Is marriage really all that sacred to Christians?

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

I'm not going to discuss other groups. I'm going to discuss the Bible only. I've made that clear already.

But there's lots of scripture in the links I posted. Why don't you want to discuss scripture?

jill_valentine

philologos wrote: »

Jill, honestly if you're not actually interested in finding out more about this and if you're intent on being facetious there's not much point.

If you're interested to chat further that's fine, if not or if you're not going to take this seriously it's better that we didn't.

My position doesn't say that husbands are superior to their wives. It doesn't require that assumption to be made. Indeed the Bible doesn't state it.

What part of "A must submit in all ways to B" am I misrepresenting? You dismiss me as facetious because you choose to see this lop sided deal in your favour as something just lovely altogether, but I'm deadly serious about the associations this arrangement mirrors.

This is a horrible, subjugating dynamic for the woman involved, and I'm sorry if the women here don't agree that just having a husband is such an honour that they should be made up at the chance to assume the place of his sub.

JimiTime

jill_valentine wrote: »

What part of "A must submit in all ways to B" am I misrepresenting?

I think its that you have simply hung onto this without teasing out what it actually means in the context of everything else. You will still probably be disgusted at the concept of a man being the head of the household, but you present this tyrannical bosslike situation, which shows you don't understand what the marriage or indeed Love is. Or at the very least, you don't care what it means, as you simply can't get past the IDEA of a husband being the head of a household.

This is a horrible, subjugating dynamic for the woman involved, and I'm sorry if the women here don't agree that just having a husband is such an honour that they should be made up at the chance to assume the place of his sub.

If we had, 'Women, KNOW YOUR PLACE! MEN ARE YOUR OVERLORDS:) you'd be right. Simply put though, we don't. We have an arrangement of Love. We cannot bring in tyranny, or bosslike analogies once Love is in the equation.

1 Corinthians 13
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails.

Now if a husband and wife have this, which is what a Christian marriage is supposed to be, then all these issues of subjugation etc, simply disperse.The body does not look to work against its head, nor does a head look to work against its body. Ideally (Of course, selfishness still exists unfortunately)The idea of the self is no more in a Christian marriage, be you a wife OR a husband.
This idea of a 'winning side' etc, has no basis in reality. I work for my wife, and she works for me. My decisions are based (or should be) on the WHOLE OF ME, which is myself and my wife. Ditto my wife. And of course, we both freely entered into this together, and are very happy, with a blessing of 2 kids and one in the oven. So when I see your disgust, all I can see is my happy self, my happy wife, my happy children and my happy friends in the same situation.

eviltwin

JimiTime wrote: »

I think its that you have simply hung onto this without teasing out what it actually means in the context of everything else. You will still probably be disgusted at the concept of a man being the head of the household, but you present this tyrannical bosslike situation, which shows you don't understand what the marriage or indeed Love is. Or at the very least, you don't care what it means, as you simply can't get past the IDEA of a husband being the head of a household.







If we had, 'Women, KNOW YOUR PLACE! MEN ARE YOUR OVERLORDS you'd be right. Simply put though, we don't. We have an arrangement of Love. We cannot bring in tyranny, or bosslike analogies once Love is in the equation.



1 Corinthians 13

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.



8 Love never fails.



Now if a husband and wife have this, which is what a Christian marriage is supposed to be, then all these issues of subjugation etc, simply disperse.The body does not look to work against its head, nor does a head look to work against its body. Ideally (Of course, selfishness still exists unfortunately)The idea of the self is no more in a Christian marriage, be you a wife OR a husband.

This idea of a 'winning side' etc, has no basis in reality. I work for my wife, and she works for me. My decisions are based (or should be) on the WHOLE OF ME, which is myself and my wife. Ditto my wife. And of course, we both freely entered into this together, and are very happy, with a blessing of 2 kids and one in the oven. So when I see your disgust, all I can see is my happy self, my happy wife, my happy children and my happy friends in the same situation.

Is your marriage a partnership or would you be more likely than your wife to make decisions relating to the home/family?

JimiTime

eviltwin wrote: »

Is your marriage a partnership or would you be more likely than your wife to make decisions relating to the home/family?

Its more than a partnership, and decisions are made by both of us, sometimes together, and sometimes separately. We tend to recognise each others strengths and wisdoms, and MOST of the time we are in agreement with the family decisions. On occasion when there is conflict, I will trust her judgement in certain things more than my own, at other times, she would trust mine. I'm actually trying to think of occasions where conflict lingers, and honestly nothing is springing to mind (But I may just not be recalling).
EDIT: Just noticed that it looks like I'm presenting this 'everthing is perfect' impression of my marriage. Now while I am in a fantastic marriage, we fight and argue at times like most do. We suffer the same human frailties as everyone else. Just needed to say that, as looking back on the posts, I'm seeing my wife flouncing through the door with freshly baked cookies as I kiss her etc etc . Reality is, with two toddlers, its more often than not tired baggy eyes, irritable Jimi being short and cantankerous

Zombrex

jill_valentine wrote: »

I know, I only imagine how heavy the responsibility of having a wife must weigh. Is she fed, is she indoors when it rains, has she got enough straw...

