Connection between Feminism and Communism

[angels4u]

No, I am not in error about it at all.

 

i will disagree.  your adding words like 'leadership' , 'servant-leaders' demonstrate your misconception of the Bible and adoption of possibly other people's interpretation of certain passages of scripture.

if you read 1 Peter 3:1 you will see no qualifications like the ones you put in your post present. 

No, I am not adding anything.  I am clarifying what is meant in the light what the man is commanded to do in Scripture.  He commanded to love his wife sacrificially.  He is the leader, the head of household.   So she is to submit to both his love and his leadership.   He is her head;  he is not her lord and she is not to submit to him as her lord.  I Pet. 3:1 does not contradict anything I have said at this point.

you are adding words and you added one in that post-- 'sacrificially'.  You forget what God said in Genesis to Eve, which still applies today

Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you.” Gen. 3:16

You also forget what Hebrews says of Sarah:

just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, 1 Peter 3:6

there is no 'sacrificially', no restriction to 'leadership' , no 'servant leadership' and so on. if you think there is, produce the exact scriptures which uses those terms in conjunction with husbands and wives.

 

I am not adding the word sacrificially.  The concept is there in the commandment to the husband to love his wife AS CHIRST LOVED THE CHURCH.  How did Jesus love the Church?   He gave his life for it.     The Lord commands the husband to live His wife sacrificially just as Christ loved the Church sacrificially.  She submits to his love and to his leadership.   She need not submit to abusive ideas that she is his servant. 

Gen. 3:16 isn't speaking of the man dominating a woman into servitude as if he is her master.   It is simply affirming the headship of the husband as affirmed in Eph. 5:22-25.

Sarah's reference to Abraham as her lord isn't the same as when we refer to Jesus as our Lord.   It is a term of respect when used in reference to human beings and is more like our word, "sir."  In familial relationships it has a more affectionate connotation.  Sarah recognized the leadership and authority of her husband.    But that does not justify men today, thinking that they are allowed to dominate their wives and that their wives are to submit in servitude to their husbands.

yes you are adding words in to scripture and redefining the passages talking about submission. I also think that some pastor has filled your head with erroneous teaching. Do you actually know what the words 'as Christ loved the church' really mean?  we address those words in our November issue and I do not want to pre-emp that here. suffice it to say it is not meaning 'sacrificially'.

i also am beginning to think that you do not understand what leadership, submission authority actually mean and how they apply to the household as your words contradict their definitions. People in leadership tell others what to do and if they do not do it then they are disobeying their leaders instructions.. Under your words, as you wrote them, a child could ignore what his parents say and not be punished for disobeying.

don't generalize please and put all men into the same category. abusive men are not the same as men who love their wives and want them to adhere to their wishes.

Yes, it does mean, ,"sacrificially"  as it was his sacrifice for the church that is referenced in  Eph. 5:25.   That may not be the only way in which Christ loves the Church, but it is one way and it tops the list.   I don't see why that is such a problem for you.   In truth, "love" is a servant, biblically.   There is a mutual submission that takes place when two people love each other.    In Scripture, love is not an emotion, but is rooted in action.   Love always serves, so when God tells a woman to submit to her husband and he tells the husband to love his wife, it is actually a two-way street.   He loves her sacrificially, as Christ loved the Church and she submits to that love.

I understand perfectly what leadership looks like.   Leadership isn't, "Shut up and do what I say."  Good leaders in a family lead by example and they don't have to impose their will on the family.  You have a very one-dimensional notion about what leadership is.  One indicator of a good leader is that others comply willingly to his wishes without him having to treat them like slaves and inferiors.

I don't doubt that there are situations where leadership in the home could work as you said, but I don't agree that this is always the case.  There is such a thing as a rebellious woman who will not submit to her husband's authority, even if he is exactly the type of person you mentioned.  There are some women that will try to dominate their husband and usurp his authority completely.  As such, to make the claim that "they don't have to impose their will on the family" isn't always going to be true. 

Yes and rebellion occurs in the kind of repressive model you advocate for.   Good leaders get people to follow them happily and willingly.    Repressive leaders who feel they have to "enforce" their desires and force compliance have a far greater chance of inciting rebellion.

 

Bottom line is Shiloh, it doesn't make a hill of beans of difference if the husband is this so-called servant leader or a control freak.  He has the Biblical authority to decide for himself what kind of leader he wants to be, and Biblically, his wife is told to submit.  Genesis says he is to rule over her.  The husband in each household is given delegated authority by Jesus, and just like any other person in a position of authority, he gets to determine if your view of leadership is correct or if his is right.  I think your views work in a fantasy world, but not reality.  What you would have in most instances is something like BoPeep once said, where the wife pretends the husband is in charge and like she is in submission, but in reality, that is not the case.  It is like the shirt I saw that says, "I am the boss.  My wife said I could be."  In most cases, the husband isn't in charge in those homes.  I just see your views like the professors who have theories about how to govern, but when it is put to the test, it doesn't work.  It can sound wonderful, but it is not reality. 

If the man loves he wife as Christ loves the church,wife's will adore their husband ..

