Rebekka, don't get too upset. Let's just stop arguing with Creed. He needs prayers, not human argument.
Why not get back to the interesting first post? We are still not doing justice to HelenofBritain and her good questions about that passage from Mulieris Dignitatem. (yes, let's cut the suspense! it's John Paul II)
The only question I don't like, HoB, is where you ask whether work at home is more valuable than work outside. It cannot be answered as you put it - and JP2 does not go there at all. "Work at home" is an absolute - it has value over everything else. The question is not whether you should choose between it and "work outside" - that would be no question at all. The question is twofold: (1) do you WANT to work outside (whether because you need to for financial reasons, or you want to because you have a professional vocation)? (2) If you want to work outside, can you still organise your life so that the children are well taken care of? If you can answer "yes" to both, then you will naturally go work outside the home and never feel that you have chosen the one over the other.
Do you place equal value on work undertaken by mothers within the home, as you do to work they do outside of it?
Next you'll be wanting to vote
What's that?
Oh, I wouldn't worry about that for a while Dave, first I'd need to learn how to read and write. And I don't think I have the mental capacities for that.You'll be wanting to go to college to learn about that next The demands never cease.
The only question I don't like, HoB, is where you ask whether work at home is more valuable than work outside. It cannot be answered as you put it - and JP2 does not go there at all. "Work at home" is an absolute - it has value over everything else. The question is not whether you should choose between it and "work outside" - that would be no question at all. The question is twofold: (1) do you WANT to work outside (whether because you need to for financial reasons, or you want to because you have a professional vocation)? (2) If you want to work outside, can you still organise your life so that the children are well taken care of? If you can answer "yes" to both, then you will naturally go work outside the home and never feel that you have chosen the one over the other.
Then you are indeed under the impression the filioque is error?Please don't try to play semantics with me. Underdeveloped(or undeveloped) means just that. Not developed. Or lacking in development. Not in fullness. For you to say that the Nicene Creed is underdeveloped is outright heresy and blasphemy..
.
Not at all. Where does it state God demands this?submit to your husbands, AS UNTO THE LORD - Ephesians 5:22
do you know what it means when he says "as unto the lord"?
The husbands don't have to demand anything. It is demanded by God. If the wife is a good pious woman, she already knows.
I pity your wife.the woman doesn't give any authority. She either consents to natural law, or doesn't. The authority comes down from God from natural law, due to the Fall.
Secondly. If the wife is a true christian, the husband does not have to bring up the issue at all. She already knows what God's natural law. The fact is that a husband should not even have to bring it up.
If he has to bring it up, then it is the wife who is not following God's natural law or the code of love.
I direct you rather to David's post.If the woman does not want to follow it, then she has no business in a christian marriage. Or marriage at all, for that matter..
What do YOU think headship means?A woman who tries to "test" her husband about his headship is already in the wrong mindset. Or says that he "insists on it" is playing semantics since she is already proceeding from an unbiblical mindset of authority in marriage, She should want to be submissive to her husband because that is God's law.
A man who has issues with treating his wife above himself probably should avoid marrying a woman and causing deep resentment by his demands.A woman who has a problem with it does not belong in marriage and probably was not correctly brought up by her father. Since she is rebellious and a rebellious woman always starts with the father usually.
Yes Paul said love your wives. But that has nothing to do with the authority God gave to man in the marriage. A man loving his wife is protecting and sacrificing for her.
Not that I'm arguing with you, but why do you think work at home has value over everything else?
I will answer your excellent questions from my personal experience.
1. Next year, three days after my baby girl turns 1, I will be returning to work (although in a new job to the one I left when I went on maternity leave). I am starting a job in a graduate program in the public service. We are moving interstate for it. This job pays more than my current one, has excellent potential for promotion (unlike my current one) and will utilise my degree (also mostly unlike my current one). Having finished university studies, my earning capacity is higher than my husband's.
2. He is going to be a stay at home Dad, and continue studying for his theology degree. He will do the school run, and play with the baby and help with the homework and welcome me home to slow-cooked meals
That is what is going to work for us. In theory. I will let you know about the practicalities later.
Thanks Global - we're excited about it. It's going to be a big change.Wow, HoB, that's wonderful news! Congratulations and good luck to both of you!
Why do I think that work at home has value above everything else? Because I took the expression as a proxy for "the mother's daily duties vis-a-vis her children" - I thought, from the context of your message, that YOU were using it that way.
Of course, the expression can be deconstructed. It includes simple housekeeping - and heck, THAT job has no "special" value at all - it has no more and no less value than the wages you would pay to a hired housekeeper. It includes making the home pleasant and cosy for your husband (the "fresh flowers, hot dinner and warm slippers" part) - THAT job does have a special value, but it is not an obligation to do it on a daily basis, as long as you have a good reason, and you don't stop doing it completely. Taking good care of the children is the one absolute-value component, which gives the whole expression its absolute value.
In our case - I do very little housekeeping , I have hired help for that. I take care of the "hot dinner and warm slippers" part only sporadically, since currently ours is a long-distance marriage because of our jobs. When we spend a weekend together - either at his home or mine - I always cook for him, and bring him fresh coffee/tea/drinks wherever he is sitting. A symbolic little attention, much like that of the gentlemen who open doors for us, but I think it conveys the message.
As for the kids - the issue is past, since they are out of the house now - but when they needed me, I opted out of a beloved profession for years (I can still feel the pain it gave me, and the fear that I would never be able to get back to it!) because I realised that the children's needs came first. So, I think I have "walked the talk".
So, why does it even still make sense to speak of "primary responsibility" of a mother to take care of the children? Well,
oops... yes.... I had forgotten that little detail!Because we make the milk!!
And also for those other reasons
In the western part of the world, most of the time that is untrue as the western woman is brainwashed by egalitarian heresy. hence in most cases she will not do likewise.or uses the usual typical responses similar to yours in order to try to nullify his position as a husband? this is a very common tactic in western marriages. It seems maybe you are quite adept at it.A true Christian man puts his wife first in all things... pleasing her.
And she will do likewise.
What does love mean - in the Biblical terms, Creed?