Connection between Feminism and Communism

[Guest shiloh357]

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.

 "Submitting" to the husbands authority doesn't mean non-communication does it?  I'm not talking about arguing, yelling or defiance but speaking---- and it doesn't mean enduring emotional or physical violence in silence.  Submitting doesn't mean receiving punishment either.

 It is a "partnership" in that both are loved equally by GOD and given two separate roles, different attributes  which are supposed to mesh together in a cohesive whole  and to bring the couple blessings as they seek GOD's will & to walk with the Lord.  The Bible uses the term "help-mate" , so the wife is supposed to be the husbands  closest companion, his intimate confidante and personal supporter.  GOD bestowed the authority to the man to take the leadership role, to  make the final decisions & to be the spiritual headship and to rule over the family & the home. He did not give the man the OK by this to harm his wife or his family & neither does it tell the woman she must submit to it.  I don't see this as being selective.

1Peter 3:7 "Likewise, you husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

Colossians 3:19 "Husbands, love your wives, and do not be embittered  (harsh) against them.

Ephesians 5:2
"and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God."

Ephesians 5:24
"Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

Ephesians 5:28
"In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself."

Ephesians 5:33
"However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."

 

For the most part, I agree, but I am not sure what you mean by the husband not having the right to harm his wife or family.  If you mean beating them or something like that, I agree, but nobody is going to willingly submit to that.  The abusive husband will just grab the wife and kids and beat them up.  Nobody should have to live in a dangerous situation like that.  I just have a problem with someone who calls being controlling abuse.  In the scripture where it mentions Sarah obeyed Abraham calling him lord, the word translated lord actually means controller.  Sarah was the example for wives to follow. 

Control is a form of abuse.  Controllers are manipulators.  If  a man is a good leader, he doesn't have to resort to control.  

"Male role control works by physically, verbally, or emotionally destroying your partner's physical and emotional integrity so that she will be afraid to be herself, will control herself, and therefore be available to be controlled by YOU."  Emotionally controlling behavior is implemented through verbal abuse, body language, and deprivation (withholding). These behaviors are "the way the abuser treats his partner"

http://drirene.com/control.htm

When Sarah called him "lord"  it was not meant to be understood as "master."   It was used much the same way we use the word "sir."   It was a term of respect, not a term acknowledging mastery.
 

The Bible Dictionary disagrees with your meaning of the word lord, and so does common sense.  Before it uses the word lord, is specifically states that she obeyed Abraham calling him lord.  Obedience went hand in hand with the word, so the meaning is plain for those who want the truth.  By your standards, we serve an abusive God, because he is controlling in the sense that he tells us things he wants us to do.  He gives us standards we may not always like, and if we don't do as he says, we suffer chastisement or even damnation.  Parents are abusive to their children if they don't let them do anything they want.  Again, here is your quote Shiloh.  "Control is a form of abuse."  Then anyone controlling anyone is abusive.  It shouldn't just stop with husbands.  The moderators could be called abusive when they control what anyone says.  Government officials that force their will on us with the threat of penalties are abusive.  Pastors that control their services are abusive.  Someone might want to make a comment to the congregation in the middle of the sermon, and it can't wait.  Maybe the Pastor doesn't want a lady to sing her song that morning because the service is too long in his opinion, but she thinks he could shorten his message to let her sing.  If he doesn't give her what she wants, he is abusive and controlling. 

This is a pattern I continue to see.  Only the husband who is controlling is abusive in the bazaar world of people like Shiloh. 

No, it doesn't disagree with my meaning.   I wasn't talking about the meaning.  I was talking about the application of the word.  You seem to have real problem distinguishing between the two.  

Control in the sense of manipulation and in the sense that it is presented in the link I supplied above IS abuse.  I am not talking about being assertive and taking charge and fulfilling a leadership role.  That is not how I am using the word control.

