Wifely Submission

[kopilo]

Sorry, it was to be taken as a joke more then anything else.

Anyway what I was trying to state is that a non submissive woman wouldn't need the majority of her husbands wealth in her fingers (pun intended) in order to feel secure.

 

[sparklecat]

Sorry, it was to be taken as a joke more then anything else.

Anyway what I was trying to state is that a non submissive woman wouldn't need the majority of her husbands wealth in her fingers (pun intended) in order to feel secure.

I wouldn't think it was so much about security as... well, in my case, just liking pretty things and taking advantage of a traditional opportunity for getting them

 

[kopilo]

*dislikes Audre Heburn, more specifically "diamonds are a girl's best friend"*

LOL, fair enough, but there are so many pretty gemstones out there.

 

[SallyNow]

*dislikes Audre Heburn, more specifically "diamonds are a girl's best friend"*

LOL, fair enough, but there are so many pretty gemstones out there.

Audrey Audrey Hepburn wore pearls. Marilyn Monroe sang "Diamonds".

I think the biggest problem with interpreting Paul's message of marriage is how little many people know about the actual time period in question, and how hard it is to translate things that are not only in a different language, but a different time, as well.

The Bible was written for all time...but it was written in a specific time period, so those at that time in that langauge could understand it first. What we must do is really research and learn what was actually meant by the passages, not what they appear to be right off the bat.

 

[kopilo]

Audrey Audrey Hepburn wore pearls. Marilyn Monroe sang "Diamonds".

Sorry the Audre handbags with the diamonties, confuses me. :o

 

[Argent]

Perhaps it'll be time for you to marry and tell us what your experiences really are about; unless you got married already.. Hopefully you are, and thus have a firm base of information to make judgements upon.

Been there. Done that.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

The reason it is being said that "head of household" is a bad idea is because it does convey the message that women are too weak or stupid to do anything without their husband's lordship over the home. Men typically can't even pick their own underwear up off the floor. My dad can't even heat up a can of Spaghetti-Os. Why would it be dangerous or at least ill-advised for husband and wife to head up the household as a team?

The problem with the male-head/wife-subordinate dichotomy is that it causes the marriage relationship to mirror that of a parent/child or boss/employee relationship. I have read that wives are accountable to their husbands and husbands are only accountable to God. Some wives say this is a huge burden lifted from them, as they won't be the ones to get into "big trouble" for making decisions outside of God's will. To me, that speaks volumes about how those women feel about themselves.

The real problem is that, no offense, but you're still arguing on a different level. I clearly explained the difference between a head and a "boss/leader/commander/superior."

As to what you say, I've never heard that - so I wouldn't know.

Whether I read it or not is not the issue. That's two buts. Make up your mind.

Yes, it is most certainly an issue directly related to this thread - put alongside your other statements, I feel that if anyone in this thread is a sexist I know who.

And if you'll notice the first but was an error that wasn't supposed to be there.

I stand by what I said. What further reading you suggest is not the issue at hand.

Yes, it is. The big problem being that I see the normal and loving, functional household that the Bible sees, where the woman is not tossed in the background or abused in any way shape or form. You, on the other hand, see "head of household" to be "husband-superior/wife-subordinate, routine beatings..."

It's not going to work if you assail the Biblical marriage without the Bible

Whatever. It's not a concern of mine.

Of course it isn't - you're not sexist.

Another irrelevancy. Sexism exists. Sir, it is not merely a "card" one plays, but an assessment of certain conditions. It is all the grounds I need. If you don't like it that's your problem.

Because, quite clearly, you are free from sexism and all those who disagree with you are not - you see the female as dominant, but can't see the man as dominant unless the issue is sexism: how ironic.

The problem is that you keep on arguing against something that I'm not. You're arguing against the head like it's a boss - I would too if it was a boss, but it's not it's a head. The two will become one flesh. The brain commands the body, but it is of the body, and if the brain does not listen to the body then the two will become twisted and fail to function. What I am arguing for is nothing like a boss-employee relationship, it's a head-body relationship - which you fail to recognize any differences between.

And no one's denying that sexism exists, but no one is simply going sharp on that one tune because they can't play another.

