Connection between Feminism and Communism

[archaeologist55]

Not using the word subjugation, but yes they have advocated for it by arguing that married man is well within his rights to be a tyrant over his wife.  That point has been made abundantly clear in this thread more than once.  

the word 'tyrant' can be subjectively applied. you may see it that way others may not.  the Bible is very clear on how the husband is to lead and be head of his wife, and the Bible is very clear that the woman in all cases must be submissive to her husband.

I don't have a wrong idea about equality.  And I am not going to let you decide what the working definitions of words will be.

yes actually you do.  you would have to present biblical verses which support your view and definitions and so far you haven't.

too many people, like yourself, apply your own definitions and forget about God's.

Leaders are not tyrants.   I am not saying that there is no leader.  They may not be equal in rank but they are equal partners.  Nothing in the Bible makes the wife inferior to her husband.

again you use non-biblical words to make your point and ignore the fact that I have never said women were inferior to men, Just because she can't be the leader in the home or in the church does not make her inferior or the husband a tyrant. to say otherwise is to import your own selective fallible human ideas into biblical teaching and it is wrong.  the woman has her commands to follow just like the men do, she has equality in that. giving her different responsibilities does not make her less of a person neither does restricting what positions she can hold.

if you want to take your argument of 'equality' to the next level,you would have to argue that men are inferior to women simply because they cannot give birth. your selective reasoning undoes your position.

I use the very same verses you misapply to promote your sloppy, inaccurate view of marriage.   I know that God didn't make husbands to be tyrants over their wives.

your tone undermines your point and credibility as do your insults.  your distortion renders discussing anything with you impossible.

I have witnessed what happens in homes where men have the attitude that the wife is obey him without question and "remain silent."   I have seen that in action. It isn't pretty. My problem isn't with God.  My problem is with your unskilled handling of His word. 

doesn't mean a thing.and your insults only reflect your bad character and point to your inability to accept God's ways and be obedient to them.

 

No, you simply have not provided any exegesis to prove your reading of the texts is accurate.  What you call "insults"  I see as a level of honesty about the quality of your hermeneutics that you can't bring yourself to face up to.  I am a blunt, honest person by nature and frankly, the fact is that marriage is not on the ropes because women are failing to submit.  Marriage is the ropes because men have in more ways than one, abdicated the biblical role of husband as servant and a leader.   They have either forgotten how to be a leader or they go to the other extreme and think they are kings of house and their wives are their vassals.   Both extremes only lead people into ditch.   And both are unbiblical.

they are not a 'level of honesty' they are insults because you do not like being told something you so not want to hear. You do personal attacks when refuted or shown to be wrong and that is all your posts have become.

according to your logic, women are perfect and not at fault for any trouble in their marriages and it is all the men's fault. you are dishonest in your presentation  and your analysis. there is also no biblical teaching for women to take over leadership if men fail to do the job. If you want to appeal to scripture you better get it right and be honest about it all.

Scripture doe snot support your point of view.

[Guest shiloh357]

Not using the word subjugation, but yes they have advocated for it by arguing that married man is well within his rights to be a tyrant over his wife.  That point has been made abundantly clear in this thread more than once.  

the word 'tyrant' can be subjectively applied. you may see it that way others may not.  the Bible is very clear on how the husband is to lead and be head of his wife, and the Bible is very clear that the woman in all cases must be submissive to her husband.

I don't have a wrong idea about equality.  And I am not going to let you decide what the working definitions of words will be.

yes actually you do.  you would have to present biblical verses which support your view and definitions and so far you haven't.

too many people, like yourself, apply your own definitions and forget about God's.

Leaders are not tyrants.   I am not saying that there is no leader.  They may not be equal in rank but they are equal partners.  Nothing in the Bible makes the wife inferior to her husband.

again you use non-biblical words to make your point and ignore the fact that I have never said women were inferior to men, Just because she can't be the leader in the home or in the church does not make her inferior or the husband a tyrant. to say otherwise is to import your own selective fallible human ideas into biblical teaching and it is wrong.  the woman has her commands to follow just like the men do, she has equality in that. giving her different responsibilities does not make her less of a person neither does restricting what positions she can hold.

if you want to take your argument of 'equality' to the next level,you would have to argue that men are inferior to women simply because they cannot give birth. your selective reasoning undoes your position.

