Page 3 of 10 [ 146 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10  Next

nick007
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,282
Location: was Louisiana but now Vermont

16 May 2019, 4:56 am

magz wrote:
enz wrote:
hmmm should women then not marry a man if they are smarter than him?

Yup, guys get easily frustrated in this kind of relationship, even if they initially claim they would accept it.
Learned it the hard way (luckily, before my marriage).
I had a hard time with it with my 2nd girlfriend because she didn't value my input on things as much as she valued her own opinions. She felt she knew better than me when it came to things that would affect our relationship. I know I'm retarded but I believe I should have an equal say on things that would affect our relationship or both of us. I wanna feel like my input is valued instead of feeling brushed off. Just cuz I'm retarded does NOT mean I deserve to have my girlfriend treat me like I am sometimes.
Plus I find things others consider stupid in women funny & cute.


_________________
But I don't want to go among mad people, Alice remarked.
Oh, you can't help that, said the Cat: we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
How do you know I'm mad? said Alice.
You must be, said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.


treefiddy
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2019
Age: 350
Gender: Female
Posts: 172
Location: Nowhere/Now

16 May 2019, 5:02 am

magz wrote:
enz wrote:
hmmm should women then not marry a man if they are smarter than him?

Yup, guys get easily frustrated in this kind of relationship, even if they initially claim they would accept it.
Learned it the hard way (luckily, before my marriage).

Honestly, I believe when a man genuinely impresses his woman in some way, a chance for a healthy relationship is higher.


My husband thinks I'm smarter than him and I think he's smarter than me (unless we're arguing about something; then I think I'm smarter and he thinks he is :lol: ) - this works really well for us because I agree with you magz - I think both men and women should be impressive to each other; that way its more likely that they'll keep impressing each other for the rest of their lives. I do think being relatively matched in intelligence is ideal; for me at least. I personally could not be married to a man who is not intellectually stimulating and challenging.


_________________
Кто сгорел, того не подожжешь.


magz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,024
Location: Poland

16 May 2019, 5:18 am

treefiddy wrote:
My husband thinks I'm smarter than him and I think he's smarter than me (unless we're arguing about something; then I think I'm smarter and he thinks he is :lol: )

That's also how it works in my marriage :D
We can't really compare our intelligence, I'm more abstract, analytical thinker, he's more sensual, creative thinker - but we are on the same page when using logic and knowledge to work things out the best we can.


_________________
Ailurophrenia. Meow.
Giving up my attempts to become a proper human.


treefiddy
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2019
Age: 350
Gender: Female
Posts: 172
Location: Nowhere/Now

16 May 2019, 5:25 am

magz wrote:
That's also how it works in my marriage :D
We can't really compare our intelligence, I'm more abstract, analytical thinker, he's more sensual, creative thinker - but we are on the same page when using logic and knowledge to work things out the best we can.


Same here! My husband studied physics and maths, whilst I studied philosophy and psychology, but the way we think is incredibly similar and we both enjoy problem solving together. We discuss things for hours and hours and that's one of my favourite things about our relationship :D


_________________
Кто сгорел, того не подожжешь.


nick007
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,282
Location: was Louisiana but now Vermont

16 May 2019, 5:29 am

Me & my current girlfriend are both smarter & dumber than each other but in different ways thou some ways do overlap.


_________________
But I don't want to go among mad people, Alice remarked.
Oh, you can't help that, said the Cat: we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
How do you know I'm mad? said Alice.
You must be, said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.


kdm1984
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 31 May 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 408
Location: SW MO, USA

16 May 2019, 10:03 am

magz wrote:
kdm1984 wrote:
Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

Okay, what if I'm sure my husband's opinion is wrong and would lead to a catastrophic outcome?
Should I submit anyway?
What if my husband's actions were abusive?
Should I not confront him?


In the former situation, you'd want an intermediary. In the church, that would be an elder or pastor, and you two could bring your concerns to them. The NT church followed a hierarchy of authority in that way.

As for abusiveness, same thing: that would need to be dealt with by an outside party. Confronting someone about abuse would probably lead the person to be even more abusive, so you need a more objective source to address the situation.