It's absolutely laughable to try and spin the "burden" of being in charge of another as being in any way comparable to the assumption of another adult's submission to your inherently superior authority. The unblinking arrogance of that thought process is staggering. It puts me in mind of old colonial soldiers whinging about the burden of civilising the conquered locals, as if that's somehow the worst part of the transaction.

How selfless indeed this Christian love.

I think at this stage you are explaining colour to blind men.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I think its that you have simply hung onto this without teasing out what it actually means in the context of everything else.

You haven't said anything to Jill to contradict her reading of this passage. All you have done is explain that actually it isn't as bad as she thinks it would be because the husband has to love his wife. But that just shows you are not following Jill's objection.

It is nothing to do with how the husband treats the wife once they enter into this power dynamic (any more than the objection to slavery is about how masters treat their slaves, but rather the notion of slavery itself). The power dynamic itself is wrong, the concept of the woman submitting to the husband as the head of the family is itself wrong. It is not once she submits if the husband then mistreats her it is wrong.

Jill, like most people I would imagine, is not all that bully about the idea of submitting to anyone, irrespective of how well she is treated once she enters into that state of submission, and she finds the concept of a marriage based around the idea that one person submits to the authority and leadership of another ridiculous, irrespective of how well the leader (ie man) proceeds to treat her after that submission.

Do you really not get that point?

JimiTime

Zombrex wrote: »

You haven't said anything to Jill to contradict her reading of this passage. All you have done is explain that actually it isn't as bad as she thinks it would be because the husband has to love his wife. But that just shows you are not following Jill's objection.

It is nothing to do with how the husband treats the wife once they enter into this power dynamic (any more than the objection to slavery is about how masters treat their slaves, but rather the notion of slavery itself). The power dynamic itself is wrong, the concept of the woman submitting to the husband as the head of the family is itself wrong. It is not once she submits if the husband then mistreats her it is wrong.

Jill, like most people I would imagine, is not all that bully about the idea of submitting to anyone, irrespective of how well she is treated once she enters into that state of submission, and she finds the concept of a marriage based around the idea that one person submits to the authority and leadership of another ridiculous, irrespective of how well the leader (ie man) proceeds to treat her after that submission.

Do you really not get that point?

Did you miss this part of the post? I.E Yes, I get that point.

I think its that you have simply hung onto this without teasing out what it actually means in the context of everything else. You will still probably be disgusted at the concept of a man being the head of the household, but you present this tyrannical bosslike situation, which shows you don't understand what the marriage or indeed Love is. Or at the very least, you don't care what it means, as you simply can't get past the IDEA of a husband being the head of a household.

The issue is all the little sarcasms that actually have no basis in the reality of the scenario. Jill, and yourself, merely take something in isolation, and play the drama queen with it, and don't seem to be interested in the actual reality of what the Christian marriage dynamic is when all is taken into account.

JimiTime

Zombrex wrote: »

I think at this stage you are explaining colour to blind men.

If thats the case, at least we have the excuse of blindness. You seem to be willfully wearing the blindfold just refusing to take it off

Gumbi

JimiTime wrote: »

Did you miss this part of the post? I.E Yes, I get that point.

I think its that you have simply hung onto this without teasing out what it actually means in the context of everything else. You will still probably be disgusted at the concept of a man being the head of the household, but you present this tyrannical bosslike situation, which shows you don't understand what the marriage or indeed Love is. Or at the very least, you don't care what it means, as you simply can't get past the IDEA of a husband being the head of a household.

The issue is all the little sarcasms that actually have no basis in the reality of the scenario. Jill, and yourself, merely take something in isolation, and play the drama queen with it, and don't seem to be interested in the actual reality of what the Christian marriage dynamic is when all is taken into account.

If you actually read his comment, you will see that he clearly stated that the "tyrannical situation" is not what he is referring to. He is referring only to the concept of someone being the head of the household for no other reason than being a male.

Tell me why it is a good idea that the male should be the head of the household.

marienbad

JimiTime wrote: »

Did you miss this part of the post? I.E Yes, I get that point.

I think its that you have simply hung onto this without teasing out what it actually means in the context of everything else. You will still probably be disgusted at the concept of a man being the head of the household, but you present this tyrannical bosslike situation, which shows you don't understand what the marriage or indeed Love is. Or at the very least, you don't care what it means, as you simply can't get past the IDEA of a husband being the head of a household.