[*Zion*]

No, I am not in error about it at all.

 

i will disagree.  your adding words like 'leadership' , 'servant-leaders' demonstrate your misconception of the Bible and adoption of possibly other people's interpretation of certain passages of scripture.

if you read 1 Peter 3:1 you will see no qualifications like the ones you put in your post present. 

No, I am not adding anything.  I am clarifying what is meant in the light what the man is commanded to do in Scripture.  He commanded to love his wife sacrificially.  He is the leader, the head of household.   So she is to submit to both his love and his leadership.   He is her head;  he is not her lord and she is not to submit to him as her lord.  I Pet. 3:1 does not contradict anything I have said at this point.

you are adding words and you added one in that post-- 'sacrificially'.  You forget what God said in Genesis to Eve, which still applies today

Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you.” Gen. 3:16

You also forget what Hebrews says of Sarah:

just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, 1 Peter 3:6

there is no 'sacrificially', no restriction to 'leadership' , no 'servant leadership' and so on. if you think there is, produce the exact scriptures which uses those terms in conjunction with husbands and wives.

 

I am not adding the word sacrificially.  The concept is there in the commandment to the husband to love his wife AS CHIRST LOVED THE CHURCH.  How did Jesus love the Church?   He gave his life for it.     The Lord commands the husband to live His wife sacrificially just as Christ loved the Church sacrificially.  She submits to his love and to his leadership.   She need not submit to abusive ideas that she is his servant. 

Gen. 3:16 isn't speaking of the man dominating a woman into servitude as if he is her master.   It is simply affirming the headship of the husband as affirmed in Eph. 5:22-25.

Sarah's reference to Abraham as her lord isn't the same as when we refer to Jesus as our Lord.   It is a term of respect when used in reference to human beings and is more like our word, "sir."  In familial relationships it has a more affectionate connotation.  Sarah recognized the leadership and authority of her husband.    But that does not justify men today, thinking that they are allowed to dominate their wives and that their wives are to submit in servitude to their husbands.

yes you are adding words in to scripture and redefining the passages talking about submission. I also think that some pastor has filled your head with erroneous teaching. Do you actually know what the words 'as Christ loved the church' really mean?  we address those words in our November issue and I do not want to pre-emp that here. suffice it to say it is not meaning 'sacrificially'.

i also am beginning to think that you do not understand what leadership, submission authority actually mean and how they apply to the household as your words contradict their definitions. People in leadership tell others what to do and if they do not do it then they are disobeying their leaders instructions.. Under your words, as you wrote them, a child could ignore what his parents say and not be punished for disobeying.

don't generalize please and put all men into the same category. abusive men are not the same as men who love their wives and want them to adhere to their wishes.

Yes, it does mean, ,"sacrificially"  as it was his sacrifice for the church that is referenced in  Eph. 5:25.   That may not be the only way in which Christ loves the Church, but it is one way and it tops the list.   I don't see why that is such a problem for you.   In truth, "love" is a servant, biblically.   There is a mutual submission that takes place when two people love each other.    In Scripture, love is not an emotion, but is rooted in action.   Love always serves, so when God tells a woman to submit to her husband and he tells the husband to love his wife, it is actually a two-way street.   He loves her sacrificially, as Christ loved the Church and she submits to that love.

I understand perfectly what leadership looks like.   Leadership isn't, "Shut up and do what I say."  Good leaders in a family lead by example and they don't have to impose their will on the family.  You have a very one-dimensional notion about what leadership is.  One indicator of a good leader is that others comply willingly to his wishes without him having to treat them like slaves and inferiors.

I don't doubt that there are situations where leadership in the home could work as you said, but I don't agree that this is always the case.  There is such a thing as a rebellious woman who will not submit to her husband's authority, even if he is exactly the type of person you mentioned.  There are some women that will try to dominate their husband and usurp his authority completely.  As such, to make the claim that "they don't have to impose their will on the family" isn't always going to be true. 

Yes and rebellion occurs in the kind of repressive model you advocate for.   Good leaders get people to follow them happily and willingly.    Repressive leaders who feel they have to "enforce" their desires and force compliance have a far greater chance of inciting rebellion.

 

Bottom line is Shiloh, it doesn't make a hill of beans of difference if the husband is this so-called servant leader or a control freak.  He has the Biblical authority to decide for himself what kind of leader he wants to be, and Biblically, his wife is told to submit.  Genesis says he is to rule over her.  The husband in each household is given delegated authority by Jesus, and just like any other person in a position of authority, he gets to determine if your view of leadership is correct or if his is right.  I think your views work in a fantasy world, but not reality.  What you would have in most instances is something like BoPeep once said, where the wife pretends the husband is in charge and like she is in submission, but in reality, that is not the case.  It is like the shirt I saw that says, "I am the boss.  My wife said I could be."  In most cases, the husband isn't in charge in those homes.  I just see your views like the professors who have theories about how to govern, but when it is put to the test, it doesn't work.  It can sound wonderful, but it is not reality. 