I use the very same verses you misapply to promote your sloppy, inaccurate view of marriage.   I know that God didn't make husbands to be tyrants over their wives.

your tone undermines your point and credibility as do your insults.  your distortion renders discussing anything with you impossible.

I have witnessed what happens in homes where men have the attitude that the wife is obey him without question and "remain silent."   I have seen that in action. It isn't pretty. My problem isn't with God.  My problem is with your unskilled handling of His word. 

doesn't mean a thing.and your insults only reflect your bad character and point to your inability to accept God's ways and be obedient to them.

 

No, you simply have not provided any exegesis to prove your reading of the texts is accurate.  What you call "insults"  I see as a level of honesty about the quality of your hermeneutics that you can't bring yourself to face up to.  I am a blunt, honest person by nature and frankly, the fact is that marriage is not on the ropes because women are failing to submit.  Marriage is the ropes because men have in more ways than one, abdicated the biblical role of husband as servant and a leader.   They have either forgotten how to be a leader or they go to the other extreme and think they are kings of house and their wives are their vassals.   Both extremes only lead people into ditch.   And both are unbiblical.

they are not a 'level of honesty' they are insults because you do not like being told something you so not want to hear. You do personal attacks when refuted or shown to be wrong and that is all your posts have become.

according to your logic, women are perfect and not at fault for any trouble in their marriages and it is all the men's fault. you are dishonest in your presentation  and your analysis. there is also no biblical teaching for women to take over leadership if men fail to do the job. If you want to appeal to scripture you better get it right and be honest about it all.

Scripture doe snot support your point of view.

No, it is honesty.  If I wanted to insult you I would make reference to your intelligence.  I am speaking to the quality of your argument and your skill in hermeneutics.  You have not refuted anything I have presented.  Neither you nor Butero have done anything but keep repeating same warmed over stew.   You don't actually debate anything.   You're the one having a problem with a different point of view.   In fact, you barely engage anything I say even when I do use Scripture.

As for my logic,  I have never said that women are perfect and are not ever at fault for trouble in their marriages.  But I will note that sometimes, "rebellion"  is incited by tyrannical husbands who see their wives as less than their equal partner.    The fact is that men are failing as leaders.  They either will not lead, or they misunderstand leadership as lordship and they treat their marriage as if they are the masters and their wives are just sidekicks.

Tyrants usually incite rebellion, because after being ruled over and mistreated people rebel.   Husbands, in the Bible are leaders, not overlords.  The Bible may not use the word "leader"  but the concept is there even if the actual word is not.   Rebellion is never right, but I can understand it.    And 90% of the time, the marriages I have seen fail ususally stem from men not being the kind of husbands they should be, and they end up inciting and inflaming rebellion in their wives. 

[Guest shiloh357]

i am sure people have quoted 1 Peter in this discussion before but I will do it again for you so you know that scripture has been given on this issue:

"¹⁸Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh. ¹⁹For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully. ²⁰For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. ²¹For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for ^£us, leaving ^£us an example, that you should follow His steps:^...1Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, ²when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear.

NOTICE the word likewise after the word wives. This tells us that the context is continuing from chapter 2 and carried over into chapter 3. I am sure you know that chapter and verse divisions are not divinely inspired. Then notice the words 'conduct of their wives'. Bad men cannot be won if their wives behave badly, sinfully or in an unchristian manner. if they follow worldly ideas or bad christian advice then those wives are not following God but humans and that is wrong.

NOTICE the wording of verse 20 and see how that will apply to wives as well.

This is what I mean by sloppy hermeneutics.   You completely gutted the passage, the "likewise"  was not telling women to be to their husbands was slaves are to their masters.  The word "likewise" is connected the example of Christ, and not connected his commandment  to the slaves.   Paul is saying that wives and even those of unbelieving husbands need to operate with the attitude of Christ who submitted to the will of His father on the cross in order to be godly example even to their unbelieving husbands. 

Paul was not saying "What I said to the slaves is what I want wives to do as well."   The relationship of the slave to his master is not at all the relationship of a wife to her husband and your attempt to twist Scripture to make it appear as if the wife and the slave are given the same set of instructions is deplorable and repugnant.

what you are demanding is perfection from fallible people before you or wives act like God wants.  That is not Christian teaching. Do you recall the verse, do unto others...? or do not repay evil for evil?  those biblical verses apply to the marriage relationship as well. If the husband is evil, those verses tell th ewives how they are to behave in response and doing what is unbiblical is not taught by the Bible.