It's important to remember to interpret the submission passage in light of the larger Biblical contexts about authority and righteous living. In the NT, Paul describes how charges against an elder could be filed. If they were found to be true, that elder would get removed. Such a situation happened in a previous church I attended where one of the elders divorced his wife on Biblically groundless notions and committed adultery with another woman. He was given a chance to repent and change his ways, and when he didn't, the church completely removed him.


_________________
34 yr old female; dx age 29. Level 2 Aspie.


magz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,024
Location: Poland

16 May 2019, 10:27 am

Okay, let's leave the abuse case for a moment and focus on possibly wrong decision:

If my husband has a terrible idea that I expect to end up in a catastrophe, am I supposed to go to a pastor to make him talk with my husband before trying to persuade him myself?


_________________
Ailurophrenia. Meow.
Giving up my attempts to become a proper human.


kdm1984
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 31 May 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 408
Location: SW MO, USA

16 May 2019, 10:49 am

Well you can try to persuade him yourself first based on the Matthew 18:15 principle. If that doesn't work, and you're indeed very convinced his decision has very catastrophic implications and ramifications, then you would go to the church. Everyone, including men, is subject to the church authorities. He wouldn't be able to cite the marriage submission passage if the pastor tells him he's wrong, because then he is also disobeying the church authority, who has a higher position than him.


_________________
34 yr old female; dx age 29. Level 2 Aspie.


magz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,024
Location: Poland

16 May 2019, 10:56 am

Whew! So I can talk to my husband when I disagree to him. Maybe even point out his fault if I hope he would listen, based on Matthew 18:15.
Okay, not as bad as I was afraid ;)


_________________
Ailurophrenia. Meow.
Giving up my attempts to become a proper human.


Twilightprincess
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,919

16 May 2019, 11:11 am

If there’s any abuse, one should use common sense and leave without waiting for a (most likely ignorant and uneducated) group of men to give him or her the permission to do so.

There are real, educated professionals out there that have the resources to help people in these situations.



magz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,024
Location: Poland

16 May 2019, 11:58 am

I've never been actually abused in my marriage - but there were times when I needed to say things like 'you crossed the line' or 'couldn't you have asked me before?'
Fortunately, we are able to talk that kind of things over between ourselves.


_________________
Ailurophrenia. Meow.
Giving up my attempts to become a proper human.


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,671
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

16 May 2019, 1:58 pm

Ok, kdm1984, I've got some remarks on what Twilight has been saying and her objections. Part of it is perfectly understandable given her experience. So this isn't about her being wrong necessarily, but I think it would be a mistake to completely disregard and invalidate what she's said.

Twilightprincess wrote:
Having been in a submissive marriage as a Christian wife, I have had the opposite experience. It was degrading, demeaning, offensive, and...I’m running out of negative adjectives. I need to drink more coffee!

There's an underlying assumption that "submission" necessarily means abuse. Logically, one can conceivably "submit" willingly based on a Biblical definition of submission. The Biblical model for marriage is basically that the husband is the spokesman or representative of his family and, in turn, is God's representative in the home. It's a spiritual role that's in view here. That doesn't mean he has license to ignore the needs of his family. Doesn't mean he wields absolute power. I see my wife as someone who has strengths I lack, and I often defer to her judgment for most family issues. The last BIG fight we had, which wasn't really a fight since it was one-sided... We'd had some money problems for a while when I made a unilateral decision on how money was to be handled from that point forward. We had a good start, but then she made some mistakes and HID what happened from me until things got out of hand. She knew I was going to yell at her. And I did. And that was a sort of turning point when she actually could see in tangible terms I was right. We were 100% on the same page after that, and you really wouldn't know we were the same couple now vs. then.

What's most important to remember here is I have no power whatsoever in our marriage that she doesn't give me. She could have done whatever she wanted without my "permission." She doesn't need my permission. But WILLINGLY put me in the position that I'm in. She ALLOWS me to say "no," to make firm decisions, to hold her accountable as she holds me accountable. I think what's really meant by submission is a respect for position as the authority in the house, the willingness LET a husband lead and follow in that. While I stand in as God in my home, I'm NOT God. I'm not all-knowing. I'm not all-powerful. My wife can see more and do more than I can by myself. So while she makes me assume the leadership roll in our home, I almost never make a decision without going to her first.