So we say, but we can't know the meanings of such things in this life. I'm speaking of human things.

There are absolute, and there is no way getting around it - to say that there are no absolutes is an absolute, silly.

Oh, yes, it is nothing but. Any assertion one gender can or should do things the other can't or shouldn't-is sexism, purely and simply. It is nothing else. Whether you like it or not, that's your problem.

No - the fact that you assail what you don't understand is your problem.

And look up sexism - I'd suggest dictionary.com. At first I thought the definition would upset all that I've said , but I looked at it a second time and realized that it's just not what you say and doesn't change a word that I've said.

It was a quote, Dude. it's a comment on the human condition. It's not mine. Make of it what you will. Any attempt to project it onto me falls short. Paglia said it, not me. BTW, Paglia also said if women ran things we'd still be living in straw huts, and there's a truth to that too. Paglia is--unique. but there are so few original thinkers in these areas of gender relations, those who are innovative deserve maximum exposure.

Hey, it's a quote: and if I brought forth a quote of Hitler saying "I'd like to see someone make an articulate argument against this", do you know what response I would get? The "I'd like to see someone make an articulate argument against this" kind of maks you stand up beind it as if you agree with it.

And this I'm not asking for an articulate argument against, I don't beleive it: but to say that men are the stronger/superior/dominant of the two sexes could be seen as simply an evaluation of the human condition - you wouldn't jump to call it sexist? I'd be shocked if you didn't.

Yeah, whatever. Neither or necessary.

"You still don't see the difference between a head and a boss. A boss is boss over someone else, is superior, is over them, and most of all is not one with them. The head controls the body (most of the time), is over the body (most of the time), but most of all is one with the body."


That you still ignore the obvious differences in this is why this debate won't get any further, and is entirely for the purposes of debate - I'll just hope you get a chance to look at it.

OK, boss subordinate - the two are not one flesh, the boss does not need the subordinate, could replace the subordinate with another if neccessary, righ?

OK, head body - the two are one flesh. The two operate together and, while there is a leader, the leader cannot cast the partnership aside because it would destroy both of them - the head MUST LISTEN to the body, that the one flesh would not be torn.

None of our maxims are universal. In many cases this is true. In others, it is not. My point was beauty of women to men and handsomeness of men to women are not perceived by each gender equivalently-most of the time.

As I've said, to say that there are no absolutes is a self-contradictary absolute. - And what is it that you are trying to say? That women are more materialistic?

Well, it depends on the family... Every person is different. Personally, I'm a guy, and it's still much too early for me to even think about getting married... But I'm sure I'll never be able to be a head of the household, it just goes against my personality. That's why for me an equal relationship would be much better than a traditional one.

I really mean this with all honesty, but I appreciate such a response SO much! There was a time when I couldn't see myself as the head of a household, but it's starting to come to me and I just can't wait to start a family, to have my own little sweet ones. But I don't see myself, at all, as being superior to my future wife. When I say the head of the household I do not mean a superior-subordinate relationship, like a boss-subordinate, but like the head-body relationship - the two are one, and while the head is pretty much the leader it must listen to the body or both will be ruined.

The head-body relationship isn't exactly what I see in a marriage, but it is the closest to it. Love, respect, consideration, and honor all has to be there before the head-body relationship can work, but the same pretty much needs to be there for a "co-op" relationship to work.

Horses's Boy, you said these teachings come from Jesus, but I didn't see any gospel citations among your references - could you be more specific as to where Jesus taught on male domination/female submission?

Mark 10: 7-8

I'm sorry, that was my mistake. Mark 10:7-8 is just another helpful verse, but Jesus does not say much on marriage. In truth, all that we have in the Bible are from his disciples, including the quotes on what he said. It is quite certain that we do not have all of Jesus' teachings recorded in the Bible, but if we are to take Jesus' disciples' word on what Jesus said, we ought to take their word when they preach his Gospel.

But I don't think that male domination/female submission is so much the case, and the two words are overemphasized.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

I think the biggest problem with interpreting Paul's message of marriage is how little many people know about the actual time period in question, and how hard it is to translate things that are not only in a different language, but a different time, as well.

