingdom shows this to be true. Look at any group of animals and you will find one dominant that is usually male. Not always but usually.

What is with your apparent belief that one person must always be the dominant one? I can think of relationships where there never was any dominant leader.

Giving something thought and thinking correctly aren't necessarily the same thing. Rationalization isn't a good way of thinking. It is the common way but not a good way. It is what politicians and criminals, as though there is any difference in them, use to justify the things they do. Logic deals with facts and seeks to arrive at truth. The method of logic determines whether claimed facts are really facts. If they are then a logical conclusion can be drawn from them.

As I said earlier: I don't need lessons on argumentation from you.

Fact: the Bible clearly teaches that the wife is to submit to her husband.

The verse says that women must be subject to their husbands. Husbands are subject to their wives in the same way, as both the husband and the wife are accountable to each other.

The Bible also tells us that we are submit to one another. It doesn't say that one person must bear the entire burden of submission but that we all submit equally to one another.

Fact: those who believe the Bible believe that the wife should submit to her husband.

Some people also believe that we shouldn't eat shrimp or that we should kill homosexuals. What people believe about the Bible doesn't necessarily reflect what the Bible actually says.

Therefore in a Bible believing home the wife should submit to her husband.

Based on what people believe? So if the Bible clearly states that Christians should kill homosexuals, and so-called "Bible-believing homes" believe that also, it means that in a "Bible-believing home", homosexuals should be killed?

You can't show the first one wrong because it's an objective fact and can be observed by everyone. You must then try to show the second one wrong. To do that you must prove that one can believe the Bible and not believe the Bible at the same time. That would be a contradiction and therefore a fallacy.

I also find it ironic that after claiming over and over that I have never backed up my arguments with logic, you completely ignored my logical argument concerning the hypothetical two nations in my previous post.

It isn't enough to just think on a subject you must think correctly.

That isn't a problem in my case.
Ringo

 

[mlqurgw]

You keep claiming that my arguments are rationalizations, but that doesn't make it true.

Claiming it doesn't make it true. But I have actually shown how it is a rationalization not just claimed it. I have made a point to show it. It seems your style is to ignore what you can't refute.

Thanks, but I don't need advice on how to debate from you.

You may not want my advice but it is clear you you aren't actually debating but justifying your position. Repeating a mantra, making unsubstantiated claims and assuming your conclusion in your argument isn't debating. It is talking a whole bunch without saying anything.

Then you haven't been paying attention, as I have already discussed the logic of my arguments.

No you haven't. You have simply made repeated claims without backing them up. I have pointed out where your "logic" is flawed and all you do is say it isn't. You don't seem to be interested in arriving at truth. You seem to be interested in justifying your position. It doesn't seem to matter to you whether an actual logical conclusion can be reached either way. You just want to be right because you think you are. Your position sounds good to you and therefore it can't be any other way.

But just to reiterate: if you ask for women to submit and don't ask the same from men, you're disproportionately asking too much of the woman.

No you aren't. You are relieving the woman of a burden that she doesn't need to bear. With authority comes responsibility.

No you haven't. You've brought your experience into nearly every answer. You didn't outright claim that I would suddenly understand submission once married, but you've implied it by talking about how I don't "understand" relationships and how much I supposedly have to learn about them.

Prove it. Quote every time I have brought it up that wasn't in response to you bringing it up.

What is with your apparent belief that one person must always be the dominant one? I can think of relationships where there never was any dominant leader.

Then show me. Point me to them.

As I said earlier: I don't need lessons on argumentation from you.

Perhaps you don't. You are intelligent.

The verse says that women must be subject to their husbands. Husbands are subject to their wives in the same way, as both the husband and the wife are accountable to each other.

If it were just a verse I might be inclined to admit you may be right. It isn't just a verse though it is the teaching of the whole of Scripture. Husbands aren't subject to their wives in the same way. They do have to deal with their wives based upon their decisions but they are not subject to them is the same way.

The Bible also tells us that we are submit to one another. It doesn't say that one person must bear the entire burden of submission but that we all submit equally to one another.

Back it up. Book, chapter and verse please.

Some people also believe that we shouldn't eat shrimp or that we should kill homosexuals. What people believe about the Bible doesn't necessarily reflect what the Bible actually says.

No it doesn't. That is why opinions don't matter, yours or mine. Believing the Bible isn't a matter of taking a verse or two and forming a belief but taking the teaching of the whole and bowing to it. It isn't difficult to show anything you want by taking isolated passages of Scripture out of their context and drawing an inference from them. It is called proof texting. It is a favorite tactic of those who oppose the Scriptures. One you apparently are trying to use right now.

Based on what people believe? So if the Bible clearly states that Christians should kill homosexuals, and so-called "Bible-believing homes" believe that also, it means that in a "Bible-believing home", homosexuals should be killed?

Logically yes. The question is does the Bible actually teach that homosexuals should be killed? Sure you can find verses that seem to say so but is it the teaching of the Scriptures as a whole? Good try but no cigar.

You can't show the first one wrong because it's an objective fact and can be observed by everyone. You must then try to show the second one wrong. To do that you must prove that one can believe the Bible and not believe the Bible at the same time. That would be a contradiction and therefore a fallacy.

I also find it ironic that after claiming over and over that I have never backed up my arguments with logic, you completely ignored my logical argument concerning the hypothetical two nations in my previous post.

I didn't ignore it. I didn't see it. Point me to it and I will deal with it.

That isn't a problem in my case.
Ringo

Of course it isn't.