Who said anything about manipulation?  I am just speaking of exercising authority, as in saying this is how something will be.  Now, if the wife doesn't obey her husband's authority, and rebels, some men will choose to be abusive physically to bring them in line, while others will give the wife a hard time verbally until she submits, and still others may just accept their wife is a rebel and pray for her.  I understand that just as the wife has the ability to obey or disobey, rebel or comply, the husband can react in a wrong way to insubordination.  Some parents are the same way with their children.  They are abusive to try to bring rebellious children in line.  We have not been discussing that.  All I have been discussing is the amount of authority the husband possesses, not how he should or shouldn't use it. 

Do understand what a controller is like?  Look at the link I provided above.

[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.

 "Submitting" to the husbands authority doesn't mean non-communication does it?  I'm not talking about arguing, yelling or defiance but speaking---- and it doesn't mean enduring emotional or physical violence in silence.  Submitting doesn't mean receiving punishment either.

 It is a "partnership" in that both are loved equally by GOD and given two separate roles, different attributes  which are supposed to mesh together in a cohesive whole  and to bring the couple blessings as they seek GOD's will & to walk with the Lord.  The Bible uses the term "help-mate" , so the wife is supposed to be the husbands  closest companion, his intimate confidante and personal supporter.  GOD bestowed the authority to the man to take the leadership role, to  make the final decisions & to be the spiritual headship and to rule over the family & the home. He did not give the man the OK by this to harm his wife or his family & neither does it tell the woman she must submit to it.  I don't see this as being selective.

1Peter 3:7 "Likewise, you husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

Colossians 3:19 "Husbands, love your wives, and do not be embittered  (harsh) against them.

Ephesians 5:2
"and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God."

Ephesians 5:24
"Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

Ephesians 5:28
"In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself."

Ephesians 5:33
"However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."

 

For the most part, I agree, but I am not sure what you mean by the husband not having the right to harm his wife or family.  If you mean beating them or something like that, I agree, but nobody is going to willingly submit to that.  The abusive husband will just grab the wife and kids and beat them up.  Nobody should have to live in a dangerous situation like that.  I just have a problem with someone who calls being controlling abuse.  In the scripture where it mentions Sarah obeyed Abraham calling him lord, the word translated lord actually means controller.  Sarah was the example for wives to follow. 

Control is a form of abuse.  Controllers are manipulators.  If  a man is a good leader, he doesn't have to resort to control.  

"Male role control works by physically, verbally, or emotionally destroying your partner's physical and emotional integrity so that she will be afraid to be herself, will control herself, and therefore be available to be controlled by YOU."  Emotionally controlling behavior is implemented through verbal abuse, body language, and deprivation (withholding). These behaviors are "the way the abuser treats his partner"

http://drirene.com/control.htm

When Sarah called him "lord"  it was not meant to be understood as "master."   It was used much the same way we use the word "sir."   It was a term of respect, not a term acknowledging mastery.
 

The Bible Dictionary disagrees with your meaning of the word lord, and so does common sense.  Before it uses the word lord, is specifically states that she obeyed Abraham calling him lord.  Obedience went hand in hand with the word, so the meaning is plain for those who want the truth.  By your standards, we serve an abusive God, because he is controlling in the sense that he tells us things he wants us to do.  He gives us standards we may not always like, and if we don't do as he says, we suffer chastisement or even damnation.  Parents are abusive to their children if they don't let them do anything they want.  Again, here is your quote Shiloh.  "Control is a form of abuse."  Then anyone controlling anyone is abusive.  It shouldn't just stop with husbands.  The moderators could be called abusive when they control what anyone says.  Government officials that force their will on us with the threat of penalties are abusive.  Pastors that control their services are abusive.  Someone might want to make a comment to the congregation in the middle of the sermon, and it can't wait.  Maybe the Pastor doesn't want a lady to sing her song that morning because the service is too long in his opinion, but she thinks he could shorten his message to let her sing.  If he doesn't give her what she wants, he is abusive and controlling. 

This is a pattern I continue to see.  Only the husband who is controlling is abusive in the bazaar world of people like Shiloh. 

