P
Paulie079
Guest
Except that the end of proper complementarianism worked out practically isn't oppression.
Upvote
0
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.
I think I'll let that speak for itself--the Divine Command Theory at its worst.
It depends on the submission the wife must submit to.
A man and a woman are joined as one in marriage, it is more about two people working as one. NOT who wears the pants.
Will I give in to my wife if I have one, sometimes YES. When something really matters, NO I will not bend.
Example, I like blue say she likes purple and wants a purple dress to wear instead of blue. I am not going to tell her TAKE IT BACK AND GET BLUE!! Now say she wants to have sex with another man. I will say GOOD BYE without hesitation.
Yes that example are extremes but it was to illustrate a point. Women still have free will, they are not robots or slaves to men. If God meant them to be subservient slaves they would not have minds of their own, they would not have free will of their own.
Within reason a man is to submit to his wife as his wife is submitted to him. It is not just "Man says, woman doesn't matter"
What would be better, a household to be run by an immature child in a mans body or a woman that is responsible and intelligent?
Why is an intelligent woman so intimidating to some men. Seriously.
Now if you would like to say God never intended woman to drive, you might have a case as he didn't seem to give most of them the ability to do so.
So why can't the end of proper segregation worked out practically not be oppressive either? Heck I think it's be less oppressive. If we followed Malcolm X's idea (when he was still part of the Nation of Islam), there'd be total seperation. That way each race could live separately in peace and they would never have to oppress one another. But even on a more moderate segreation of males/females, how is a black person having to sit on the back of the bus any different than a woman being forbidden to teach a man?Except that the end of proper complementarianism worked out practically isn't oppression.
Are you saying it would be improper for any of God's three persons to do what the other persons do? I would say rather that it is logically impossible. Which is clearly not the case with men and women, who regularly defy gender roles (and not with ill-effect, for that matter).
Service is a significant element of leadership, but if it were only service, we might as well just call it service. But it's not. There is more to leadership than just service.And leadership is service, and women are also called to serve. So this doesn't prove anything.
This is not evident in scripture unless you're willing to reinstate the entire Old Testament system. Nor is it the case that men are inherently better than women at providing financially.
1 Timothy 5:8 said:But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
That's not true. A wife's submission to her husband is a submission to his leadership. A husband's submission is not even a submission directly to his wife, but unto death in the event that it would be necessary to save her. They aren't the same thing as much as you want to try to make them the same.No it is not. It is EXACTLY the kind of submission that ALL CHRISTIANS are called to. A wife who would not lay down her life for her family does not love as Christ loved.
Sorry, but it's a different kind of helping. We could do this all night. You've proved littler than I have.Helping one another is an aspect of love, and her husband's leadership is nothing other than one half of mutual submission. So again, this doesn't prove anything.
Do you think that our spiritual natures derive from our biological natures? You'd find good company with atheist psychologists if you do...
The simple fact is that gender roles as we know them are only a few hundred years old, and they're already archaic. There's nothing inherent about them. It's tradition for tradition's sake.
So why can't the end of proper segregation worked out practically not be oppressive either? Heck I think it's be less oppressive. If we followed Malcolm X's idea (when he was still part of the Nation of Islam), there'd be total seperation. That way each race could live separately in peace and they would never have to oppress one another. But even on a more moderate segreation of males/females, how is a black person having to sit on the back of the bus any different than a woman being forbidden to teach a man?
And I would say the same for relations between males and females. Segregation, whether it be because of race or sex, always was and always will be oppressive.It's because the basis of the segregation that we've known has been oppression and marginalization.
So all those places in the Old Testament where the Israelites were to separate themselves from the Gentiles say nothing about race relations? Remember, you can't appeal to Galatians. The Gospel of Luke contains an anti-racist story (the Good Samaritan), but we also see Jesus turn social roles for women on their head, so you probably shouldn't use him either.It's different for the purposes of this discussion because one issue (the latter) is founded directly in Scripture while the other issue (the former) is not.
And I would say the same for relations between males and females. Segregation, whether it be because of race or sex, always was and always will be oppressive.
Clearly not, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.Eh, I guess we disagree then on sentence 1, but I agree with sentence 2.