 

No I am not demanding perfection from fallen men.  I am not saying that husbands have to be perfect before the wife submits.   What I am saying is that while the Bible commands women to submit to their husbands, the Bible also commands men with regard to the gentle and sacrificial love they are supposed to exercise toward wives who are called to submit to them.   In other words, men are supposed to live in a way toward their wives that is worth submitting to.   They are the providers, protectors and nurturers of their wives and I don’t a woman on this earth that would not submit to that.

The commandments given to men are supposed to make them easy to submit to.  But so many men see the commandment to wives to be submissive as a blank check for men to lord it over her as if her purpose in life is simply to wait on him, hand and foot.

You come across that way.

No one has said that men, in general,  have been taught correctly. That is a given but guess what, women are to be taught to do the same. it is a two way street. how you want men to act, you need to teach the woman also. Women are not the innocent victims in this issue, they do their share of sin , antagonizing, inciting as well. it is not a men's only problem.

 I don’t come across that way at all.  That’s just how you are trying to spin it in the absence of an actual competent, substantive argument.  Nor have I said that women don’t bear their share of the blame in the failed marriages in this country.   I simply point to the fact that there are a lot of women who would have not felt the need to rebel and go off into sin had their husbands been true leaders in the home. 

You do not understand scripture at all. Being one flesh does not mean they are partners. it is too involved to get into here, if it meant artners then there would be one less argument against same-sex marriage. 

 

First of all, comparing the way I am using the word partner with how the homosexual community uses that word, reminds me of a steaming pile of a particular substance emanating from the north end of a south-bound horse.  That is such repugnant argument and I think you know I am not even coming close  to using it that way.   But then it would have taken a higher level of integrity not to stoop to that type of argument.

As for  Gen. 2:22-24, I was using it to make the case that “one flesh” promotes equality in the marriage, just as it does in the Godhead.  

again you mis-apply scripture to fit your point of view. That is not what that scripture is saying at all. Paul is talking baout ownership of the bodies and sexual relations not providing instructions on how to be partners.

 No, I was using it to illustrate how a partnership in marriage works.   That passage speaks of two people operating as equal partners in marriage and it shows a mutual consent.   Paul was giving a less on partnership, but at the same time, the concept is alive and well in that passage, even if your shallow, myopic theological perspective can’t make room for it.

your understanding of scripture is heavily influenced by your misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches about husbands and wives. Just because some men treat their wives as inferior doesn't mean the Bible teaches that. Just because God prohibits women from leadership in the family and the church does not mean women are inferior or second class. it means that there are different roles for the women separate from the men's roles and God gets to make those rules.

 Nothing in that little rant actually addresses Malachi 2:14.  Even when I present Scripture you pretty much brush it aside.   One of the chief arguments being made in this thread is that women and men are not equal in marriage, and that she is his inferior and any insistence that men being the spiritual head and the marital head of the some doesn’t give them “kingship” status is met with strong opposition, as if women are being told it’s okay to be disobedient to God’s command to submit.

[archaeologist55]

No, it is honesty.  If I wanted to insult you I would make reference to your intelligence.  I am speaking to the quality of your argument and your skill in hermeneutics.  You have not refuted anything I have presented.  Neither you nor Butero have done anything but keep repeating same warmed over stew

i will disagree with all of that.

In fact, you barely engage anything I say even when I do use Scripture.

i do not think you are reading what has been written.  Your use of scripture is best left unsaid and undescribed.

The fact is that men are failing as leaders. 

we all fail but that fact doesn't change biblical teaching and that women need to submit. Wife submission must have been a problem in the 1st century as well, as Paul had to repeat it several times in scripture and peter at least once.

again scripture is very clear, God said a woman's husband will rule over her so you are arguing against God not me or Butero.

Tyrants usually incite rebellion, because after being ruled over and mistreated people rebel.   Husbands, in the Bible are leaders, not overlords.

you do understand that leaders tell others what to do and get them in trouble when they disobey the instructions, don't you? You are actually arguing against yourself.