No, it doesn't disagree with my meaning.   I wasn't talking about the meaning.  I was talking about the application of the word.  You seem to have real problem distinguishing between the two.  

Control in the sense of manipulation and in the sense that it is presented in the link I supplied above IS abuse.  I am not talking about being assertive and taking charge and fulfilling a leadership role.  That is not how I am using the word control.

Who said anything about manipulation?  I am just speaking of exercising authority, as in saying this is how something will be.  Now, if the wife doesn't obey her husband's authority, and rebels, some men will choose to be abusive physically to bring them in line, while others will give the wife a hard time verbally until she submits, and still others may just accept their wife is a rebel and pray for her.  I understand that just as the wife has the ability to obey or disobey, rebel or comply, the husband can react in a wrong way to insubordination.  Some parents are the same way with their children.  They are abusive to try to bring rebellious children in line.  We have not been discussing that.  All I have been discussing is the amount of authority the husband possesses, not how he should or shouldn't use it. 

Do understand what a controller is like?  Look at the link I provided above.

With the exception of insulting someone till they change or withholding things till they change, I do not see how most of the things in that article are examples of controlling behavior.  It appears the person being described has created situations that would make change impossible, like in the controlling time scenario.  What in the world could a man or woman hope to accomplish by saying they are going to bed, and remaining up, until the other person gets tired of waiting and then starts doing something else, only to get the blame for keeping that person up.  It just sounds like someone got pre-occupied to me.  Some of the stuff in the article was silly.  I would say most of it was silly, in that if I was trying to manipulate someone into change, I wouldn't do the things described there.  It would be a waste of time.  It describes impatience and pre-occupation more than anything, hardly abuse. 

[hmbld]

Butero, have you ever seen a good example of a boss as a leader?  I would say a leader is much more effective if he is not a controller in the sense you are clinging too. Dictatorships are just wrong. 

Then lets add to the list of people who were wrong throughout history King David, as well as Hezekiah and Josiah.  They were dictators in the sense their word was final. 

No matter how you feel someone should behave, any boss I have had was given real authority.  They could be nice and try to work with us in a way we didn't resent, or they could be harsh.  They had that power, and so does the husband, which is my point.  Again, for about the 12th time or so, give or take, I have not been speaking on how the husband should do.  I have been speaking on the amount of power he has.  Just as that boss has the final say and has real power he can exercise as he sees fit, so does the husband. 

power. There it is. Headship is power. I've struggled with understanding some of these verses about marriage,  lord, submitting, women are to remain quiet in church, and the more you and Shiloh converse, the more it all comes together and makes sense. I can only imagine the time and energy you both put in here and I sincerely thank you both. The soapbox thread has been informative and thought provoking at the same time. Continue on and God bless you both. 

[Guest shiloh357]

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.

 "Submitting" to the husbands authority doesn't mean non-communication does it?  I'm not talking about arguing, yelling or defiance but speaking---- and it doesn't mean enduring emotional or physical violence in silence.  Submitting doesn't mean receiving punishment either.

 It is a "partnership" in that both are loved equally by GOD and given two separate roles, different attributes  which are supposed to mesh together in a cohesive whole  and to bring the couple blessings as they seek GOD's will & to walk with the Lord.  The Bible uses the term "help-mate" , so the wife is supposed to be the husbands  closest companion, his intimate confidante and personal supporter.  GOD bestowed the authority to the man to take the leadership role, to  make the final decisions & to be the spiritual headship and to rule over the family & the home. He did not give the man the OK by this to harm his wife or his family & neither does it tell the woman she must submit to it.  I don't see this as being selective.

1Peter 3:7 "Likewise, you husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

Colossians 3:19 "Husbands, love your wives, and do not be embittered  (harsh) against them.

Ephesians 5:2
"and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God."

Ephesians 5:24
"Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

Ephesians 5:28
"In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself."

Ephesians 5:33
"However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."