The issue is all the little sarcasms that actually have no basis in the reality of the scenario. Jill, and yourself, merely take something in isolation, and play the drama queen with it, and don't seem to be interested in the actual reality of what the Christian marriage dynamic is when all is taken into account.

How has all of the above worked out in christian marriages through the centuries ? Not at all like the picture you seem intent on painting.

Or is this the modern version of christian marriage ?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Did you miss this part of the post? I.E Yes, I get that point.

I think its that you have simply hung onto this without teasing out what it actually means in the context of everything else.

I missed the part where you teased out that "submit" doesn't actually mean "submit", yeah.

JimiTime wrote: »

You will still probably be disgusted at the concept of a man being the head of the household, but you present this tyrannical bosslike situation, which shows you don't understand what the marriage or indeed Love is.

You still don't get the point. I'm having strong deja vu of having to explain that the problem with slavery is not abusive masters it is that slavery itself is a form of abuse.

Jill is not saying she will not submit to anyone who treats her badly or because they may treat her badly.

She is saying will not submit to anyone because the act of expecting submitting to someone in a marriage is in of itself treating her badly in that marriage.

The "bosslike" situation exists because of the act of submission, not after the submission if the husband then mistreats his wife, in the same way that the most benevolent boss is still a boss, he is still in a position of authority and power over his employees even if he treats them amazingly. The very fact that the discussion is about how should the man treat his wife after she has submitted to him demonstrates this point.

Or to put it another way, the man ain't worrying about whether the woman is going to abuse her power and authority over him, because he hasn't submitted to her, nor does the Bible say he should.

So to be clear, submission in of itself is mistreatment in a marriage, irrespective of how lovingly the husband acts once he has entered into this power dynamic. In fact it could probably be argued that a loving husband would not actually enter into such a power dynamic in the first place.

Now I don't care frankly if you don't accept the point as true, but do you actually get it and understand why to a heck of a lot of women the idea of submission is not acceptable, no matter how lovingly or nicely they are treated once they enter into this dynamic?

If so please stop going on about how the issue is whether the man mistreats the woman after she has submitted to him. That is not the issue. How "tyrannical" the relationship is a straw man introduced to distract from the actual objection, that being the idea that one person (the woman, sure isn't always the woman) is supposed to submit to the power and authority of the other.

jill_valentine

Now I don't care frankly if you don't accept the point as true, but do you actually get it and understand why to a heck of a lot of women the idea of submission is not acceptable, no matter how lovingly or nicely they are treated once they enter into this dynamic?

If he does, of course those are bad women. By not using their free choice to freely concede the value of their choices, they're being selfish. We don't understand that love requires total submission on our part, and on our part only, just for that all important chance at basking in the love of a husband. But then again, that kind of silliness is why it's important we're not left in charge of ourselves, really.

Zombrex

jill_valentine wrote: »

If he does, of course those are bad women. By not using their free choice to freely concede the value of their choices, they're being selfish. We don't understand that love requires total submission on our part, and on our part only, just for that all important chance at basking in the love of a husband. But then again, that kind of silliness is why it's important we're not left in charge of ourselves, really.

Well you know what they say

I do not permit a wife to teach or to assume authority over her husband; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

The sooner you realize it is all your fault and start knocking out some babies, the happier you will be... :P

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

How has all of the above worked out in christian marriages through the centuries ? Not at all like the picture you seem intent on painting.

Or is this the modern version of christian marriage ?

The Biblical version of marriage is what counts. I believe in Jesus and I believe He is the perfect model for marriage. God's word lasts forever. It works today as it did then.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

The Biblical version of marriage is what counts. I believe in Jesus and I believe He is the perfect model for marriage. God's word lasts forever. It works today as it did then.

What about the biblical view of marriage in the scripture in the links I posted. Is that the perfect model God provides?


What about people without a biblical marriage, are we doing it wrong treating each other as equals with no servant, headship or submission?

lazygal

Also, was Jesus married? What's his experience of marriage and what qualified him to tell others to be submissive because they don't have a penis?

philologos

lazygal wrote: »

What about the biblical view of marriage in the scripture in the links I posted. Is that the perfect model God provides?

Reply to my posts instead of asking me to comment on what external groups write. Ask me anything you like within the remit of what I have posted. This is the last time I will say this.

lazygal wrote: »

What about people without a biblical marriage, are we doing it wrong treating each other as equals with no servant, headship or submission?

The Bible advocates equality between men and women. What the Bible states is that husbands and wives have differing roles, but are yet equal in the sight of Christ.