And 90% of the time, the marriages I have seen fail ususally stem from men not being the kind of husbands they should be, and they end up inciting and inflaming rebellion in their wives. 

marriages fail because women also fail to abide by scripture, two of which i put in my long post. women are not to rebel, there i no scriptural teaching allowing for that action; turn the other cheek applies to wives as well. your omittence of other pertinent and vital scripture demonstrates that you are not being honest in your point of view nor looking at all the scriptural teaching that apply to this issue.

[archaeologist55]

This is what I mean by sloppy hermeneutics.   You completely gutted the passage, the "likewise"  was not telling women to be to their husbands was slaves are to their masters.  The word "likewise" is connected the example of Christ, and not connected his commandment  to the slaves. 

i am tired of your insults and accusations. i was not sloppy but reminded you that the context of chapter 2 carried over to chapter 3. think about it.

Paul is saying that wives and even those of unbelieving husbands need to operate with the attitude of Christ who submitted to the will of His father on the cross in order to be godly example even to their unbelieving husbands. 

you are still arguing against yourself

The relationship of the slave to his master is not at all the relationship of a wife to her husband and your attempt to twist Scripture to make it appear as if the wife and the slave are given the same set of instructions is deplorable and repugnant.

you accuse me of what you are doing as you cannot get it that what Peter is saying to slaves aplies to wives as well. read chapter 2 again and see.

What I am saying is that while the Bible commands women to submit to their husbands, the Bible also commands men with regard to the gentle and sacrificial love they are supposed to exercise toward wives who are called to submit to them.   In other words, men are supposed to live in a way toward their wives that is worth submitting to.   They are the providers, protectors and nurturers of their wives and I don’t a woman on this earth that would not submit to that.

you do not seem to grasp the concept of free choice, a corrupt world, fallibility in humans and so on. and you do not grasp the meaning of submit and how it is applied.

your obstinence and stubbornness tire me. you just do not get it.

The commandments given to men are supposed to make them easy to submit to.  But so many men see the commandment to wives to be submissive as a blank check for men to lord it over her as if her purpose in life is simply to wait on him, hand and foot.

you also fail to grasp that people get bad teachings from their pastors and church leaders and act according to what they have been taught regardless of what scripture says. it is not a 'men are supposed to' issue. as Jesus said 'remove the beam from your own eye first...' which tells you to stop telling men what they should be and start obeying God correctly and honestly  then maybe you can see clearly enough to tell men what to do and how to be. 

from what I read in your posts, you have a long ways to go. the beam verse also applies to wives. they need to humble themselves and obey God removing the 'beams' from their eyes before demanding their men to be better.

you have no argument.

I don’t come across that way at all. 

yes you do.

I simply point to the fact that there are a lot of women who would have not felt the need to rebel and go off into sin had their husbands been true leaders in the home. 

women shouldn't feel the need to rebel, rebellion is sin and not a biblical teaching. those women cannot blame their husbands for their choices, that is failing to take responsibility for one's decisions and actions. you are blaming men for the choices made by others and that is wrong.

First of all, comparing the way I am using the word partner with how the homosexual community uses that word, reminds me of a steaming pile of a particular substance emanating from the north end of a south-bound horse.  That is such repugnant argument and I think you know I am not even coming close  to using it that way.   But then it would have taken a higher level of integrity not to stoop to that type of argument.

if you cannot discuss properly and cannot accept comparisons then I suggest you go talk to someone else.

No, I was using it to illustrate how a partnership in marriage works.

and you were wrong

Nothing in that little rant

your use of the word 'rant' here only demonstrates your closed mind and inability to discuss or consider other points of view. i did not rant but made points that you willfully dismiss and ignore.

actually addresses Malachi 2:14.  Even when I present Scripture you pretty much brush it aside

i didn't brush it aside, i didn't think you could comprehend the difference between the definitions of the words. nor do I think you will understand or accept the fact that that verse does not over-rule nor negate NT teaching about wives submitting to their husbands.  a wife can be a partner and still submit, which is another fact that escapes you.