Under Biblical submission, similar to how things work in BDSM circles, one must wonder who wields REAL power in the home. Is it really the husband, who must rely on and trust his wife for good advice? Or is the wife really the power behind the throne? In normal relationships, like in work or in government, it's always the leader, the man or woman out front, who has to answer for why things go WRONG. At least publicly, subordinates are shielded from the embarrassment of their mistakes. But when things go RIGHT, it's always subordinates who receive all the CREDIT. Nobody looks at the boss. A successful husband is one who keeps his wife in the spotlight and makes sure everyone knows what she accomplished. A successful father is one who ensures the progress of his children and highlights their abilities above his own. A successful teacher is one who builds up his students. A successful leader is one who is concerned primarily with the achievement of his team. I mentioned BDSM--activities that stretch human tolerance for pain are inherently dangerous, and it's necessary to have a means to "tap out." Safe words. A sub who can end something with a word has a tremendous amount of power that the dom is compelled to obey. While I'm not personally into sexual kinks or role-play, especially BSDM, it's hard to ignore rules of power being played out. If a woman has the ability to command in a submissive role, imagine the implications for relational and family dynamics.

And I do believe that's what Biblical teachings regarding husband/wife relations mean.

When you see negative effects from submission being played out in marriage, I believe it's because Biblical teachings about submission are being taught in non-objective terms. I believe submission was meant as objective. By objective, I do mean tangible, which you certainly get in abusive relationships. But by objective I also mean RATIONAL.

"You must submit to me because the Bible said so" is an appeal to authority, or something like that. It's fallacious, whatever it is. Is there a REASON why the Bible calls for submission? Is there a scriptural basis for a mutual definition of what submission is, or what it looks like? Is it reasonable? Is it livable? Does it accomplish some tangible purpose? For instance, how does one solve a 50/50 impasse? Is it reasonable to allow one of the partners to serve as a tie-breaker? See, I do believe that instructions for submission in the Bible are there for specific purposes to achieve mutually beneficial goals in relational contexts. In church meetings, some "rules" are there for the sake of maintaining order in worship services, and some social/cultural conventions may make some of these "rules" irrelevant, as can be cited about a large swath of Old Testament laws.

What happened to Christianity over the millennia is it was used as a means of maintaining political control. So buzzwords like "submission" were used to enforce stability by making people feel guilt and fear. And if there's anything I hate more than wishful thinking, it's guilt and fear. If I have violated my principles and caused harm to someone, I have REASON to feel guilty. If my actions are leading to my own harm, or if my life is in danger, I have REASON to feel fear. So when it comes to one person controlling another person, I want to know one thing: Where in the New Testament did Christ teach that our primary motivations were to be fear and guilt? It seems to me when I read the gospels that Jesus is concerned with erasing guilt. So if believers are saved, why should anyone else make us feel guilty? If we have nothing to fear, why would we allow someone else, another human being, to make us fearful? It doesn't make sense. The conclusion I take from this is if taking a willingly submissive role to a husband causes guilt, fear, or distress, then something is wrong. Whoever is assuming the dominant role is doing so in an unscriptural context. Any man, or husband, who exploits calls for submission in order to achieve selfish goals at the expense of another person's agency is an unbelieving parasite. If he truly wants to be a Christian, if he wants to claim that he is saved, then he needs to examine whether he really is a believer. If he's only acting out what he's been taught or what he grew up with, as often happens, then he needs to examine whether he is rational in his actions or if he is delusional. Appeals to tradition or upbringing are all lumped in there with red herrings. Without a REASON for faith or action, behavior is pointless. It's animalistic. It's mindless and dead. Sure the Bible calls for submissive wives. But the Bible also calls for ALL believers to love the Lord with "all your mind." Yelling out "Woman, SUBMIT" JUST BECAUSE it appears once or twice in the New Testament (or however many times...it doesn't appear that often)? Explain to me how you are loving God with all your mind by doing that? You're a parasite making unreasoned demands pulled from a false gospel of guilt. And if you're invoking God to make a case for submission for the sake of your own personal greed, then you are guilty of violating the 10 Commandments (do not misuse the Name).