 

For the most part, I agree, but I am not sure what you mean by the husband not having the right to harm his wife or family.  If you mean beating them or something like that, I agree, but nobody is going to willingly submit to that.  The abusive husband will just grab the wife and kids and beat them up.  Nobody should have to live in a dangerous situation like that.  I just have a problem with someone who calls being controlling abuse.  In the scripture where it mentions Sarah obeyed Abraham calling him lord, the word translated lord actually means controller.  Sarah was the example for wives to follow. 

Control is a form of abuse.  Controllers are manipulators.  If  a man is a good leader, he doesn't have to resort to control.  

"Male role control works by physically, verbally, or emotionally destroying your partner's physical and emotional integrity so that she will be afraid to be herself, will control herself, and therefore be available to be controlled by YOU."  Emotionally controlling behavior is implemented through verbal abuse, body language, and deprivation (withholding). These behaviors are "the way the abuser treats his partner"

http://drirene.com/control.htm

When Sarah called him "lord"  it was not meant to be understood as "master."   It was used much the same way we use the word "sir."   It was a term of respect, not a term acknowledging mastery.
 

The Bible Dictionary disagrees with your meaning of the word lord, and so does common sense.  Before it uses the word lord, is specifically states that she obeyed Abraham calling him lord.  Obedience went hand in hand with the word, so the meaning is plain for those who want the truth.  By your standards, we serve an abusive God, because he is controlling in the sense that he tells us things he wants us to do.  He gives us standards we may not always like, and if we don't do as he says, we suffer chastisement or even damnation.  Parents are abusive to their children if they don't let them do anything they want.  Again, here is your quote Shiloh.  "Control is a form of abuse."  Then anyone controlling anyone is abusive.  It shouldn't just stop with husbands.  The moderators could be called abusive when they control what anyone says.  Government officials that force their will on us with the threat of penalties are abusive.  Pastors that control their services are abusive.  Someone might want to make a comment to the congregation in the middle of the sermon, and it can't wait.  Maybe the Pastor doesn't want a lady to sing her song that morning because the service is too long in his opinion, but she thinks he could shorten his message to let her sing.  If he doesn't give her what she wants, he is abusive and controlling. 

This is a pattern I continue to see.  Only the husband who is controlling is abusive in the bazaar world of people like Shiloh. 

No, it doesn't disagree with my meaning.   I wasn't talking about the meaning.  I was talking about the application of the word.  You seem to have real problem distinguishing between the two.  

Control in the sense of manipulation and in the sense that it is presented in the link I supplied above IS abuse.  I am not talking about being assertive and taking charge and fulfilling a leadership role.  That is not how I am using the word control.

Who said anything about manipulation?  I am just speaking of exercising authority, as in saying this is how something will be.  Now, if the wife doesn't obey her husband's authority, and rebels, some men will choose to be abusive physically to bring them in line, while others will give the wife a hard time verbally until she submits, and still others may just accept their wife is a rebel and pray for her.  I understand that just as the wife has the ability to obey or disobey, rebel or comply, the husband can react in a wrong way to insubordination.  Some parents are the same way with their children.  They are abusive to try to bring rebellious children in line.  We have not been discussing that.  All I have been discussing is the amount of authority the husband possesses, not how he should or shouldn't use it. 

Do understand what a controller is like?  Look at the link I provided above.

With the exception of insulting someone till they change or withholding things till they change, I do not see how most of the things in that article are examples of controlling behavior.  It appears the person being described has created situations that would make change impossible, like in the controlling time scenario.  What in the world could a man or woman hope to accomplish by saying they are going to bed, and remaining up, until the other person gets tired of waiting and then starts doing something else, only to get the blame for keeping that person up.  It just sounds like someone got pre-occupied to me.  Some of the stuff in the article was silly.  I would say most of it was silly, in that if I was trying to manipulate someone into change, I wouldn't do the things described there.  It would be a waste of time.  It describes impatience and pre-occupation more than anything, hardly abuse. 