One of the chief arguments being made in this thread is that women and men are not equal in marriage, and that she is his inferior and any insistence that men being the spiritual head and the marital head of the some doesn’t give them “kingship” status is met with strong opposition, as if women are being told it’s okay to be disobedient to God’s command to submit.

again you do not understand that men being given leadership over their wives does not make the wife inferior. leaders have second in commands, guess which role a woman plays? 

on a side note, you accuse me of brushing aside or ignoring some of your arguments yet I noticed you have done the very thing you accuse me of. I think you need to go back and see the scripture i have used and how it applies to the marriage before responding.  there is no scripture verse stating that if a man does this or doesn't do that then the wife is free from the command to submit. think about it.

[Guest shiloh357]

i will disagree with all of that.

I don't really care.

 i do not think you are reading what has been written.  Your use of scripture is best left unsaid and undescribed.

I am reading and responding to exactly what is written.   My use of Scripture has never really been refuted.  You keep claiming I am misusing it, but you are incapable of actually engaging the text and showing hermeneutically where I am wrong.   You seem to think that merely stating your opposition to my use of Scripture counts as an actual refutation; it doesn't.

we all fail but that fact doesn't change biblical teaching and that women need to submit. Wife submission must have been a problem in the 1st century as well, as Paul had to repeat it several times in scripture and peter at least once.

 I am not arguing against women submitting to their husbands.  I am arguing against men thinking that the submission of their wives give them the authority to be dictatorial, controlling and essentially superior to their wives.

again scripture is very clear, God said a woman's husband will rule over her so you are arguing against God not me or Butero.

Wrong.  I am arguing against your application of that verse.   If that was the last thing the Bible said about marriage, if it said nothing about the nature of marriage, you might have point.   But concept of "rule" in marriage is explained elsewhere in the Bible. I am putting that Scripture along side other passages and it is not the kind of dictatorial/overlord idea of rulership that is being applied in this thread. 

you do understand that leaders tell others what to do and get them in trouble when they disobey the instructions, don't you? You are actually arguing against yourself.

Good leaders can tell others what to do, but they lead by example.  Leaders lead from the front.  Tyrants just bark out orders. Leaders are in the trench with people they lead and they expect no less of themselves than what they are asking of those they lead.  Good leaders inspire and others will follow them.  Good leaders earn the  trust and affection and those who follow them will love and  follow them to whatever end.  That's the kind of leadership that makes for a good marriage.

marriages fail because women also fail to abide by scripture, two of which i put in my long post. women are not to rebel, there i no scriptural teaching allowing for that action; turn the other cheek applies to wives as well. your omittence of other pertinent and vital scripture demonstrates that you are not being honest in your point of view nor looking at all the scriptural teaching that apply to this issue.

 

I am not justifying rebellion.   I am explaining it.  You can incite people to sin. That doesn't excuse their sin.   I have not omitted any Scripture I feel is pertinent.   And I have addressed the Scripture you have presented.   If I am missing any, present them for review.

[Guest shiloh357]

Criticizing and questioning your  hermeneutic skills isn’t insults and you show that my accusation is justified in your poor treatment of chapters two and three.   You skipped over I Pet. 2:22-25 in order to claim that Peter was giving the same instruction to wives as he was slaves, and that is not the case.  Peter’s instructions to the wives are connected to vv. 22-25, which you omitted.  Peter is NOT equating of the role of a slave and his master with the role of a wife to her husband.  To trying and foster that kind of connection is simply not biblical and defies the biblical picture of a marriage being a covenant.  

 

Calling your hermeneutics sloppy is really just me giving you the benefit of the doubt, because if you really do believe that women and slaves it’s either careless sloppy exegesis or egregious false teaching. 

 

you do not seem to grasp the concept of free choice, a corrupt world, fallibility in humans and so on. and you do not grasp the meaning of submit and how it is applied.

 

your obstinence and stubbornness tire me. you just do not get it.

 

I understand submit just fine and I understand the proper way to apply it, versus the crap you are trying to foist on the boards.   Submit doesn’t mean to be treated like a slave; at least not biblically.  But that is exactly how you are applying it.  Sorry, but I am not some woman you can  shut down.

 

I am not being stubborn.   I am correctly your unskilled, bargain-basement theology.

 

 

you also fail to grasp that people get bad teachings from their pastors and church leaders and act according to what they have been taught regardless of what scripture says. it is not a 'men are supposed to' issue. as Jesus said 'remove the beam from your own eye first...' which tells you to stop telling men what they should be and start obeying God correctly and honestly 

then maybe you can see clearly enough to tell men what to do and how to be.