Marriage models the relationship that Jesus has with the church. That's what Paul is arguing in Ephesians 5:22-33. Not only that marriage also reflects the covenant relationship that God had with His people Israel if you look to Malachi 2:10-16.

So the answer to the OP asking is marriage really all that sacred to Christians? Yes, yes and yes again. If it is modeled on the gospel it is a glimpse into seeing how God works with His people.

I'm genuinely not going out of my way to be controversial in the worlds eyes, but if I have repented and trusted in Him, and if I belong to Him then I can't deny Him and His word. I believe that God is right, and God knows best, far better than the secular world does on this issue.

JimiTime

Zombrex wrote: »

I missed the part where you teased out that "submit" doesn't actually mean "submit", yeah.



You still don't get the point. I'm having strong deja vu of having to explain that the problem with slavery is not abusive masters it is that slavery itself is a form of abuse.

Jill is not saying she will not submit to anyone who treats her badly or because they may treat her badly.

She is saying will not submit to anyone because the act of expecting submitting to someone in a marriage is in of itself treating her badly in that marriage.

The "bosslike" situation exists because of the act of submission, not after the submission if the husband then mistreats his wife, in the same way that the most benevolent boss is still a boss, he is still in a position of authority and power over his employees even if he treats them amazingly. The very fact that the discussion is about how should the man treat his wife after she has submitted to him demonstrates this point.

Or to put it another way, the man ain't worrying about whether the woman is going to abuse her power and authority over him, because he hasn't submitted to her, nor does the Bible say he should.

So to be clear, submission in of itself is mistreatment in a marriage, irrespective of how lovingly the husband acts once he has entered into this power dynamic. In fact it could probably be argued that a loving husband would not actually enter into such a power dynamic in the first place.

Now I don't care frankly if you don't accept the point as true, but do you actually get it and understand why to a heck of a lot of women the idea of submission is not acceptable, no matter how lovingly or nicely they are treated once they enter into this dynamic?

If so please stop going on about how the issue is whether the man mistreats the woman after she has submitted to him. That is not the issue. How "tyrannical" the relationship is a straw man introduced to distract from the actual objection, that being the idea that one person (the woman, sure isn't always the woman) is supposed to submit to the power and authority of the other.

I get it Zombrex. Its the caricatures and flippant remarks I've looked to dispel by enlightening you to the realities. I've done this while still acknowledging that the IDEA of the husband being the head of the household would still grate.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

Reply to my posts instead of asking me to comment on what external groups write. Ask me anything you like within the remit of what I have posted. This is the last time I will say this.



The Bible advocates equality between men and women. What the Bible states is that husbands and wives have differing roles, but are yet equal in the sight of Christ.

Marriage models the relationship that Jesus has with the church. That's what Paul is arguing in Ephesians 5:22-33. Not only that marriage also reflects the covenant relationship that God had with His people Israel if you look to Malachi 2:10-16.

So the answer to the OP asking is marriage really all that sacred to Christians? Yes, yes and yes again. If it is modeled on the gospel it is a glimpse into seeing how God works with His people.

I'm genuinely not going out of my way to be controversial in the worlds eyes, but if I have repented and trusted in Him, and if I belong to Him then I can't deny Him and His word. I believe that God is right, and God knows best, far better than the secular world does on this issue.

I'm asking you to respond to the scripture I posted. Respond to my request rather than saying despite requests for scripture you won't comment. Of course if you feel you can't defend biblical misogyny I understand.
Why do men lead? Why do women have to submit? How submissive do they have to be?

philologos

lazygal wrote: »

I'm asking you to respond to the scripture I posted. Respond to my request rather than saying despite requests for scripture you won't comment. Of course if you feel you can't defend biblical misogyny I understand.
Why do men lead? Why do women have to submit? How submissive do they have to be?

On another link on a groups site. I told you I won't do that.

It's not misogyny. That's the last thing that it is. It is God showing us the model for how men and women work together in a loving and caring marriage that reflects the great love that He has shown to us in Jesus Christ.

I genuinely believe that it means what it says it does. Men are to servantheartedly lead (not domineer) their families in love, women are to submit to their husbands in love.

I don't particularly mind what the world says, I know that God's word works in practice, and I know that it actually encourages deep respect for women, indeed far more than much of the secular world shows.

lmaopml

Yes, marriage is Sacred to Christians - the two become one in relation to their 'savlation' as such - The 'Body' analogy is only an analogy for how Christians function and compliment each other - like all body parts do!