Then you really don't understand what it means to be a controller and if you do, you  don't really see a problem with it.  It's like I said earlier, the men who I have known who were abusers disagree with how people define abuse.  They disagree with it because they engage in it.   Controlling is a form of mental/emotion abuse.  You can abuse people in far, far worse ways than beating them.

[Guest Butero]

Butero, have you ever seen a good example of a boss as a leader?  I would say a leader is much more effective if he is not a controller in the sense you are clinging too. Dictatorships are just wrong. 

Then lets add to the list of people who were wrong throughout history King David, as well as Hezekiah and Josiah.  They were dictators in the sense their word was final. 

No matter how you feel someone should behave, any boss I have had was given real authority.  They could be nice and try to work with us in a way we didn't resent, or they could be harsh.  They had that power, and so does the husband, which is my point.  Again, for about the 12th time or so, give or take, I have not been speaking on how the husband should do.  I have been speaking on the amount of power he has.  Just as that boss has the final say and has real power he can exercise as he sees fit, so does the husband. 

power. There it is. Headship is power. I've struggled with understanding some of these verses about marriage,  lord, submitting, women are to remain quiet in church, and the more you and Shiloh converse, the more it all comes together and makes sense. I can only imagine the time and energy you both put in here and I sincerely thank you both. The soapbox thread has been informative and thought provoking at the same time. Continue on and God bless you both. 

Thank you.  I know I have spent a lot of time on this, and there is no question Shiloh has too.  To some degree, I am not sure if the disagreements are as far apart as they appear.  We clearly don't see abusive behavior in the same way.  He sees things as abusive that I don't.  I almost think that he is looking at the teachings on how the husband is to treat his wife, and saying that his power is limited to his having to behave that way for his wife to have to submit.  The problem with that is that wives are supposed to obey husbands that don't obey the Word.  In an ideal world, everyone would follow scripture to the letter, men and women, and if they did, you would have less strife, but often times that is not the case.  Only the husband or only the wife may be fully committed to Christ, and in order to follow the Lord, you have to be obedient to his teachings through the Bible. 

I am fine with, and welcome a separate discussion on trying to figure out how Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, so we can discuss how God wants husbands to treat their wives.  Men are supposed to serve their Lord, Jesus Christ, and that requires obedience to scripture.  There will be a day where we have to stand before him and give account for how we lived down here, so I am not dismissing the fact that men need to follow the Bible.  I am just saying that if they don't, that doesn't make rebellion on the part of the woman ok.  I really hope we can get to the place where we all are following God according to scripture to the best of our abilities, both men and women.  The world would be so much different if we did. 

[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.

 "Submitting" to the husbands authority doesn't mean non-communication does it?  I'm not talking about arguing, yelling or defiance but speaking---- and it doesn't mean enduring emotional or physical violence in silence.  Submitting doesn't mean receiving punishment either.

 It is a "partnership" in that both are loved equally by GOD and given two separate roles, different attributes  which are supposed to mesh together in a cohesive whole  and to bring the couple blessings as they seek GOD's will & to walk with the Lord.  The Bible uses the term "help-mate" , so the wife is supposed to be the husbands  closest companion, his intimate confidante and personal supporter.  GOD bestowed the authority to the man to take the leadership role, to  make the final decisions & to be the spiritual headship and to rule over the family & the home. He did not give the man the OK by this to harm his wife or his family & neither does it tell the woman she must submit to it.  I don't see this as being selective.

1Peter 3:7 "Likewise, you husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

Colossians 3:19 "Husbands, love your wives, and do not be embittered  (harsh) against them.

Ephesians 5:2
"and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God."

Ephesians 5:24
"Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

Ephesians 5:28
"In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself."

Ephesians 5:33
"However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."