 

from what I read in your posts, you have a long ways to go. the beam verse also applies to wives. they need to humble themselves and obey God removing the 'beams' from their eyes before demanding their men to be better.

 

Yeah, it be so much easier if women would just shut up and let their husbands do their thinking for them, wouldn’t it?   

 

Frankly, I know very few men who have your tyrannical, despotic view of being a husband and there is nothing in the Bible that instructs men to be like that.  You’re one of those people who knows just enough about the Bible to be dangerous.  

women shouldn't feel the need to rebel, rebellion is sin and not a biblical teaching. those women cannot blame their husbands for their choices, that is failing to take responsibility for one's decisions and actions. you are blaming men for the choices made by others and that is wrong.

 

Women shouldn’t feel the need to rebel.  That’s right.  But when husbands either don’t lead or they treat them like dirt and think it’s their job to reign like tyrants over their wives, women look elsewhere.  I am not defending a women for doing that, but that is reality.  Men are often a much bigger problem than women.   Tyrants incite rebellion.

 

If you pick on someone and they fight back, you can’t claim the problem started when they fought back.  You have to acknowledge your contribution to the problem.  Men can’t treat their wives like servants and vassals and then complain about “rebellion”  when it is their terrible treatment of their wives that incited that response.

 

if you cannot discuss properly and cannot accept comparisons then I suggest you go talk to someone else.

 

If you can’t refrain from making dishonest comparisons, you know where the door is; don’t let it hit you in backside on the way out.

 

and you were wrong

 

No, I wasn’t.  Paul demonstrated in one area the mutual partnership and mutual consent that exists in marriage.   I realize that you  don’t possess the courage to admit, but it’s true.

 

i didn't brush it aside, i didn't think you could comprehend the difference between the definitions of the words. nor do I think you will understand or accept the fact that that verse does not over-rule nor negate NT teaching about wives submitting to their husbands. 

a wife can be a partner and still submit, which is another fact that escapes you.[/quote]

 

That’s funny ‘cause my argument has been exactly that a woman can still submit and be a partner in the marriage.    You have said previously that marriage isn’t a partnership.   Might want to take some time to decide which side you are on.

 

And yes, you did brush it aside.  It speaks of the wife as  companion (not a slave) in a covenant (which is a mutual relationship). 

 

again you do not understand that men being given leadership over their wives does not make the wife inferior. leaders have second in commands, guess which role a woman plays?

 

I understand what it means to be a leader and I understand women to be second in command in the home.  I have never said otherwise.  What I have said is that men are not kings who rule over their wives as if wives are vassals of the king.  I have argued against women being seen as slaves, sidekicks, and inferior to their husbands.   I have never argued against women having a subordinate rank in the family.   I just don’t think it gives men the right to lord it over their wives.

 

on a side note, you accuse me of brushing aside or ignoring some of your arguments yet I noticed you have done the very thing you accuse me of.

 

Bull corn!  I have addressed every Scripture you have raised.   I have not brushed aside anything.

 

there is no scripture verse stating that if a man does this or doesn't do that then the wife is free from the command to submit. think about it.

 

I know.  It’s a good thing I never raised that argument.  It’s a good thing I never said that a wife is free not to submit to her husband.   Shows just how little you have paid attention to the thrust of my argument.   You have reacting to what you think I am saying instead of responding to the actual argument raised.

i am tired of your insults and accusations. i was not sloppy but reminded you that the context of chapter 2 carried over to chapter 3. think about it.

[Guest Butero]

In my humble but outspoken opinion , I  think the feminist philosophy is very dominant now and has entangled itself so deeply within the Education system , Politically, and within the fields of Psychology/mental health/counseling  that it has become a controlling force in modern society much like Political Correctness has and if you question it in some circles you're met with hostility and emotional knee jerk reactiveness. People will practically accuse you of preferring women to be abused much like P.C. reactives do when people criticized Obama then they were called racist or bet you still wish there was slavery or something ridiculous or  if you are for the NRA then -- what??? do you want little children to be shot in schools????  That kind of thing limits the ability to have constructive discussion about the topic  by making those reactive jumps.

 In my own Christian walk ,  I have had to adjust my attitude and behavior concerning this issue of gender roles to bring myself more in line with Scripture rather than my ideals which were influenced by society not the Word and I find it has blessed me.