The Bible was written for all time...but it was written in a specific time period, so those at that time in that langauge could understand it first. What we must do is really research and learn what was actually meant by the passages, not what they appear to be right off the bat.

MUCHO KUDOS!!!

Just to add on, on a different level, I think that we need to put more stock into what Jesus' disciples say than alot of us do - but still, as you say, we must really research and learn what was actually meant, not what they appear to be at face value. I just think that some people get to the point where they say, "Jesus disciples were just living in a different time" ... which is right, but they're also the ones who Jesus really gave his teachings directly to, so that they could teach His Gospel, not to mention we get what Jesus said from them.

 

[christalee4]

And immoral? Would you mind expanding on that?

Many conservative Christians would disapprove of a living situation in which there is mixing of sexes in a household who are not family-related, somewhat similar to a mixed-sex college dorm.

 

[Texas Lynn]

The real problem is that, no offense, but you're still arguing on a different level. I clearly explained the difference between a head and a "boss/leader/commander/superior."

I know the difference; you're free from a boss/superior when your off duty, but a domineering mate is 24/7/365.

I feel that if anyone in this thread is a sexist I know who.

That would only be able to be determined by who is saying one gender cannot do certain things the other can.

The big problem being that I see the normal and loving, functional household that the Bible sees, where the woman is not tossed in the background or abused in any way shape or form. You, on the other hand, see "head of household" to be "husband-superior/wife-subordinate, routine beatings..."

I don't believe the type of "household" you say you see there exists except in the imagination.

It's not going to work if you assail the Biblical marriage without the Bible

There's as many interpretations of the Bible as there are people. We cannot claim anything called "Biblical" marriage exists.

...you see the female as dominant, but can't see the man as dominant unless the issue is sexism

Not really. It's just men need women more than women need men.

The two will become one flesh

.

This is poetry but not very realistic.

What I am arguing for is nothing like a boss-employee relationship, it's a head-body relationship - which you fail to recognize any differences between.

Like the difference between being hit with a hammer or cut with a saw. Neither one are appealing.

 

[WhoeverLovesGod01]

It's interesting that sex comes up in the O.P. Submission is a Christian principle and it isn't just about sex. Examining submissiveness from the mainstream perspective conjures up images of slavery and bondage. In truth, all Christians should be submissive people, but it is not, (in the Christian sense,) weakness.

Being submissive is about letting God rule your life. You might ask - why should I do that? Firstly, because God has the right to rule your life as He is the King of kings. You accept more authority from your friends and family than you do your God - why shouldn't He get the same inclusion? Secondly, because handing your life over to God is like being in the hands of the best parent in the world. God only has plans to make you and not to break you. He knows you better than you know yourself and wants to guide you in your interests.

Now, without going into the rest of it, a husband should have the same outlook. He might not know you better than you know yourself, but he should get to know you pretty well. He should want to raise you up and do nothing to hurt you. You (as his wife,) should be his pride and joy. Submissiveness doesn't mean jumping off bridges, doing anything he says or doing something immoral. It means having an attitude of openess towards his suggestions and guidance. He, at the same time, must reciprocate. He needs respect and so do you.

Also, I quote FadingWhispers:

The head of the household is all about service and responsibility, none about rule. Jesus demonstrated this by washing his disciples' feet. Those who will be greatest in the kingdom of God are those who are the servant of all. Similarily in a marriage... head does not mean power and authority. Head means lifting others up.

 

[shadowmage36]

Submission in the extreme sense is, in today's day and age, and archaic, outdated, and barbaric concept. I would never want that from the woman I marry. I want her to have her own opinions, preferably strong ones.

And if Christian men think they have it bad, I can get you in touch with some of my Jewish friends. Jewish sex law is ridiculously in favor of women. Ridiculously.

And yes, it's very, very codified.

 

[christalee4]

Submission in the extreme sense is, in today's day and age, and archaic, outdated, and barbaric concept. I would never want that from the woman I marry. I want her to have her own opinions, preferably strong ones.

And if Christian men think they have it bad, I can get you in touch with some of my Jewish friends. Jewish sex law is ridiculously in favor of women. Ridiculously.

And yes, it's very, very codified.

Interesting.