Actually, it does make a difference if he is control freak or a servant leader.    The only people who would have a problem with that are control freaks who want everything their way.  The wife, biblically is not under obligation to eat what her husband says to eat or wear a particular color, or not color her hair a certain way.   She follows him as her spiritual head, but not as her master.   The Bible never claims that the man is overlord and dictator of the home.  That is just a shallow, backwards, repressive and tyrannical approach to that Scripture.

What I hear you saying is that Christ has no right to tell his wife how to dress, what to eat or what not to color her hair.  That he is not her master and she is under no obligation to obey him.

That is exactly what Shiloh is saying.  He is teaching rebellion and will give account for that.  I have people saying husbands will give account for being tyrants in the home.  I am saying those teaching rebellion in the home are doing the work of Satan and promoting sin the equal of witchcraft. 

You seem pretty sure of your own opinion.  What if you're the one in the wrong?  There's a fine line between truly following the Lord and simply being legalistic.  It is dangerous to present personal points of view as verified fact.  Especially when it comes to God's Word.  Quite a few of us on here will have to answer for that, I'm sure.

We cannot self-designate ourselves as God's mouth-piece, it doesn't work that way.  We reason things out together, always keeping God's Word as our direction and guidance, being confident of one another as brethren and members of the same body.

Edited October 22, 2015 by *Zion*

[hmbld]

If one is telling his wife what to eat etc, is he loving?  Leading is not dictating.  Can one lead without forcing others to submit?  I think so. Can one stop worrying if the other is leading or submitting correctly?  I think so. It is enough to fulfill ones own role as directed by God whether anyone else does or not. Ones duty to God does not change by pointing out if the other party is obedient to God as you see it. 

[Guest shiloh357]

No, I am not in error about it at all.

 

i will disagree.  your adding words like 'leadership' , 'servant-leaders' demonstrate your misconception of the Bible and adoption of possibly other people's interpretation of certain passages of scripture.

if you read 1 Peter 3:1 you will see no qualifications like the ones you put in your post present. 

No, I am not adding anything.  I am clarifying what is meant in the light what the man is commanded to do in Scripture.  He commanded to love his wife sacrificially.  He is the leader, the head of household.   So she is to submit to both his love and his leadership.   He is her head;  he is not her lord and she is not to submit to him as her lord.  I Pet. 3:1 does not contradict anything I have said at this point.

you are adding words and you added one in that post-- 'sacrificially'.  You forget what God said in Genesis to Eve, which still applies today

Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you.” Gen. 3:16

You also forget what Hebrews says of Sarah:

just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, 1 Peter 3:6

there is no 'sacrificially', no restriction to 'leadership' , no 'servant leadership' and so on. if you think there is, produce the exact scriptures which uses those terms in conjunction with husbands and wives.

 

I am not adding the word sacrificially.  The concept is there in the commandment to the husband to love his wife AS CHIRST LOVED THE CHURCH.  How did Jesus love the Church?   He gave his life for it.     The Lord commands the husband to live His wife sacrificially just as Christ loved the Church sacrificially.  She submits to his love and to his leadership.   She need not submit to abusive ideas that she is his servant. 

Gen. 3:16 isn't speaking of the man dominating a woman into servitude as if he is her master.   It is simply affirming the headship of the husband as affirmed in Eph. 5:22-25.

Sarah's reference to Abraham as her lord isn't the same as when we refer to Jesus as our Lord.   It is a term of respect when used in reference to human beings and is more like our word, "sir."  In familial relationships it has a more affectionate connotation.  Sarah recognized the leadership and authority of her husband.    But that does not justify men today, thinking that they are allowed to dominate their wives and that their wives are to submit in servitude to their husbands.

yes you are adding words in to scripture and redefining the passages talking about submission. I also think that some pastor has filled your head with erroneous teaching. Do you actually know what the words 'as Christ loved the church' really mean?  we address those words in our November issue and I do not want to pre-emp that here. suffice it to say it is not meaning 'sacrificially'.

i also am beginning to think that you do not understand what leadership, submission authority actually mean and how they apply to the household as your words contradict their definitions. People in leadership tell others what to do and if they do not do it then they are disobeying their leaders instructions.. Under your words, as you wrote them, a child could ignore what his parents say and not be punished for disobeying.

don't generalize please and put all men into the same category. abusive men are not the same as men who love their wives and want them to adhere to their wishes.

Yes, it does mean, ,"sacrificially"  as it was his sacrifice for the church that is referenced in  Eph. 5:25.   That may not be the only way in which Christ loves the Church, but it is one way and it tops the list.   I don't see why that is such a problem for you.   In truth, "love" is a servant, biblically.   There is a mutual submission that takes place when two people love each other.    In Scripture, love is not an emotion, but is rooted in action.   Love always serves, so when God tells a woman to submit to her husband and he tells the husband to love his wife, it is actually a two-way street.   He loves her sacrificially, as Christ loved the Church and she submits to that love.

I understand perfectly what leadership looks like.   Leadership isn't, "Shut up and do what I say."  Good leaders in a family lead by example and they don't have to impose their will on the family.  You have a very one-dimensional notion about what leadership is.  One indicator of a good leader is that others comply willingly to his wishes without him having to treat them like slaves and inferiors.