I think St. Paul was offering some 'advice' in his letters with regards to how women should be both taken care of in widowhood etc. by all the community, and also taken care of in the home - and opinion based on 2000 odd years ago, he stated as much - and lets face it, in his time it was pretty radical with social justice etc. because women were treated very poorly. However, to take him up, when you balance his opinion with his description of 'Love' in Scripture as being a misogynist is really searching for something that isn't there - and in Christian Theology there is no male or female insofar as their value at all -

The minute my hubby thought he was 'head' in the sense that some of you guys seem to think St. Paul meant is the minute he'd lose his natural one...mwah haha.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

The Biblical version of marriage is what counts. I believe in Jesus and I believe He is the perfect model for marriage. God's word lasts forever. It works today as it did then.

This is just the same argument you used to defend slavery, does that work today as it did then ?

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

This is just the same argument you used to defend slavery, does that work today as it did then ?

I believe Paul's argument in Ephesians 5:22-33 (in respect to husbands and wives) and the one that he uses in Ephesians 6:1-4 (in respect to children) and in Ephesians 6:5-9 (on slaves and masters) are all related yes.

Indeed if you look to what opens up this section just before ending at 5:21 you'll see that it says the following:

Ephesians 5:15-21 wrote:

Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

The three test cases of a marriage between a man and a woman, parents and their children, and the relationship between slave and master are all being interpreted through Jesus. Paul is saying this is what a Christ-centred marriage looks like, this is what a Christ-centred relationship between a child and his parents should look like, and this is how a Christ-centred relationship between a slave and his master can be revolutionary.

Jesus changes absolutely everything, and there's no exception Jesus blew Roman society apart with the gospel.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

I believe Paul's argument in Ephesians 5:22-33 (in respect to husbands and wives) and the one that he uses in Ephesians 6:1-4 (in respect to children) and in Ephesians 6:5-9) are all related yes.

Indeed if you look to what opens up this section just before ending at 5:21 you'll see that it says the following:


The three test cases of a marriage between a man and a woman, parents and their children, and the relationship between slave and master are all being interpreted through Jesus. Paul is saying this is what a Christ-centred marriage looks like, this is what a Christ-centred relationship between a child and his parents should look like, and this is how a Christ-centred relationship between a slave and his master can be revolutionary.

Jesus changes absolutely everything, and there's no exception Jesus blew Roman society apart with the gospel.

Who leads a widow or adult daughters who are unmarried?

It's amazing how one man can justify slavery and misogyny, all in one book. Thank goodness we've moved on from such silliness.

lmaopml

lazygal wrote: »

Who leads a widow or adult daughters who are unmarried?

It's amazing how one man can justify slavery and misogyny, all in one book. Thank goodness we've moved on from such silliness.

Yeah, now we just splash them all over magazines as sex objects, tell them they must be a certain size and weight that's the ideal, get them hooked on drugs in order to traffic them, buying and selling - it's wonderful!

philologos

lazygal wrote: »

Who leads a widow or adult daughters who are unmarried?

It's amazing how one man can justify slavery and misogyny, all in one book. Thank goodness we've moved on from such silliness.

One doesn't get married because they need leadership. That's not what I've said.

I've said marriage as a covenant reflects the covenant that Christ established with the church, or the covenant that God established with His people Israel.

If you weren't trying to twist and turn what I say then you wouldn't find it so amazing. It's truly disappointing that you'd rather disparage my character rather than honestly listen to what I'm saying.

philologos

lmaopml wrote: »

Yeah, now we just splash them all over magazines as sex objects, tell them they must be a certain size and weight that's the ideal, get them hooked on drugs in order to traffic them, buying and selling - it's wonderful!

Agreed. I think the image that Paul presents in Ephesians 5:22-33 is a heck of a lot better than the view the secular world gives to us of women commonly used as sex objects to sell products, or indeed you'll find many people on boards.ie who advocate the use of women as actual sex objects through means like prostitution or pornography. If you ask me what is the real subjugation of women, it is that.

Biblical marriage does nothing of the sort.

Gumbi

philologos wrote: »

Agreed. I think the image that Paul presents in Ephesians 5:22-33 is a heck of a lot better than the view the secular world gives to us of women commonly used as sex objects to sell products, or indeed you'll find many people on boards.ie who advocate the use of women as actual sex objects through means like prostitution or pornography. If you ask me what is the real subjugation of women, it is that.

Biblical marriage does nothing of the sort.

What has that got to do with secularism?

lmaopml

Gumbi, with respect, I don't think that it's an evaluation of 'good' as such, people in the secular world who see women being manipulated and treated rather crap by not only those of religion or none, but by mere other people - that's beside the point, the 'secular' world view is not on the stand. Of course there are people who fight for human rights of all and no religions.

I think it's more so got to do with people extracting a meaning from Scripture and reading a view into it that isn't there, rather than understanding it the way it's meant to be understood in light of the 'theme' or the rest of it, and extracting that opinion 'from' it, not imposing a view on it firstly if you like.

