Connection between Feminism and Communism

[Guest shiloh357]

There is no commandment in the Bible that places men in authority over women.   Nothing in the Bible keeps men from being under the authority of women in the workplace. There are commandments for wives to submit to the leadership of their husbands and there are commandments to men to be servant-leaders in their homes.   Nothing in the Bible makes women inferior to men.  I agree with MG that there have been so much spousal abuse  that comes from men misusing Scripture to exert their control-freakish attitudes over their wives and justify a lot of abusive behavior.

I agree with much of what you said, but I do have a question for you.  Lets suppose that the husband is a control freak, and he demands his wife have supper on the table at 6 PM sharp and expects her to keep the house spick and span clean all the time, and is extremely demanding.  What if he tells her how he wants her to dress and fix her hair?  Based on scripture, is she to submit to his authority?  I am not talking about a man who beats his wife, or anything like that.  I am just speaking of a man who is kind of an Archie Bunker type, who demands a lot.  From my understanding of scripture, she is supposed to obey him, even if she thinks he is being unreasonable.  Would you agree or disagree and why?  We all have different views of what is abusive, so I am not looking to go down that road.  I just want to know what you think the wife should do if she is seeking to follow God? 

I don't think that is what "submit"  is referencing.  "Submit" doesn't mean, you will slave around for your husband.   Implicit in the command that a wife submit to her husband is the idea that the husband is the kind of godly man that a woman is to submit to.   "Submit"  doesn't mean, "obey."    The man is commanded to love his wife sacrificially.

One thing that some men need to get through their thick heads is that while they may be leaders of the home, they are NOT the lord of the home.   Too many men emotionally abuse their wives using this passage. They interpret it this way:   "You will do what I say, when I say, the way I say and you will do it, no questions asked.  Just shut up and do what I say, period 'cause that's what the Bible says."    She is not required in Scripture to obey him as if he were her lord.

The "Archie Bunker" types don't deserve wives.   A man who controls what his wife wears and how she does her hair, doesn't deserve a wife.  A woman who marries that type of guy really settled for worst kind of man.

[Guest shiloh357]

There is no commandment in the Bible that places men in authority over women.   Nothing in the Bible keeps men from being under the authority of women in the workplace. There are commandments for wives to submit to the leadership of their husbands and there are commandments to men to be servant-leaders in their homes.   Nothing in the Bible makes women inferior to men.  I agree with MG that there have been so much spousal abuse  that comes from men misusing Scripture to exert their control-freakish attitudes over their wives and justify a lot of abusive behavior.

you would be in error in thinking most of that.

spousal abuse is determined by subjectivity not objectivity which renders those determinations unfair and unjust. too much emotion is applied to this area as well distorting facts and the reality of the situation.

we do not condemn a system because some people are either misguided in their knowledge  or abuse it for their own purposes. that would be like tossing out the constitution because some people break the law.

being submissive to your husbands does not make a woman inferior nor second-class it means the woman is obedient to God.

No, I am not in error about it at all.  Many men who don't beat their wives, abuse them mentally and emotionally.  I am not condemning any system at all.  I am condemning the mindset of some men who think that they can lord it over their wives because they think that the Bible requires wives to submit in servitude to them without question.   There are men who do see the idea of "submitting'  as reflecting an inferior rank in the marriage.   It is those men who I think need an attitude adjustment out behind the barn.

[archaeologist55]

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. 

The Bible tells men how to treat their wives and like anything else in this world, husbands have free choice to obey or disobey those instructions. We do not condemn men for their choices but seek to restore them to the right way to act.  And we do not alter what the Bible is saying to give women escape clauses whereby they will end up sinning because they followed the wrong advice and disobeyed scripture

Edited October 21, 2015 by archaeologist55
clarification

[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.

[archaeologist55]

The feminist movement has been one of the most necessary movements in recent history. Primarily because Men were taking advantage of women submitting to Christian principles that governed most of western civilization. Women who sought resolution and even refuge in the Church were turned back to their abusive husbands and shamed for daring to defy their God-demanded role in life.

the Bible says not to return evil for evil, so why would the 'feminist' movement be on any woman's list of places to seek refuge? People take advantage of others all the time, and you will not stop it until you address the issue with the leading of God who convicts those of the sins they have committed and the convicted seek repentance and forgiveness.

the failure of that taking place is not permission to adopt sinful ideology or practices. the Bible never says to go to sinful behavior to solve problems.Even when the church fails its people, the people need to follow biblical instruction on how to react to different situations.

With nowhere else to turn

there is always a place to turn as the Bible tells us that Jesus will not forsake us. Respite may not come from the church but from individuals who are tuned to God and his ways

All because the Church missed a golden opportunity to do its job and to oversee a necessary but Christian principled liberation of women from the bonds and slavery of male tyranny. What a price is paid when God's people refuse to do their duty.

Do not expect perfection from sinful, fallible people who comprise the population of the church as well as from those who have not been born again

[archaeologist55]

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.

[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.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

The Bible tells men how to treat their wives and like anything else in this world, husbands have free choice to obey or disobey those instructions. We do not condemn men for their choices but seek to restore them to the right way to act.  And we do not alter what the Bible is saying to give women escape clauses whereby they will end up sinning because they followed the wrong advice and disobeyed scripture

I see, so if a man chooses to beat his wife, you won't condemn him for doing that, but if a wife doesn't submit to that, she is the one sinning...

[JohnD]

The feminist movement has been one of the most necessary movements in recent history. Primarily because Men were taking advantage of women submitting to Christian principles that governed most of western civilization. Women who sought resolution and even refuge in the Church were turned back to their abusive husbands and shamed for daring to defy their God-demanded role in life. The Government would not help. They couldn't even vote until 1919. And it was so dominated by men even the vote was essentially a patronizing pat on the head. 

With nowhere else to turn, the cause of women was taken up by malcontents, opportunists, and perverts who lobbied hard and loud and eventually won.

It was most necessary. But it was terribly mishandled, and the devastating results wreak havoc in every aspect of society today. The gender roles are indistinguishable. Perversion has the upper hand. All because the Church missed a golden opportunity to do its job and to oversee a necessary but Christian principled liberation of women from the bonds and slavery of male tyranny. What a price is paid when God's people refuse to do their duty.

I am sure there are communist ties to the feminist movement, just as there are homosexual ties, abortion, man-haters, women-haters, self-haters of both genders, malcontents, etc.

All because the Church refused to take charge way back when it could have done all the good in the world.

I would disagree in that I don't believe the feminist movement has any redeeming qualities.  It was not needed.  They hardly ended spousal abuse.  You see it taking place all the time.  From the look of things, it appears on the surface to be on the rise.  Why was it such a necessity that women be allowed to vote?  I have no problem with women being able to vote, but neither do I look at this as something that just had to be changed.  We would have been fine with things as they were.  I believe feminism is evil at it's roots, with nothing good about it.

You are entitled to your opinion.

But consider that Christianity elevated women far above that which the ancient world relegated and condemned women to be. Would you carry your assessment to its logical conclusion? Believing Christ's elevation / exoneration of women to have been a mistake?

[JohnD]

When we set aside our fears and our prejudices, status quo / business as usual often deprives humanity of the potential it would otherwise have. How many statesmen and women have we aborted in our indulgence of sexual freedoms and fear to rock the boat? How many inventors of the next world changing invention or discovery have we locked away in the vault of second class citizenship / withholding the vote or education or the opportunity to explore their God given gifts just because (gasp) they were born females?