I don't doubt that there are situations where leadership in the home could work as you said, but I don't agree that this is always the case.  There is such a thing as a rebellious woman who will not submit to her husband's authority, even if he is exactly the type of person you mentioned.  There are some women that will try to dominate their husband and usurp his authority completely.  As such, to make the claim that "they don't have to impose their will on the family" isn't always going to be true. 

Yes and rebellion occurs in the kind of repressive model you advocate for.   Good leaders get people to follow them happily and willingly.    Repressive leaders who feel they have to "enforce" their desires and force compliance have a far greater chance of inciting rebellion.

 

Bottom line is Shiloh, it doesn't make a hill of beans of difference if the husband is this so-called servant leader or a control freak.  He has the Biblical authority to decide for himself what kind of leader he wants to be, and Biblically, his wife is told to submit.  Genesis says he is to rule over her.  The husband in each household is given delegated authority by Jesus, and just like any other person in a position of authority, he gets to determine if your view of leadership is correct or if his is right.  I think your views work in a fantasy world, but not reality.  What you would have in most instances is something like BoPeep once said, where the wife pretends the husband is in charge and like she is in submission, but in reality, that is not the case.  It is like the shirt I saw that says, "I am the boss.  My wife said I could be."  In most cases, the husband isn't in charge in those homes.  I just see your views like the professors who have theories about how to govern, but when it is put to the test, it doesn't work.  It can sound wonderful, but it is not reality. 

Actually, it does make a difference if he is control freak or a servant leader.    The only people who would have a problem with that are control freaks who want everything their way.  The wife, biblically is not under obligation to eat what her husband says to eat or wear a particular color, or not color her hair a certain way.   She follows him as her spiritual head, but not as her master.   The Bible never claims that the man is overlord and dictator of the home.  That is just a shallow, backwards, repressive and tyrannical approach to that Scripture.

The Bible says he is lord.  The example is given of Sarah and Abraham, and in Genesis, it says the husband will rule over his wife.  You are teaching women it is ok to rebel against their spiritual head, and you will be held accountable for that.  Rebellion is as the sin of witchcrafts, as Lucifer was the first rebel, and he is teaching mankind to follow his lead.  People like you are doing his bidding.  My approach to scripture is the correct one.  I have more than proven that.  As a matter of fact, since I know you don't have a Biblical leg to stand on with regard to this issue, I would be happy to debate you in the Soap Box about this matter.  My position is that the Bible does give the husband the Biblical right to tell his wife what to do, even to the point of being dictator.  I am not addressing how he should behave, but I am saying what authority he has.  I believe I can prove that easily, and I have noticed that while you have made a lot of statements of fact, you have backed none of them up.  I have no reservations about what will happen if you do agree.  I will provide scripture after scripture to prove I am right, and you will just deny what I said is true.  You will hold on in denial to the end, but I am ok with that, because I will be on record with the Word of God for all to see.  It will be obvious who is right.  Just let me know, and Lord willing, I will check back tonight and if you accept, we can get started. 

No, the Bible doesn't say the man is lord over the household.  The word "lord"  as used in Genesis is akin to our word, "sir."   It is not used as "master."   I am not saying that wives can rebel against their spiritual head.   But being the spiritual head doesn't mean that the husband is given a blank check to needle his wife about every little thing she does or does not do.  

There is nothing in the Bible about the husband being a dictator. 

Sure, I am I not threated by your sloppy theology.  Go ahead and start a soapbox. You can make the opening statement.

[hmbld]

Butero, I don't see your version of "rule over" a wife as being biblical.  I think men years ago misunderstood what real leading is and now we have preconceived ideas that are false. 

[*Zion*]

No, I am not in error about it at all.

 

i will disagree.  your adding words like 'leadership' , 'servant-leaders' demonstrate your misconception of the Bible and adoption of possibly other people's interpretation of certain passages of scripture.

if you read 1 Peter 3:1 you will see no qualifications like the ones you put in your post present. 

No, I am not adding anything.  I am clarifying what is meant in the light what the man is commanded to do in Scripture.  He commanded to love his wife sacrificially.  He is the leader, the head of household.   So she is to submit to both his love and his leadership.   He is her head;  he is not her lord and she is not to submit to him as her lord.  I Pet. 3:1 does not contradict anything I have said at this point.

you are adding words and you added one in that post-- 'sacrificially'.  You forget what God said in Genesis to Eve, which still applies today

Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you.” Gen. 3:16

You also forget what Hebrews says of Sarah:

just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, 1 Peter 3:6

there is no 'sacrificially', no restriction to 'leadership' , no 'servant leadership' and so on. if you think there is, produce the exact scriptures which uses those terms in conjunction with husbands and wives.

 

I am not adding the word sacrificially.  The concept is there in the commandment to the husband to love his wife AS CHIRST LOVED THE CHURCH.  How did Jesus love the Church?   He gave his life for it.     The Lord commands the husband to live His wife sacrificially just as Christ loved the Church sacrificially.  She submits to his love and to his leadership.   She need not submit to abusive ideas that she is his servant. 