Mind you, there is also debate in the Christian world, but it's not imo this dirty misogynistic approach that one 'set' of people claim it to be. People are 'people' at the end of the day and we know they do some good stuff and some bad, so it's not a case of painting anybody, it's a case of defending a commonly understood theology from people who misunderstand it in an extreme way - sometimes honestly, sometimes not so much.

Gumbi

lmaopml wrote: »

Gumbi, with respect, I don't think that it's an evaluation of 'good' as such, people in the secular world who see women being manipulated and treated rather crap by not only those of religion or none, but by mere other people - that's beside the point, the 'secular' world view is not on the stand. Of course there are people who fight for human rights of all and no religions.

I think it's more so got to do with people extracting a meaning from Scripture and reading a view into it that isn't there, rather than understanding it the way it's meant to be understood in light of the 'theme' or the rest of it, and extracting that opinion 'from' it, not imposing a view on it firstly if you like.

Mind you, there is also debate in the Christian world, but it's not imo this dirty misogynistic approach that one 'set' of people claim it to be. People are 'people' at the end of the day and we know they do some good stuff and some bad, so it's not a case of painting anybody, it's a case of defending a commonly understood theology from people who misunderstand it in an extreme way - sometimes honestly, sometimes not so much.

I'll pose the same to you as I did Jimi (who hasn't responded). Give me a good reason why the male should be the head of the household for no other reason other than that he is a male.

lmaopml

Gumbi wrote: »

I'll pose the same to you as I did Jimi (who hasn't responded). Give me a good reason why the male should be the head of the household for no other reason other than that he is a male.

The idea imo as 'head' of the household comes together when you look at the analogy of the 'body'.

It's like me saying as a female - fook you I can move those bricks out in the back garden into the skip every bit as much as you can and going out to do so to prove a point to the other, even though I am 5'2 with pretty functional muscles, I'm being kind of irrational when I was offered 'help' by somebody else.

It's like saying, despite the fact that 'I' in this partnership, I am in with you on equal terms, I would prefer to use my toes to eat popcorn than allow you to feed it to me with your fingers.

It's not meant to be taken as, 'Here comes the chief' - it's meant to be a way of describing a 'harmony' in a relationship if you understand my meaning.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

I believe Paul's argument in Ephesians 5:22-33 (in respect to husbands and wives) and the one that he uses in Ephesians 6:1-4 (in respect to children) and in Ephesians 6:5-9 (on slaves and masters) are all related yes.

Indeed if you look to what opens up this section just before ending at 5:21 you'll see that it says the following:


The three test cases of a marriage between a man and a woman, parents and their children, and the relationship between slave and master are all being interpreted through Jesus. Paul is saying this is what a Christ-centred marriage looks like, this is what a Christ-centred relationship between a child and his parents should look like, and this is how a Christ-centred relationship between a slave and his master can be revolutionary.

Jesus changes absolutely everything, and there's no exception Jesus blew Roman society apart with the gospel.

So you are saying that Jesus endorsed slavery and subservient women . And you define this as revolutionery ?

Surely the only revolutionery doctrine would be that slavery is wrong and women are equal , no equivocation .

tsiehta

So what does "head of the household" mean in practice? The husband gets the final say in everything?

If it's supposed to be an equal partnership, then why mention submission? Why is it not "heads of the household"?

lmaopml

tsiehta wrote: »

So what does "head of the household" mean in practice? The husband gets the final say in everything?

If it's supposed to be an equal partnership, then why mention submission? Why is it not "heads of the household"?

Why mention 'submit' to eachother? There's a radical thing (shocking!) - was he thinking only in a carnal way? Of course not, that's how we 'tend' to always think and position a view on mere 'words'.

What did he mean? Submit to 'eachother'? How can this be so, is this even imaginable?

Well, perhaps a good idea would be to go and think on it rather than, like on this thread people try to denigrate a young chap who is forming a reasonable awareness of how women can/are/ and very often get treated very badly in a world full up of badly treated women. When women target the wrong person imo they come across very badly and not at all good for any kind of reasonable feminist -

It's like when somebody like Ivana Bacik goes on about fundamentalism and one tends to roll their eyes.

tsiehta

Apologies, but I don't understand your post. Which young chap? Which women targeting the wrong person?

lmaopml

Some of the lady posters like yourself ( I think, one can't be too sure on the internet ) have only just joined in the fun - read it...It's great reading, and pretty sad too.

I think I'll hire a bandwagon too.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I get it Zombrex. Its the caricatures and flippant remarks I've looked to dispel by enlightening you to the realities. I've done this while still acknowledging that the IDEA of the husband being the head of the household would still grate.

