Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You have just moved from the ridiculous to outright lies.
Here you say one thing.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
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?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
It is exactly your argument. Go back and read your posts.That's not my argument.
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.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?
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.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.
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.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.
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.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
It is exactly your argument. Go back and read your posts.
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.
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.
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 always knew what your point was.
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.
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 certainly don't seem to know what it is.Don't tell me what my argument is.
But that is what your whole rationale is based on.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. 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.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.
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.I don't get it. You're trying to show the illogic of my arguments by countering with an illogical argument?
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.If you truly understood my point, you wouldn't be arguing with me like this.
That from one who has no 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.
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.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 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.
You certainly don't seem to know what it is.
But that is what your whole rationale is based on.
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.
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.
I am the only one who is actually making an argument.
you are simply trying to justify your position.
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.
That from one who has no experience.
You are right you haven't done a good job.
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.
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.I know very well what it is, but I don't think you understand it that well.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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?
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.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 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.Haven't you been listening to anything I've said?
No, you have just repeated it over and over.I explained it to you over and over again:
No disagreement there. Commitment is vital. Far to many give up because there is no commitment.relationships require commitment.
No it doesn't. Commitment requires tenacity, perseverance, forgiveness and forgetfulness.Commitment requires submission and sacrifice from both parties.
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.It is clear that you have no idea what you are talking about concerning logic or marriage.How much more clear do I have to be?
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.Really? Because I haven't seen much in the way of argument.
I understand it I just disagree with it.I'm trying to explain my position to you, but you are either unwilling or unable (or both) to understand it.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 debated this exact same issue elsewhere on this forum. Someone else got my point right away.If you are right and your conclusion is true show it to be so by a logical argument.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.
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.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.
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.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.
It seems that I have done something that makes the original text disappear when I type so I will leave the rest till later.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
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.
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.
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.
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.
But it is never equal. One always gives more than the other. That is just the way it is.
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.
No it doesn't. Commitment requires tenacity, perseverance, forgiveness and forgetfulness.
It is clear that you have no idea what you are talking about concerning logic or marriage.
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.
wikipedia said: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
I understand it I just disagree with it.
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 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.
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 seems that I have done something that makes the original text disappear when I type so I will leave the rest till later.
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.grasping at straws? I'm not the one trying to make Ringo84 into an issue here. That's you.
mlqurgw said:That from one who has no experience.
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.Ringo84 said: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.
mlqurgw said:You are right you haven't done a good job.
As I said, I do understand it I just don't agree with it.Ringo84 said: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.
mlqurgw said: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.
Those who read the thread can decide for themselves who has actually put forth arguments.Ringo84 said:Again, that's the pot calling the kettle black.
Ringo
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.
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.
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.My thinking isn't flawed.
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.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 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.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.
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 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.
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 themI 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It isn't enough to just think on a subject you must think correctly.
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 keep claiming that my arguments are rationalizations, but that doesn't make it true.
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.Thanks, but I don't need advice on how to debate from you.
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.Then you haven't been paying attention, as I have already discussed the logic of 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.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.
Prove it. Quote every time I have brought it up that wasn't in response to you bringing it up.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.
Then show me. Point me to them.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.
Perhaps you don't. You are intelligent.As I said earlier: I don't need lessons on argumentation from you.
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 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.
Back it up. Book, chapter and verse please.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.
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.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.
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.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?
mlqurgw said: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 didn't ignore it. I didn't see it. Point me to it and I will deal with it.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.
Of course it isn't.That isn't a problem in my case.
Ringo
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.
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.
No you aren't. You are relieving the woman of a burden that she doesn't need to bear. With authority comes responsibility.
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.
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.
Back it up. Book, chapter and verse please.
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.
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.
Keep repeating it and maybe someone will believe it. The thread will bear out the truth.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.
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.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.
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.And women can bear that burden just as well as men.
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.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.
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.They are subject to their wives in that they are held accountable for their actions. So are women.
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?Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Ephesians 5:21
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.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.
Since you are so well versed in logic you already know that this is a red herring. Responding to it only gives it credence.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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?