 

[Ringo84]

Claiming it doesn't make it true. But I have actually shown how it is a rationalization not just claimed it. I have made a point to show it. It seems your style is to ignore what you can't refute.

You haven't shown anything. You've simply claimed over and over that I'm "rationalizing". I thought we were debating female pastors here - not me.

No you haven't. You have simply made repeated claims without backing them up. I have pointed out where your "logic" is flawed and all you do is say it isn't. You don't seem to be interested in arriving at truth. You seem to be interested in justifying your position. It doesn't seem to matter to you whether an actual logical conclusion can be reached either way. You just want to be right because you think you are. Your position sounds good to you and therefore it can't be any other way.

All I know is that I've discussed this same issue elsewhere on this forum. I've repeated the same logic there that I used here. Those people "got it" right away, but you and I are still going around and around and around. I don't think the problem here is with my arguments.

No you aren't. You are relieving the woman of a burden that she doesn't need to bear. With authority comes responsibility.

And women can bear that burden just as well as men.

Prove it. Quote every time I have brought it up that wasn't in response to you bringing it up.

Ringo, how long have you been married? I have been married to the same woman for 36 years now so I do know a little something about marriage.

So a 25 year old who isn't married is telling a 54 year old who has been married for 36 years how marriage is supposed to work? Right, we should all listen to your wise council. Come back when you actually have some experience with what you are taking about. All you have is an idea and idealism. It just don't wash in the real world.

Then show me. Point me to them.

My parents, who have been married for years. My pastor, who has also been married for years. My aunt and uncle on my mother's side. You act as though submission is the one and only way for marriages to operate. I say that it isn't because I've seen marriages without one-way submission that I've seen work perfectly well.

If it were just a verse I might be inclined to admit you may be right. It isn't just a verse though it is the teaching of the whole of Scripture. Husbands aren't subject to their wives in the same way. They do have to deal with their wives based upon their decisions but they are not subject to them is the same way.

They are subject to their wives in that they are held accountable for their actions. So are women.

Back it up. Book, chapter and verse please.

Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Ephesians 5:21

No it doesn't. That is why opinions don't matter, yours or mine. Believing the Bible isn't a matter of taking a verse or two and forming a belief but taking the teaching of the whole and bowing to it. It isn't difficult to show anything you want by taking isolated passages of Scripture out of their context and drawing an inference from them. It is called proof texting. It is a favorite tactic of those who oppose the Scriptures. One you apparently are trying to use right now.

There you go: trying to make me an issue here. You're taking one verse from the Bible, misinterpreting it to say that only women must be accountable to their husbands when both the husband and wife are accountable, and applying to to ALL marriages.

Logically yes. The question is does the Bible actually teach that homosexuals should be killed? Sure you can find verses that seem to say so but is it the teaching of the Scriptures as a whole? Good try but no cigar.

It doesn't matter whether or not the Bible teaches that homosexuals should be killed. Using your logic, a "Bible-believing home" should kill homosexuals if they believe that's what the Bible says.
Ringo

 

[mlqurgw]

You haven't shown anything. You've simply claimed over and over that I'm "rationalizing". I thought we were debating female pastors here - not me.

Keep repeating it and maybe someone will believe it. The thread will bear out the truth.

All I know is that I've discussed this same issue elsewhere on this forum. I've repeated the same logic there that I used here. Those people "got it" right away, but you and I are still going around and around and around. I don't think the problem here is with my arguments.

Perhaps no one took the time to dispute your "logic" before. Just because it worked for you before doesn't make it right. I suspect that others simply didn't want to bother with you before. You are time consuming and frustratingly stubborn. But I ain't going to give up on you yet.

And women can bear that burden just as well as men.

I never said that they couldn't. That has never been part of my argument. Whether they can bear the burden or not has no bearing on whether they should or not.

My parents, who have been married for years. My pastor, who has also been married for years. My aunt and uncle on my mother's side. You act as though submission is the one and only way for marriages to operate. I say that it isn't because I've seen marriages without one-way submission that I've seen work perfectly well.

So says you. How can I verify it? You are giving your opinion here and it is subjective to say the least. That is the best proof you can offer? I would be willing to bet that I could show you that one is dominant in all those relationships.

They are subject to their wives in that they are held accountable for their actions. So are women.

Not an acceptable rebuttal to what I posed. At least not in a logical debate. Instead of just saying the opposite you must back it up. Their accountability to their wives, as in the illustration I gave, has nothing to do with the authority of the man but with the way a wife actually submits. It has nothing to do wit whether she ought to submit.

Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Ephesians 5:21

You seem to have forgotten to include Paul's very next statement along with the what follows. Again you are proof texting. Shame on you. Do you actually think that is dealing honestly with the Scriptures or me?

There you go: trying to make me an issue here. You're taking one verse from the Bible, misinterpreting it to say that only women must be accountable to their husbands when both theery next statement husband and wife are accountable, and applying to to ALL marriages.

You are not the issue. Your interpretation and application of the Scriptures as well as your so-called use of logic is. Poor Ringo, he is just so misunderstood. I haven't taken one verse from the Bible. I have given you more than one. You just want to argue the one most clear. I am amazed at how you keep digging yourself deeper by such statements as this.

It doesn't matter whether or not the Bible teaches that homosexuals should be killed. Using your logic, a "Bible-believing home" should kill homosexuals if they believe that's what the Bible says.
Ringo

Since you are so well versed in logic you already know that this is a red herring. Responding to it only gives it credence.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Bottom line that I've gotten out of all of this is:

1.) Wives must submit to their husband. It's a biblical truth.
2.) Men must love their wife just as Christ loves His church. Another biblical truth.

Who won?