Er, the Christians brought up the "tyrannical" caricature on this thread. The rest of us were just talking about the submission aspect. That is bad enough in of itself.

But I guess it is easier to argue against straw men.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Yeah, now we just splash them all over magazines as sex objects, tell them they must be a certain size and weight that's the ideal, get them hooked on drugs in order to traffic them, buying and selling - it's wonderful!

Ah yes, the its-for-your-own-good argument ... :rolleyes:

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

The idea imo as 'head' of the household comes together when you look at the analogy of the 'body'.

It's like me saying as a female - fook you I can move those bricks out in the back garden into the skip every bit as much as you can and going out to do so to prove a point to the other, even though I am 5'2 with pretty functional muscles, I'm being kind of irrational when I was offered 'help' by somebody else.

It's like saying, despite the fact that 'I' in this partnership, I am in with you on equal terms, I would prefer to use my toes to eat popcorn than allow you to feed it to me with your fingers.

It's not meant to be taken as, 'Here comes the chief' - it's meant to be a way of describing a 'harmony' in a relationship if you understand my meaning.

You didn't answer the question.

According to the Bible, do men submit to women, and are women sometimes the head of the household and of the man?

If not, why not?

lmaopml

Zombrex, I'm going to bed now, I only have an hour or two on the internet, here and there, but truly missing the point seems to be a particular speciality of yours. I don't know if it's by design or no.


Now, I could post pics of 'Atheistic' regimes and terror and horror and how badly women were treated by other people who are shockingly enough 'Atheist' believe it or not, 'people' - but really that would just be gas bagging, and I'm tired.

Nite! Have fun!

jill_valentine

lmaopml wrote: »

Why mention 'submit' to eachother? There's a radical thing (shocking!) - was he thinking only in a carnal way? Of course not, that's how we 'tend' to always think and position a view on mere 'words'.

What did he mean? Submit to 'eachother'? How can this be so, is this even imaginable?

If he meant submit to each other, he would have said "submit to each other". "Wives, submit to your husbands" leaves absolutely no room for interpretation. It's quite clear which way the wind is supposed to blow, and you only have to scroll up to see it's quite clear that's how posters here interpret it. They sincerely believe that they have a god given right to expect the total submission of their wives in return for their love.

"Submission" is not a relationship of equals, and that is never how it is intended to be understood. Carnal or not, and that's only a minor element of what the conversation's about.

You chaps have a brass neck of mythological proportions to sit there and explain to me with a straight face how much I would stand to gain by adopting a role subservient to yours, what a graced and attractive proposition I should recognise in the surrender of my agency to the automatic authority of somebody like you. You sit there posting smiley faces and "lols!" as you lay out all the reasons you think I would be grateful to be confined to the role of lesser partner in my own life, and how you think I would benefit.

Saying "Oh, but I'm not domineering! I'm a magnanimous keeper!" is missing the point by wide acreages. Why would you have to be? She's already "submitted", the burden is on her to recognise your inherently authoritative role. And of course, you'll explain, there is no "my own life" in a marriage, because by then I'm supposed to be wholly subsumed into the role of The Bit That Does What The Head Wants, so it won't be an issue.

The extraordinary arrogance of Christian men to insist that their presence in a marriage is such a privilege that it's worth the nonreciprocal surrender of one's very self is compounded doublefold by the fact that they clothe it in the language of humility. And the barely veiled contempt for the idea of women as human beings of equal agency never loses its edge no matter how many laboured metaphors you try to hide it in.

"Oh, well I'm not a tyrant!" is hardly the resounding endorsement of such an arrangement as you seem to think.

"I'm not the boss (I'm just in charge). We're a team, (because we both do what I want)."

Gosh, you do spoil us awfully don't you. But then that's your dreadful burden to bear as our benevolent overseers.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Zombrex, I'm going to bed now, I only have an hour or two on the internet, here and there, but truly missing the point seems to be a particular speciality of yours. I don't know if it's by design or no.


Now, I could post pics of 'Atheistic' regimes and terror and horror and how badly women were treated by other people who are shockingly enough 'Atheist' believe it or not, 'people' - but really that would just be gas bagging, and I'm tired.

Nite! Have fun!

When ever any of the atheists start arguing for women to be treated like that, I'll join you Imaopml.

But at the moment all we have is Christians saying women should be treated like that.

So maybe your objection should be at these Christians calling on women to submit to the authority of their husbands, rather than the "Ivana Bacik" types who shockingly for some reason object to such medieval notions of a woman's place in the family unit.

lmaopml

Zombrex wrote: »

When ever any of the atheists start arguing for women to be treated like that, I'll join you Imaopml.