Does it involve the women coming first? I am not talking about sexuality purely. But I don't think it's ridiculous. Women should come first. And then the men will be happy. That's why Jewish law posits it that way. It makes sense to me.

 

[christalee4]

It's interesting that sex comes up in the O.P. Submission is a Christian principle and it isn't just about sex. Examining submissiveness from the mainstream perspective conjures up images of slavery and bondage. In truth, all Christians should be submissive people, but it is not, (in the Christian sense,) weakness.

Being submissive is about letting God rule your life. You might ask - why should I do that? Firstly, because God has the right to rule your life as He is the King of kings. You accept more authority from your friends and family than you do your God - why shouldn't He get the same inclusion? Secondly, because handing your life over to God is like being in the hands of the best parent in the world. God only has plans to make you and not to break you. He knows you better than you know yourself and wants to guide you in your interests.

Now, without going into the rest of it, a husband should have the same outlook. He might not know you better than you know yourself, but he should get to know you pretty well. He should want to raise you up and do nothing to hurt you. You (as his wife,) should be his pride and joy. Submissiveness doesn't mean jumping off bridges, doing anything he says or doing something immoral. It means having an attitude of openess towards his suggestions and guidance. He, at the same time, must reciprocate. He needs respect and so do you.

Also, I quote FadingWhispers:

I wish this were true in ideal situations.

I agree that within the marriage arrangement we need to submit to each other, respectfully, and within reason, that does not lower the other person.

However, (and I hate to say it), in my experience and opinion, many men cannot follow that vow. They have issues with self-confidence and therefore, problems with conducting themselves appropriately.

They get angry easily. And they also come from families in which their fathers, absent, or otherwise, hurt their mothers with their fists or lack of companionship and love.

 

[Saeph]

Now, without going into the rest of it, a husband should have the same outlook. He might not know you better than you know yourself, but he should get to know you pretty well. He should want to raise you up and do nothing to hurt you. You (as his wife,) should be his pride and joy. Submissiveness doesn't mean jumping off bridges, doing anything he says or doing something immoral. It means having an attitude of openess towards his suggestions and guidance. He, at the same time, must reciprocate. He needs respect and so do you.

Why do you always talk about the husband? You could replace "husband" with "wife" as well, can't you?

And why is there always a head needed? Why can't man and woman just share the "might"?

 

[shadowmage36]

Christalee: I don't know an incredible amount, but from what my friend has told me, it boils down to something like this: Man wants it, he has to ask. She wants it, man must give. No options. At all. What the woman wants, she gets.

Then there's a whole list of other things that are too explicit to talk about here. I'll have to ask him about it again.

 

[WhoeverLovesGod01]

Saeph, i'm talking about the husband because that's sort of the question in this thread.

 

[rambot]

You probably want to try a different version. "Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

I made some points, but I cut them to this: try a different version, and a different outlook.

Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers

Why are you highlight "in the same way"? All that means is "and in order to reciprocate [not saying "DO THE SAME THING"...not "do the same thing as woman"
And "heirs WITH YOU"? Seems to imply that husband and wife get the gift of life together.

"so that nothing will hinder your prayers". Well, since he's talking to "husbands", one could easily assume that "your" prayers are the husbands prayers.

Basically, it seems as though you've highlighted STRAAAANGE parts of that verse.

This is the strangest part of that quote:

and treat them with respect as the weaker partner

I want to think that means physically weaker

 

[Loundry]

I've always taken both the women should be obedient verse and the husbands love your wives verses together to mean that it should be a partnership, with no one person above the other.

Behold! The power of interpretation. The Bible means whatever you want it to mean. Some people believe that the Bible prohibits slavery and demonizes polygamy.

 

[rowena]

Behold! The power of interpretation. The Bible means whatever you want it to mean. Some people believe that the Bible prohibits slavery and demonizes polygamy.

Umm, I don't disagree with you. I'll be one of the first people admit there are some goofy things in the Bible, which is why it can't be taken as literal and must be interpreted in light of the culture it was written in/for as well as who was doing the writing. I have said on many occastions (this thread included) that Paul can be giant goober sometimes and Christians need to focus less on what he said and wrote and more on the actions of Christ.