Gen. 3:16 isn't speaking of the man dominating a woman into servitude as if he is her master.   It is simply affirming the headship of the husband as affirmed in Eph. 5:22-25.

Sarah's reference to Abraham as her lord isn't the same as when we refer to Jesus as our Lord.   It is a term of respect when used in reference to human beings and is more like our word, "sir."  In familial relationships it has a more affectionate connotation.  Sarah recognized the leadership and authority of her husband.    But that does not justify men today, thinking that they are allowed to dominate their wives and that their wives are to submit in servitude to their husbands.

yes you are adding words in to scripture and redefining the passages talking about submission. I also think that some pastor has filled your head with erroneous teaching. Do you actually know what the words 'as Christ loved the church' really mean?  we address those words in our November issue and I do not want to pre-emp that here. suffice it to say it is not meaning 'sacrificially'.

i also am beginning to think that you do not understand what leadership, submission authority actually mean and how they apply to the household as your words contradict their definitions. People in leadership tell others what to do and if they do not do it then they are disobeying their leaders instructions.. Under your words, as you wrote them, a child could ignore what his parents say and not be punished for disobeying.

don't generalize please and put all men into the same category. abusive men are not the same as men who love their wives and want them to adhere to their wishes.

Yes, it does mean, ,"sacrificially"  as it was his sacrifice for the church that is referenced in  Eph. 5:25.   That may not be the only way in which Christ loves the Church, but it is one way and it tops the list.   I don't see why that is such a problem for you.   In truth, "love" is a servant, biblically.   There is a mutual submission that takes place when two people love each other.    In Scripture, love is not an emotion, but is rooted in action.   Love always serves, so when God tells a woman to submit to her husband and he tells the husband to love his wife, it is actually a two-way street.   He loves her sacrificially, as Christ loved the Church and she submits to that love.

I understand perfectly what leadership looks like.   Leadership isn't, "Shut up and do what I say."  Good leaders in a family lead by example and they don't have to impose their will on the family.  You have a very one-dimensional notion about what leadership is.  One indicator of a good leader is that others comply willingly to his wishes without him having to treat them like slaves and inferiors.

I don't doubt that there are situations where leadership in the home could work as you said, but I don't agree that this is always the case.  There is such a thing as a rebellious woman who will not submit to her husband's authority, even if he is exactly the type of person you mentioned.  There are some women that will try to dominate their husband and usurp his authority completely.  As such, to make the claim that "they don't have to impose their will on the family" isn't always going to be true. 

Yes and rebellion occurs in the kind of repressive model you advocate for.   Good leaders get people to follow them happily and willingly.    Repressive leaders who feel they have to "enforce" their desires and force compliance have a far greater chance of inciting rebellion.

 

Bottom line is Shiloh, it doesn't make a hill of beans of difference if the husband is this so-called servant leader or a control freak.  He has the Biblical authority to decide for himself what kind of leader he wants to be, and Biblically, his wife is told to submit.  Genesis says he is to rule over her.  The husband in each household is given delegated authority by Jesus, and just like any other person in a position of authority, he gets to determine if your view of leadership is correct or if his is right.  I think your views work in a fantasy world, but not reality.  What you would have in most instances is something like BoPeep once said, where the wife pretends the husband is in charge and like she is in submission, but in reality, that is not the case.  It is like the shirt I saw that says, "I am the boss.  My wife said I could be."  In most cases, the husband isn't in charge in those homes.  I just see your views like the professors who have theories about how to govern, but when it is put to the test, it doesn't work.  It can sound wonderful, but it is not reality. 

Actually, it does make a difference if he is control freak or a servant leader.    The only people who would have a problem with that are control freaks who want everything their way.  The wife, biblically is not under obligation to eat what her husband says to eat or wear a particular color, or not color her hair a certain way.   She follows him as her spiritual head, but not as her master.   The Bible never claims that the man is overlord and dictator of the home.  That is just a shallow, backwards, repressive and tyrannical approach to that Scripture.

What I hear you saying is that Christ has no right to tell his wife how to dress, what to eat or what not to color her hair.  That he is not her master and she is under no obligation to obey him.

That is exactly what Shiloh is saying.  He is teaching rebellion and will give account for that.  I have people saying husbands will give account for being tyrants in the home.  I am saying those teaching rebellion in the home are doing the work of Satan and promoting sin the equal of witchcraft. 

You seem pretty sure of your own opinion.  What if you're the one in the wrong?  There's a fine line between truly following the Lord and simply being legalistic.  It is dangerous to present personal points of view as verified fact.  Especially when it comes to God's Word.  Quite a few of us on here will have to answer for that, I'm sure.

We cannot self-designate ourselves as God's mouth-piece, it doesn't work that way.  We reason things out together, always keeping God's Word as our direction and guidance, being confident of one another as brethren and members of the same body.