You wouldn't want to I snore.....:) haha

But at the moment all we have is Christians saying women should be treated like that.

No you don't - you have atheists saying how they interpret Scripture and missing the mark by a long mile. There's no point in asking a Christian to explain the theology if you already have your mind made up what it means and it just turns into a pile of pointless bluster and noise.

Sonics2k

philologos wrote: »

Agreed. I think the image that Paul presents in Ephesians 5:22-33 is a heck of a lot better than the view the secular world gives to us of women commonly used as sex objects to sell products, or indeed you'll find many people on boards.ie who advocate the use of women as actual sex objects through means like prostitution or pornography. If you ask me what is the real subjugation of women, it is that.

Biblical marriage does nothing of the sort.

Haha yes. In the days of Jesus, the Biblical days and when Christianity dominated Europe women were in a much better place, and definitely were never treated as objects.
It's all the fault of secularism and those damn equality folks.

Good one Phil. Now tell the one about the Chicken and Astronomer in a bar.

philologos

Sonics2k wrote: »

Haha yes. In the days of Jesus, the Biblical days and when Christianity dominated Europe women were in a much better place, and definitely were never treated as objects.
It's all the fault of secularism and those damn equality folks.

Good one Phil. Now tell the one about the Chicken and Astronomer in a bar.

There was no perfect time in Europe. Indeed there was a huge gap in time where Bible wasn't taught pretty much until the Reformation.

If people mistreated their wives it wasn't because of this it was in spite of it.

I might start a thread on Ephesians 1:1-14 and maybe we could look at it as a whole and in context.

jill_valentine

lmaopml wrote: »

You wouldn't want to I snore.....:) haha



No you don't - you have atheists saying how they interpret Scripture and missing the mark by a long mile. There's no point in asking a Christian to explain the theology if you already have your mind made up what it means and it just turns into a pile of pointless bluster and noise.

"Let me get this straight, we're supposed to think it's totally awesome that we're supposed to live in second place to you at all times."

"Yes. I don't see the problem with that. It's not a bad thing, you get to live with us!"

- is basically the conversation we've had here. And you guys aren't really contesting that's the concept or anything, you just blankly grin back and insist that we just don't understand how great submission to your natural god given regency is going to be, because gosh, you'll totally take our suggestions on board.

I mean the fact that you don't even really seem to grasp why people might get a little animated at this extraordinarily egomaniacal worldview says you just can't really imagine why anybody wouldn't want to live under your benevolent reign.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

There was no perfect time in Europe. Indeed there was a huge gap in time where Bible wasn't taught pretty much until the Reformation.

If people mistreated their wives it wasn't because of this it was in spite of it.

I might start a thread on Ephesians 1:1-14 and maybe we could look at it as a whole and in context.

So marriages worked out quite well since the Reformation then ?

Andrewf20

Submit (definition):

- to give over or yield to the power or authority of another (often used reflexively).
- to yield oneself to the power or authority of another: to submit to a conqueror.
- to defer to another's judgment, opinion, decision, etc.: I submit to your superior judgment.

I had a look back at our marriage course notes in a booklet we were given and nowhere does it mention the notion of wifes submitting to their husbands. I think this is a dangerous idea that is grounds for some husbands to say to their wives that their authority is greater than the wifes and thats that. Some women are more intelligent and level-headed than their husbands.

I think the bible would have been better if it didnt mention such an idea as it may lead to inequalities in the decision making and resentment on the womans side.

I came across the following on a Christian website to get a Christian perspective (http://www.reason4living.com/articles/totw0041.htm):

"However agreement [between husband and wife on an issue] might not be reached so then what? If they cannot reach agreement then the submissive wife needs only to obey her husband and accept his wishes graciously. Having done this there are now only a few possible outcomes, all of which have positive aspects and none of which is particularly terrible. In the first possible outcome they will take the road the husband selects and, in due course they will discover that they have chosen a good route through life and both will be happy. In the second possible outcome they will take the road the husband selects but, in due course, they discover that it was not such a good choice after all. All they do is turn around, go back to the junction and take a different road; there has been no need for argument, nobody has felt disrespected or belittled and they have not bruised one another. Although the husband's choice turned out to be a bad one, they have discovered the mistake together, discovered it quickly, and swiftly got back onto a better road and, in the process, they have strengthened their bond by having been able to disagree with dignity and mutual respect."

If this is an example of the Christian perspective on the matter it seems to make alot of assumptions, i.e. that there is no resentment, and that the "turn around & go back to the junction" is as simple as that, when in reality it may not be possible to go back and correct the mistake. If this is the case I dont think it will do any favours to strengthen bonds as mentioned in the passage.

ViveLaVie

What is it about a male that merits being made the head of the marriage over the female?