 

For the most part, I agree, but I am not sure what you mean by the husband not having the right to harm his wife or family.  If you mean beating them or something like that, I agree, but nobody is going to willingly submit to that.  The abusive husband will just grab the wife and kids and beat them up.  Nobody should have to live in a dangerous situation like that.  I just have a problem with someone who calls being controlling abuse.  In the scripture where it mentions Sarah obeyed Abraham calling him lord, the word translated lord actually means controller.  Sarah was the example for wives to follow. 

Control is a form of abuse.  Controllers are manipulators.  If  a man is a good leader, he doesn't have to resort to control.  

"Male role control works by physically, verbally, or emotionally destroying your partner's physical and emotional integrity so that she will be afraid to be herself, will control herself, and therefore be available to be controlled by YOU."  Emotionally controlling behavior is implemented through verbal abuse, body language, and deprivation (withholding). These behaviors are "the way the abuser treats his partner"

http://drirene.com/control.htm

When Sarah called him "lord"  it was not meant to be understood as "master."   It was used much the same way we use the word "sir."   It was a term of respect, not a term acknowledging mastery.
 

The Bible Dictionary disagrees with your meaning of the word lord, and so does common sense.  Before it uses the word lord, is specifically states that she obeyed Abraham calling him lord.  Obedience went hand in hand with the word, so the meaning is plain for those who want the truth.  By your standards, we serve an abusive God, because he is controlling in the sense that he tells us things he wants us to do.  He gives us standards we may not always like, and if we don't do as he says, we suffer chastisement or even damnation.  Parents are abusive to their children if they don't let them do anything they want.  Again, here is your quote Shiloh.  "Control is a form of abuse."  Then anyone controlling anyone is abusive.  It shouldn't just stop with husbands.  The moderators could be called abusive when they control what anyone says.  Government officials that force their will on us with the threat of penalties are abusive.  Pastors that control their services are abusive.  Someone might want to make a comment to the congregation in the middle of the sermon, and it can't wait.  Maybe the Pastor doesn't want a lady to sing her song that morning because the service is too long in his opinion, but she thinks he could shorten his message to let her sing.  If he doesn't give her what she wants, he is abusive and controlling. 

This is a pattern I continue to see.  Only the husband who is controlling is abusive in the bazaar world of people like Shiloh. 

No, it doesn't disagree with my meaning.   I wasn't talking about the meaning.  I was talking about the application of the word.  You seem to have real problem distinguishing between the two.  

Control in the sense of manipulation and in the sense that it is presented in the link I supplied above IS abuse.  I am not talking about being assertive and taking charge and fulfilling a leadership role.  That is not how I am using the word control.

Who said anything about manipulation?  I am just speaking of exercising authority, as in saying this is how something will be.  Now, if the wife doesn't obey her husband's authority, and rebels, some men will choose to be abusive physically to bring them in line, while others will give the wife a hard time verbally until she submits, and still others may just accept their wife is a rebel and pray for her.  I understand that just as the wife has the ability to obey or disobey, rebel or comply, the husband can react in a wrong way to insubordination.  Some parents are the same way with their children.  They are abusive to try to bring rebellious children in line.  We have not been discussing that.  All I have been discussing is the amount of authority the husband possesses, not how he should or shouldn't use it. 

Do understand what a controller is like?  Look at the link I provided above.

With the exception of insulting someone till they change or withholding things till they change, I do not see how most of the things in that article are examples of controlling behavior.  It appears the person being described has created situations that would make change impossible, like in the controlling time scenario.  What in the world could a man or woman hope to accomplish by saying they are going to bed, and remaining up, until the other person gets tired of waiting and then starts doing something else, only to get the blame for keeping that person up.  It just sounds like someone got pre-occupied to me.  Some of the stuff in the article was silly.  I would say most of it was silly, in that if I was trying to manipulate someone into change, I wouldn't do the things described there.  It would be a waste of time.  It describes impatience and pre-occupation more than anything, hardly abuse. 

Then you really don't understand what it means to be a controller and if you do, you  don't really see a problem with it.  It's like I said earlier, the men who I have known who were abusers disagree with how people define abuse.  They disagree with it because they engage in it.   Controlling is a form of mental/emotion abuse.  You can abuse people in far, far worse ways than beating them.