I am that sure of this, as the scriptures are that plain.  Besides, in case you hadn't noticed, it is not like Shiloh isn't coming across as being sure of his opinion.  He is coming across just as absolute in the other direction as I am in mine.  I am so sure on this matter, I don't care who you can dig up to debate me in the Soap Box.  I will take them on.  I don't care if they have a master's degree in theology.  There is no way they can show me to be wrong using scripture.  There aren't many issues I would say that about.  I have been in Soap Box debates that were difficult, and took a lot of effort to make a case.  They came across as basically a draw.  I knew that going in.  This is not one of those instances. 

It wasn't that long ago the Lord revealed something to me.  One of the biggest problems in this world is rebellion.  It is not just wives rebelling against their husbands and children against their parents, but it is a society in rebellion against authorities.  I feel strongly that the Lord wants me to come against this and show how Lucifer is at work teaching rebellion to mankind.  This is just one such example, and it is one of the most clear cut issues I have ever had to defend.  These are not personal views.  They are Holy scripture.  It isn't one isolated verse, but numerous verses from the Old and New Testament. 

Surely there is a loving way to present your case?  Two wrongs don't make a right.

[angels4u]

@ Shiloh.  I have contacted a moderator about setting up the Soap Box debate.  I look forward to a spirited debate.  You have quite a way with words.  I especially liked your comment about my shallow, backward, repressive and tyrannical approach to scripture, and was almost as impressed with your sloppy theology comment.  I count it a joy to be able to debate such a wordsmith. 

great response , lol!

Can't wait to read the soapbox!

No, I am not in error about it at all.

 

i will disagree.  your adding words like 'leadership' , 'servant-leaders' demonstrate your misconception of the Bible and adoption of possibly other people's interpretation of certain passages of scripture.

if you read 1 Peter 3:1 you will see no qualifications like the ones you put in your post present. 

No, I am not adding anything.  I am clarifying what is meant in the light what the man is commanded to do in Scripture.  He commanded to love his wife sacrificially.  He is the leader, the head of household.   So she is to submit to both his love and his leadership.   He is her head;  he is not her lord and she is not to submit to him as her lord.  I Pet. 3:1 does not contradict anything I have said at this point.

you are adding words and you added one in that post-- 'sacrificially'.  You forget what God said in Genesis to Eve, which still applies today

Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you.” Gen. 3:16

You also forget what Hebrews says of Sarah:

just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, 1 Peter 3:6

there is no 'sacrificially', no restriction to 'leadership' , no 'servant leadership' and so on. if you think there is, produce the exact scriptures which uses those terms in conjunction with husbands and wives.

 

I am not adding the word sacrificially.  The concept is there in the commandment to the husband to love his wife AS CHIRST LOVED THE CHURCH.  How did Jesus love the Church?   He gave his life for it.     The Lord commands the husband to live His wife sacrificially just as Christ loved the Church sacrificially.  She submits to his love and to his leadership.   She need not submit to abusive ideas that she is his servant. 

Gen. 3:16 isn't speaking of the man dominating a woman into servitude as if he is her master.   It is simply affirming the headship of the husband as affirmed in Eph. 5:22-25.

Sarah's reference to Abraham as her lord isn't the same as when we refer to Jesus as our Lord.   It is a term of respect when used in reference to human beings and is more like our word, "sir."  In familial relationships it has a more affectionate connotation.  Sarah recognized the leadership and authority of her husband.    But that does not justify men today, thinking that they are allowed to dominate their wives and that their wives are to submit in servitude to their husbands.

yes you are adding words in to scripture and redefining the passages talking about submission. I also think that some pastor has filled your head with erroneous teaching. Do you actually know what the words 'as Christ loved the church' really mean?  we address those words in our November issue and I do not want to pre-emp that here. suffice it to say it is not meaning 'sacrificially'.

i also am beginning to think that you do not understand what leadership, submission authority actually mean and how they apply to the household as your words contradict their definitions. People in leadership tell others what to do and if they do not do it then they are disobeying their leaders instructions.. Under your words, as you wrote them, a child could ignore what his parents say and not be punished for disobeying.

don't generalize please and put all men into the same category. abusive men are not the same as men who love their wives and want them to adhere to their wishes.

Yes, it does mean, ,"sacrificially"  as it was his sacrifice for the church that is referenced in  Eph. 5:25.   That may not be the only way in which Christ loves the Church, but it is one way and it tops the list.   I don't see why that is such a problem for you.   In truth, "love" is a servant, biblically.   There is a mutual submission that takes place when two people love each other.    In Scripture, love is not an emotion, but is rooted in action.   Love always serves, so when God tells a woman to submit to her husband and he tells the husband to love his wife, it is actually a two-way street.   He loves her sacrificially, as Christ loved the Church and she submits to that love.

I understand perfectly what leadership looks like.   Leadership isn't, "Shut up and do what I say."  Good leaders in a family lead by example and they don't have to impose their will on the family.  You have a very one-dimensional notion about what leadership is.  One indicator of a good leader is that others comply willingly to his wishes without him having to treat them like slaves and inferiors.

I don't doubt that there are situations where leadership in the home could work as you said, but I don't agree that this is always the case.  There is such a thing as a rebellious woman who will not submit to her husband's authority, even if he is exactly the type of person you mentioned.  There are some women that will try to dominate their husband and usurp his authority completely.  As such, to make the claim that "they don't have to impose their will on the family" isn't always going to be true. 