I don't think anyone is saying that anyone else wants to see anyone abused, but in these dictatorial households, abuse does happen and it happens more often than we would like know or are generally aware.   And I am not talking beating someone.  I am talking about mental and emotional abuse.  

Marriage was not designed to be a one-way-street.  It is supposed to be a mutual partnership.

I agree , I don't think it is a one way street either. If my spouse was crossing a line in that area and just being oppressive or  dominating I would definitely not submit and have something to say to him about it . The wife submitting to her husband and the man having authority is not the same  to me as the man having the authority to be "abusive" in any way, mentally, verbally, psychologically or physically or controlling, or dictatorial or tyrannical . 

Exactly.  That's the point I am making.

Your point is wrong.  First of all, please provide scripture to show marriage to be a "mutual partnership."  You can also explain what you mean by "mutual partnership."  Second, who is to decide what is abusive?  People claim abuse all the time in non-abusive situations.  The couple is going out to dinner, and it is formal, and the husband tells his wife to dress up.  She tells him that is abusive to tell her how to dress and refuses.  Either the authority is real, and scripture makes it clear it is, or people like Shiloh are rejecting scripture and teaching wives to rebel because with his crazy marriage covenant doctrine, which is completely false, he has decided that men don't have the Biblical authority to do exactly as God said they do, rule and reign over their wives.  For those not following the Soap Box debate, the word translated rule mentions reigning in the definition and is the same word that is used to describe a king reigning over a nation. 

[Guest Butero]

In my humble but outspoken opinion , I  think the feminist philosophy is very dominant now and has entangled itself so deeply within the Education system , Politically, and within the fields of Psychology/mental health/counseling  that it has become a controlling force in modern society much like Political Correctness has and if you question it in some circles you're met with hostility and emotional knee jerk reactiveness. People will practically accuse you of preferring women to be abused much like P.C. reactives do when people criticized Obama then they were called racist or bet you still wish there was slavery or something ridiculous or  if you are for the NRA then -- what??? do you want little children to be shot in schools????  That kind of thing limits the ability to have constructive discussion about the topic  by making those reactive jumps.

 In my own Christian walk ,  I have had to adjust my attitude and behavior concerning this issue of gender roles to bring myself more in line with Scripture rather than my ideals which were influenced by society not the Word and I find it has blessed me.

I don't think anyone is saying that anyone else wants to see anyone abused, but in these dictatorial households, abuse does happen and it happens more often than we would like know or are generally aware.   And I am not talking beating someone.  I am talking about mental and emotional abuse.  

Marriage was not designed to be a one-way-street.  It is supposed to be a mutual partnership.

I agree , I don't think it is a one way street either. If my spouse was crossing a line in that area and just being oppressive or  dominating I would definitely not submit and have something to say to him about it . The wife submitting to her husband and the man having authority is not the same  to me as the man having the authority to be "abusive" in any way, mentally, verbally, psychologically or physically or controlling, or dictatorial or tyrannical . 

Well, shiver me timbers, davida......all this time I thought you were a MAN! 

You mean davida is a woman? 

How is it nobody knew that?  It is not a man's name. 

[Guest Butero]

In my humble but outspoken opinion , I  think the feminist philosophy is very dominant now and has entangled itself so deeply within the Education system , Politically, and within the fields of Psychology/mental health/counseling  that it has become a controlling force in modern society much like Political Correctness has and if you question it in some circles you're met with hostility and emotional knee jerk reactiveness. People will practically accuse you of preferring women to be abused much like P.C. reactives do when people criticized Obama then they were called racist or bet you still wish there was slavery or something ridiculous or  if you are for the NRA then -- what??? do you want little children to be shot in schools????  That kind of thing limits the ability to have constructive discussion about the topic  by making those reactive jumps.

 In my own Christian walk ,  I have had to adjust my attitude and behavior concerning this issue of gender roles to bring myself more in line with Scripture rather than my ideals which were influenced by society not the Word and I find it has blessed me.

I don't think anyone is saying that anyone else wants to see anyone abused, but in these dictatorial households, abuse does happen and it happens more often than we would like know or are generally aware.   And I am not talking beating someone.  I am talking about mental and emotional abuse.  

Marriage was not designed to be a one-way-street.  It is supposed to be a mutual partnership.