I can see some of this happening both ways, and I don't consider it abusive or intentionally controlling.  Let me explain what I mean by intentionally.  Lets say that I am ready to go to bed and my wife is busy and wants me to wait on her.  I do, and then I get busy and she is ready for bed and then blames me for holding her up.  It may control my time and hers while we wait on each other, but it is not intentional.  It is just getting lost in something and wanting to finish it.  I see a lot of the other stuff the same way.  There is no attempt to control behavior, at least in a sinister way.  It certainly isn't going to bring about change, because the acts being mentioned aren't designed to change the other person. 

Lets look at rolling the eyes or being dismissive about something the other person is saying.  I see that as impatience.  You are just bored with the topic, don't agree with what is being said and get aggravated or you were lost in your own world.  I can't think of anyone I know that doesn't get that way at times, and what exactly are they trying to change?  It is impatience.  I think you could rightly say that it is an area to work on, but it is hardly abuse.  I think things like this trivialize real abusive behavior when it happens.  You expand abuse to cover so many things, that when you hear of true domestic violence, you don't take it serious enough.  I suppose you could be verbally abusive if all you do is insult the other person non-stop over everything they do, no matter how hard they try.  I have seen that in homes before.  The food is always rotten.  The housekeeping is terrible.  No matter what the husband or wife does, it is never good enough, even if they do exactly what you asked of them.  That is tough to live with, but when you make things where there is no hope, that isn't going to bring about change, so where is the controlling in that?  It seems like you are dealing with a person who focusses on the bad all the time, and he or she needs a change of perspective, looking at the good.  I see this as a kind of a catch 22. 

"the men who I have known who were abusers disagree with how people define abuse.  They disagree with it because they engage in it."  All well and good Shiloh, but it could also be that it really isn't abuse, and the people defining abuse are full of bull.  It just depends. 

[archaeologist55]

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.

 "Submitting" to the husbands authority doesn't mean non-communication does it?  I'm not talking about arguing, yelling or defiance but speaking---- and it doesn't mean enduring emotional or physical violence in silence.  Submitting doesn't mean receiving punishment either.

 It is a "partnership" in that both are loved equally by GOD and given two separate roles, different attributes  which are supposed to mesh together in a cohesive whole  and to bring the couple blessings as they seek GOD's will & to walk with the Lord.  The Bible uses the term "help-mate" , so the wife is supposed to be the husbands  closest companion, his intimate confidante and personal supporter.  GOD bestowed the authority to the man to take the leadership role, to  make the final decisions & to be the spiritual headship and to rule over the family & the home. He did not give the man the OK by this to harm his wife or his family & neither does it tell the woman she must submit to it.  I don't see this as being selective.

1Peter 3:7 "Likewise, you husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

Colossians 3:19 "Husbands, love your wives, and do not be embittered  (harsh) against them.

Ephesians 5:2
"and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God."

Ephesians 5:24
"Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

Ephesians 5:28
"In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself."

Ephesians 5:33
"However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."

 

I do not know why you need to put scripture in bigger font than the rest of your post and please note the words in Eph. 5:24  ;in everything'. notice there are no exceptions to the rule and the word 'everything' encompasses all areas of life, even when the husband becomes dictatorial.

Submitting" to the husbands authority doesn't mean non-communication does it? 

of course not. God has given women intelligence, wisdom, understanding insight and other good qualities that are needed by the husband in order for him to make the right decision after receiving wise council from his wife. though that does not mean the man will listen all the time or do what the wife wants. you also forget that evil plays a role if people let it in their marriages so do not blame the man or woman alone. (please note that nagging i snot a biblical teaching)

Submitting doesn't mean receiving punishment either.

don't know what you mean by that term but your own quoted verses say in everything so if the husband says go to your room well...what did God say in 1 Peter 2 which you did not quote-- if you are punished for doing good that is commendable to God...? if you have done right and are 'punished' by your husband then God does not consider you have done wrong.