Yes and rebellion occurs in the kind of repressive model you advocate for.   Good leaders get people to follow them happily and willingly.    Repressive leaders who feel they have to "enforce" their desires and force compliance have a far greater chance of inciting rebellion.

 

Bottom line is Shiloh, it doesn't make a hill of beans of difference if the husband is this so-called servant leader or a control freak.  He has the Biblical authority to decide for himself what kind of leader he wants to be, and Biblically, his wife is told to submit.  Genesis says he is to rule over her.  The husband in each household is given delegated authority by Jesus, and just like any other person in a position of authority, he gets to determine if your view of leadership is correct or if his is right.  I think your views work in a fantasy world, but not reality.  What you would have in most instances is something like BoPeep once said, where the wife pretends the husband is in charge and like she is in submission, but in reality, that is not the case.  It is like the shirt I saw that says, "I am the boss.  My wife said I could be."  In most cases, the husband isn't in charge in those homes.  I just see your views like the professors who have theories about how to govern, but when it is put to the test, it doesn't work.  It can sound wonderful, but it is not reality. 

Actually, it does make a difference if he is control freak or a servant leader.    The only people who would have a problem with that are control freaks who want everything their way.  The wife, biblically is not under obligation to eat what her husband says to eat or wear a particular color, or not color her hair a certain way.   She follows him as her spiritual head, but not as her master.   The Bible never claims that the man is overlord and dictator of the home.  That is just a shallow, backwards, repressive and tyrannical approach to that Scripture.

The Bible says he is lord.  The example is given of Sarah and Abraham, and in Genesis, it says the husband will rule over his wife.  You are teaching women it is ok to rebel against their spiritual head, and you will be held accountable for that.  Rebellion is as the sin of witchcrafts, as Lucifer was the first rebel, and he is teaching mankind to follow his lead.  People like you are doing his bidding.  My approach to scripture is the correct one.  I have more than proven that.  As a matter of fact, since I know you don't have a Biblical leg to stand on with regard to this issue, I would be happy to debate you in the Soap Box about this matter.  My position is that the Bible does give the husband the Biblical right to tell his wife what to do, even to the point of being dictator.  I am not addressing how he should behave, but I am saying what authority he has.  I believe I can prove that easily, and I have noticed that while you have made a lot of statements of fact, you have backed none of them up.  I have no reservations about what will happen if you do agree.  I will provide scripture after scripture to prove I am right, and you will just deny what I said is true.  You will hold on in denial to the end, but I am ok with that, because I will be on record with the Word of God for all to see.  It will be obvious who is right.  Just let me know, and Lord willing, I will check back tonight and if you accept, we can get started. 

No, the Bible doesn't say the man is lord over the household.  The word "lord"  as used in Genesis is akin to our word, "sir."   It is not used as "master."   I am not saying that wives can rebel against their spiritual head.   But being the spiritual head doesn't mean that the husband is given a blank check to needle his wife about every little thing she does or does not do.  

There is nothing in the Bible about the husband being a dictator. 

Sure, I am I not threated by your sloppy theology.  Go ahead and start a soapbox. You can make the opening statement.

No, I am not in error about it at all.

 

i will disagree.  your adding words like 'leadership' , 'servant-leaders' demonstrate your misconception of the Bible and adoption of possibly other people's interpretation of certain passages of scripture.

if you read 1 Peter 3:1 you will see no qualifications like the ones you put in your post present. 

No, I am not adding anything.  I am clarifying what is meant in the light what the man is commanded to do in Scripture.  He commanded to love his wife sacrificially.  He is the leader, the head of household.   So she is to submit to both his love and his leadership.   He is her head;  he is not her lord and she is not to submit to him as her lord.  I Pet. 3:1 does not contradict anything I have said at this point.

you are adding words and you added one in that post-- 'sacrificially'.  You forget what God said in Genesis to Eve, which still applies today

Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you.” Gen. 3:16

You also forget what Hebrews says of Sarah:

just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, 1 Peter 3:6

there is no 'sacrificially', no restriction to 'leadership' , no 'servant leadership' and so on. if you think there is, produce the exact scriptures which uses those terms in conjunction with husbands and wives.

 

I am not adding the word sacrificially.  The concept is there in the commandment to the husband to love his wife AS CHIRST LOVED THE CHURCH.  How did Jesus love the Church?   He gave his life for it.     The Lord commands the husband to live His wife sacrificially just as Christ loved the Church sacrificially.  She submits to his love and to his leadership.   She need not submit to abusive ideas that she is his servant. 

Gen. 3:16 isn't speaking of the man dominating a woman into servitude as if he is her master.   It is simply affirming the headship of the husband as affirmed in Eph. 5:22-25.