I agree , I don't think it is a one way street either. If my spouse was crossing a line in that area and just being oppressive or  dominating I would definitely not submit and have something to say to him about it . The wife submitting to her husband and the man having authority is not the same  to me as the man having the authority to be "abusive" in any way, mentally, verbally, psychologically or physically or controlling, or dictatorial or tyrannical . 

selective submission, no wonder christian homes are in such trouble.  where in the Bible do you see any verse providing instruction that the husband is to be a tyrant?  because some men ignore what scripture teaches does not mean you toss biblical instructions out the window nor do women get to ignore the commands given to them by the biblical authors. there is no verse telling the women that it is okay for them to disobey God's word if their husbands disobey it.

It has been argued on this thread that if a man wants to be a control-freak, if he wants to be domineering and tyrannical, then he is not prohibited by Scripture from governing his family in that way and the woman is bound to submit to him even if he is a jerk and unreasonable.  The argument is that as long as he doesn't tell her to rob a bank, or kill someone, he is pretty much in within his right to be controlling jerk and she is commanded by Scripture to submit unquestioningly.    That's the argument being made and so far NO Scripture making that case has ever been presented.  

This is not about selective submission.  This is about what the man can force his wife to submit to.   The Bible doesn't allow for selective submission, but the commandments given to the husband preclude him from being allowed to be tyrant and treat his wife like she is the subordinate member in the marriage and he is the lord and master over her.    That's what the issue is.

You keep trying to deflect from that and act like I am advocating for the wife to be allowed to rebel against her husband.  That's what you have to do in the absence of a competent argument.   If men were taught to honor and respect  their wives instead of treating them like underlings and inferiors, divorce might among Christians and non-Christians would decrease.

Husbands and wives are partners.   How do we know that?   Because Gen. 2:22-24  tells us that they are one flesh.  The word for "one"  is the same word that speaks to the triunity of the Godhead in Deut. 6:4 where it says, "Hear O Israel; the Lord our God, the Lord is one."    The word "one" carries the connotation of co-equal unity just like you have in the Godhead.   Different in rank, but equal.

The concept of a mutual partnership is illustrated in Scripture by Paul:

Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.(1Co 7:2-5)

There is a mutual consent emphasized in this passage.

And why would marriage not be a partnership?  Malachi 2:14 uses the word, haberet in Hebrew to which is a feminine noun to describe the wife as the companion of her husband.   It's important to note that this is the wife of a covenant and a companion in the context of a covenant is a partner, not a servant or inferior.

 

Shiloh is just making stuff up.  First of all, the point I have been making, and continue to make is that the Bible does give the husband absolute authority in the home.  I have used scripture to make that case, right out of Genesis where God stated the husband would rule over his wife.  The word rule makes it clear the wife is subordinate to her husband.  Look it up in a Hebrew Dictionary.  See for yourself.  Even look at how the word is used in other Old Testament scriptures.  Shiloh is teaching rebellion.  Just as Lucifer led a rebellion with 1/3 of the angels in heaven, Shiloh is helping him lead a rebellion down here with false doctrine.  Your arguments are far more competent than anything Shiloh is peddling.  All one flesh means is that since the rib was removed from the man to make the woman, when they are married, they are one flesh.  The rib is restored.  That is it.  Shiloh took that verse in Corinthians out of context.  Talk about sloppy theology!  The only thing requiring mutual consent is time to abstain from sex because God doesn't want either the husband or wife tempted into committing adultery.  Asking the question, "why would marriage not be a partnership," isn't exactly providing evidence for Shiloh's doctrine. 

I don't care how Shiloh feels about controlling husbands.  I don't care if he thinks they should have wives.  I don't care if he sees them as tyrants, abusive, any creative adjective he can come up with.  The Bible makes it clear the husband is given authority to rule over his wife.  Here is another little bit of food for thought.  Some women agree.  You know how some say there is a woman for every man.  I don't doubt that is true.  I actually came across a web-site run by women who pattern their lives after the "Stepford Wives," and desire to be ordered around by their husbands.  That is how they chose to live.  The best thing any man or woman could do is try to understand how each other looks at things before they get married.  That would probably do more to keep peace and harmony than listening to people like Shiloh teaching rebellion.  If the man and woman don't agree on things like this, find someone else.