It is a "partnership"

please get off this idea or present actual scripture which state this. marriage is not a partnership where the wife has the same roles as the husband or she is considered a leader of the family.

you redefine words to fit what you want to see in marriage and not what God wants to see.

God did not give permission for anyone to sin but your redefining biblical words hinders your understanding of what. marriage is all about and the roles for each member.

you also forget that some wives abuse their husbands and ignore his leadership. let's not make this a one way street issue

[AllTheGoodNamesAreTaken]

I've been reading this thread and the "Soapbox". You both present interesting information to me, as well as things that seem to be personal in nature. Just my take on it.

Are you both married? How long, and how many times? I know that's personal and you are under no obligation to answer me. Just curious. 

 

EDIT: I have been married once for 37 years. Not too personal for me to share

 

Edited October 28, 2015 by AllTheGoodNamesAreTaken

[archaeologist55]

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. 

in this discussion, I feel that many people are introducing teaching they think is correct because they got it from a sunday school teacher, an elder or other church leader or their pastors and consider it correct while not double checking to see if they got the truth or not. this is a big problem in the church today as so many pastors introduce their own thinking to the congregation and their people lap it up like it was gospel truth. People blindly follow their leaders because they think God is speaking through them and they ignore passages of scripture which give them responsibilities to use their brains and analyze what is told them.

In the marriage a woman is not a robot mindlessly following her husbands orders, for God may place upon her insight that tells her her husband is not listening to him and making a big mistake. She needs to speak up but that permission does not equate with non-submission. she gets to have her say and opinion but she cannot disobey scripture.

[archaeologist55]

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.

 "Submitting" to the husbands authority doesn't mean non-communication does it?  I'm not talking about arguing, yelling or defiance but speaking---- and it doesn't mean enduring emotional or physical violence in silence.  Submitting doesn't mean receiving punishment either.

 It is a "partnership" in that both are loved equally by GOD and given two separate roles, different attributes  which are supposed to mesh together in a cohesive whole  and to bring the couple blessings as they seek GOD's will & to walk with the Lord.  The Bible uses the term "help-mate" , so the wife is supposed to be the husbands  closest companion, his intimate confidante and personal supporter.  GOD bestowed the authority to the man to take the leadership role, to  make the final decisions & to be the spiritual headship and to rule over the family & the home. He did not give the man the OK by this to harm his wife or his family & neither does it tell the woman she must submit to it.  I don't see this as being selective.

1Peter 3:7 "Likewise, you husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

Colossians 3:19 "Husbands, love your wives, and do not be embittered  (harsh) against them.

Ephesians 5:2
"and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God."

Ephesians 5:24
"Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

Ephesians 5:28
"In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself."

Ephesians 5:33
"However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."

 

For the most part, I agree, but I am not sure what you mean by the husband not having the right to harm his wife or family.  If you mean beating them or something like that, I agree, but nobody is going to willingly submit to that.  The abusive husband will just grab the wife and kids and beat them up.  Nobody should have to live in a dangerous situation like that.  I just have a problem with someone who calls being controlling abuse.  In the scripture where it mentions Sarah obeyed Abraham calling him lord, the word translated lord actually means controller.  Sarah was the example for wives to follow. 

the Bible outlaws murder yet people still do it.  do you all get the concept of free choice and that freedom is not removed once people get married? do you all understand that people are tempted by evil in all areas of life in a marriage? this includes being abusive etc., they are not just tempted in the area of sexual sins.women are tempted to not submit, men are tempted to ignore biblical instructions on how to care for their wives.

too many people are limiting the discussion to pet areas and fail to grasp the whole picture. they want to limit the role of men to fit what they want and ignore what God wants for the marriage and this is why this discussion fails. people are not trying to seek the truth in this issue but demand that their own human ideas be aplied to th eissue and that everyone else needs to follow those selfish demands.