Sarah's reference to Abraham as her lord isn't the same as when we refer to Jesus as our Lord.   It is a term of respect when used in reference to human beings and is more like our word, "sir."  In familial relationships it has a more affectionate connotation.  Sarah recognized the leadership and authority of her husband.    But that does not justify men today, thinking that they are allowed to dominate their wives and that their wives are to submit in servitude to their husbands.

yes you are adding words in to scripture and redefining the passages talking about submission. I also think that some pastor has filled your head with erroneous teaching. Do you actually know what the words 'as Christ loved the church' really mean?  we address those words in our November issue and I do not want to pre-emp that here. suffice it to say it is not meaning 'sacrificially'.

i also am beginning to think that you do not understand what leadership, submission authority actually mean and how they apply to the household as your words contradict their definitions. People in leadership tell others what to do and if they do not do it then they are disobeying their leaders instructions.. Under your words, as you wrote them, a child could ignore what his parents say and not be punished for disobeying.

don't generalize please and put all men into the same category. abusive men are not the same as men who love their wives and want them to adhere to their wishes.

Yes, it does mean, ,"sacrificially"  as it was his sacrifice for the church that is referenced in  Eph. 5:25.   That may not be the only way in which Christ loves the Church, but it is one way and it tops the list.   I don't see why that is such a problem for you.   In truth, "love" is a servant, biblically.   There is a mutual submission that takes place when two people love each other.    In Scripture, love is not an emotion, but is rooted in action.   Love always serves, so when God tells a woman to submit to her husband and he tells the husband to love his wife, it is actually a two-way street.   He loves her sacrificially, as Christ loved the Church and she submits to that love.

I understand perfectly what leadership looks like.   Leadership isn't, "Shut up and do what I say."  Good leaders in a family lead by example and they don't have to impose their will on the family.  You have a very one-dimensional notion about what leadership is.  One indicator of a good leader is that others comply willingly to his wishes without him having to treat them like slaves and inferiors.

I don't doubt that there are situations where leadership in the home could work as you said, but I don't agree that this is always the case.  There is such a thing as a rebellious woman who will not submit to her husband's authority, even if he is exactly the type of person you mentioned.  There are some women that will try to dominate their husband and usurp his authority completely.  As such, to make the claim that "they don't have to impose their will on the family" isn't always going to be true. 

Yes and rebellion occurs in the kind of repressive model you advocate for.   Good leaders get people to follow them happily and willingly.    Repressive leaders who feel they have to "enforce" their desires and force compliance have a far greater chance of inciting rebellion.

 

Bottom line is Shiloh, it doesn't make a hill of beans of difference if the husband is this so-called servant leader or a control freak.  He has the Biblical authority to decide for himself what kind of leader he wants to be, and Biblically, his wife is told to submit.  Genesis says he is to rule over her.  The husband in each household is given delegated authority by Jesus, and just like any other person in a position of authority, he gets to determine if your view of leadership is correct or if his is right.  I think your views work in a fantasy world, but not reality.  What you would have in most instances is something like BoPeep once said, where the wife pretends the husband is in charge and like she is in submission, but in reality, that is not the case.  It is like the shirt I saw that says, "I am the boss.  My wife said I could be."  In most cases, the husband isn't in charge in those homes.  I just see your views like the professors who have theories about how to govern, but when it is put to the test, it doesn't work.  It can sound wonderful, but it is not reality. 

If the man loves he wife as Christ loves the church,wife's will adore their husband .

[AllTheGoodNamesAreTaken]

@ Shiloh.  I have contacted a moderator about setting up the Soap Box debate.  I look forward to a spirited debate.  You have quite a way with words.  I especially liked your comment about my shallow, backward, repressive and tyrannical approach to scripture, and was almost as impressed with your sloppy theology comment.  I count it a joy to be able to debate such a wordsmith. 

May I ask the specific topic of this proposed debate ?

[AllTheGoodNamesAreTaken]

 

I am so sure on this matter, I don't care who you can dig up to debate me in the Soap Box.  I will take them on.  I don't care if they have a master's degree in theology.  There is no way they can show me to be wrong using scripture.  There aren't many issues I would say that about.  I have been in Soap Box debates that were difficult, and took a lot of effort to make a case.  They came across as basically a draw.  I knew that going in.  This is not one of those instances. 

This is why I asked the specific topic of debate. 

[Esther4:14]

a post or two back....     LIKE ABIGAIL !     ((she was rewarded  blessed a good wife hard to find  a gift from Yahweh  for KING DAVID )) 

Yes,  ABIGAIL is a hard act to follow.... but a wonderful example of a lovely, godly grace filled, submitted, obedient, faithful woman married to a tyrant and God blessed her. Love these Bible stories ,they are so rich with meaning and wisdom.  

She is a good example, but when I was referencing her as an example earlier, it was because I was citing how she disobeyed her husband who did not want to help David and his men.  She ignored his authority to decide to reject the Lord's anointed one as the final say, and her submission to David and to serve the Lord, who wasn't her husband, was what killed her husband and allowed her to marry King David (1 Samuel 25).  However, you could also say this was submission to her husband as well because it was in her best interest and submission is acting in the best interest of another and making peace (Matthew 5:9).  If Nabal had been of a different character, this act of submission that was done without the permission of her husband, could have been a blessing to him.  Unfortunately, this was not the case (1 Samuel 25:36-38).