Why?The Israelites would be a really weak basis upon which to build a defense of racial supremacy.
Sure, but I'm consistent because I don't hold to inerrancy, and thus don't have to make bad excuses for things in the OT (or the NT for that matter).I think you know that.
Except for all those people who have:What I'm saying is that you can't really build a defense for racial supremacy based on Scripture,
There is no license given for a woman to be in a position of leadership over a man in Scripture. None.
I don't deal in empiricism or hypothetical situations, I simply read my Bible.
If you think I am denigrating women or their roles and responsibilities in God's economy in any way, you truly don't understand my position. Marriage is a relationship of equals, but they do have different roles to play.
He also gave us discernment to be able to judge what is best.
Even without examples in the bible you know its not a good idea to point a loaded gun at your head and pull the trigger.
In my man child example, clearly the house would be better run with intellect over chaos, meaning the woman would be better to make the choices in such a case.
Just because a man is a man does NOT mean he knows better or has a better relationship with the father.
Yes, obviously they play different parts, every single human being on this planet plays a different part, but they "play those parts" due to Gods will. Whether they acknowledge Him or not. If he doesn't want it to be so, it wont. If he brought a man who cant control a house together with a woman who can. How is it wrong that the woman takes over instead of the man which she is clearly suited? God made her with those skill sets, with purpose. To keep her in check just because the lack of a Y chromosome........ seems wrong to me.
In a healthy marriage, BOTH parties will talk things over, pray about it and make a decision TOGETHER.
If I am misunderstanding your stance on women being submissive to men, then I apologize, but MOST men that claim "Women must submit to men", use it as a license to treat women as slaves. A marriage is NOT about slavery for either husband or wife, it is a joining. IF a husband or wife are concerned about " who is in charge" it is NOT a union. It is still two separate people trying to be "the boss" that is individualist thinking, not the thought of a union (Yes, each will have their own interest and will want "alone time" but as a whole "who runs things" should NOT be a concern.)
No, which is why I intentionally use the word "primarily" so often.
The world understands them as being different. Jesus proved that they are the same thing, whether the world thinks they are different or not.Service is a significant element of leadership, but if it were only service, we might as well just call it service. But it's not. There is more to leadership than just service.
You keep saying that the Bible gives us different roles, but then you fail to show any place that it does. You're saying "A=B, therefore C" without showing any relationship between C and either A or B.It's about fulfilling the roles that have been given to us by God in the Bible.
And the husband's leadership is Christ's leadership, which is submission and service.A wife's submission to her husband is a submission to his leadership.
So are we not to take Paul seriously when he says for spouses to "submit one to another"?A husband's submission is not even a submission directly to his wife
Prove it. Assertions without proof hold no water no matter how many times you repeat them.Sorry, but it's a different kind of helping.
Your position depends on causality and causality requires a derivation.Nope, I never said anything about some qualities deriving from others. I said they were related. (You seem to like the bold, so I thought it might help...lol.)
Nothing you are asserting follows obviously from the scripture you've cited. You're going to need do demonstrate how it does, if it does.The ones that I advocate for are grounded in Scripture.
Because only a married person can be opposed to cultural biases masquerading as moral principles? Show me the scripture that says that.But you don't plan on marrying anyway, so it seems funny to me that you're so invested in this topic.
Prove it. Assertions without proof hold no water no matter how many times you repeat them.
Yes, sitting there and doing nothing has, in fact, attracted men my way - but (and this is a big but), these were men that were skirt chasers, men that I would never date in a billion years, men who liked the hunt, and frankly, did not have the best of intentions.
And what I mean by that is, I've always tried to show I'm interested when I like a man and I think I'm being super, completely, ridiculously, and pathetically obvious to the point where I feel humiliated and pathetic....but my actions actually just probably come across as extremely subtle and cryptic.
Okay, first of all I want to thank everyone for your input and responses! Well...the ones actually related to my topic, that is!
Yeah, I think guys and girls tend to show interest in different ways. To me, it's easy to confuse "girl being friendly" and "girl who is interested in me."
And yes, I realize how stupid my own assumptions sound when they're out in writing in front of me.
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?