I do believe that ACTUAL Christ-like behavior is affirming. No, I do NOT believe in wishful thinking. I do not believe in prosperity gospel. I do not believe that EVERYONE is worthy of affirmation. I believe that what the Bible labels as sins REALLY ARE sins. I can't affirm those things, nor people who consciously do those things. But I see it as pointless to emphasize personal guilt as a driving force for the believer. The unbeliever, maybe, who is in NEED of salvation, who DOES have guilt. But beyond true saving grace there is no guilt. If there is, it's either a desire to draw closer to God and to unite with fellow believers, or it's an indication that one is not saved. I do think a lot of believers have been deceived into thinking one of two extremes in Christian faith: 1. You must do what I say because if you don't, you're going to hell. 2. It doesn't matter what you do; you're saved, so just do anything/everything that makes you happy! For 1, that's simply untrue and is being uttered by someone who wants to control you with no benefit coming back to you. For 2, salvation means correcting course. We're not going to be 100% perfect. But we don't get to heaven simply by wishing it to be so (getting to heaven is simple. But the way there is not by wishing upon a star).

So in conclusion here, you don't want to be in a submissive role in a marriage "just because" when you're at risk of abuse. But imagining that you will always be in perfect agreement in marriage, that you can both affirm each other to "just do whatever" and still call it a functional marriage is just wishful thinking. For the integrity of the relationship and the mutual benefit of BOTH partners TOGETHER, sooner or later SOMEONE is going to say NO to something. Being told "no" is going to hurt feelings. Being right risks a night on the couch. I don't think a relationship in which the prospective husband feels worried his wife won't have his back, even if she disagrees with him on something, is a safe relationship for a man to be in. A woman who loves a man would hopefully want to stay on the same page with him, and the real challenge any man has is finding a woman like that. Hopefully she is smart and he feels secure taking advice from her. Figure that out and "submissive" directives are NOT going to be an issue.

Twilightprincess wrote:
I wouldn’t be against a marriage based on equality, but I don’t think that a piece of paper necessarily has a whole lot to do with love.

Well...what IS equality, exactly? Most people I'm aware of at least pay lip service to equality being literally just that: equal opportunity, equal access, equal value... Nothing wrong with that. But what a lot of people actually MEAN by equality is rooted more in resentment or envy. You have something I do not, therefore I feel unequal to you. There's no regard for achievement. People ARE created equal. People BECOME unequal when you look at actual ACHIEVEMENT. I EARNED a master's degree from a university. My wife earned a bachelor's degree from a different university. Does our differences in education make us unequal? Well, depends on what sense you mean in terms of equality. I AM her superior in educational and credentialed terms. I have greater income potential in the education field where we both work--her as a teaching assistant and I as an actual licensed educator. However, she is my superior in terms of ACTUAL income: She's employed full time AND operates an on-site after-hours daycare. I only teach three periods a day, though I have another part-time job besides this one. And because I have a few freelance gigs besides those two jobs, we're right about equal in income. I COULD take a full-time job and quit my other part time and make $10k more than her. We are NOT equals in that regard; however, that is not based on our worth as human beings. It's not based on sexual organs, either. It has to do with past educational achievements and work experience, and I've worked in education longer than she has. But could I do what she does with small children ever afternoon? Noooooo...and I won't dare set foot in a pre-K learning center. I just won't. That's not my strength. But she does this every day. In that respect, she is my superior. I'm ok with that. And she's better than me at a ton of other things. So I encourage her and help her advance in those directions every way I can, even trying to convince her to go back to school to open up more possibilities for her.

I don't resent her for being smarter than me. I don't resent her for making better decisions than I could by myself. I don't resent her for making more money than I do. And she doesn't resent me for all the things I can do better than her. We love each other just the same regardless. It's even a positive thing for us, while she has strengths I lack and I have strengths she lacks. We're perfect for each other. I believe that complementarianism addresses the fact that all humans are equal despite all humans being different and unique, and therefore it's important to reward each and every person for actual achievement and what they can bring to a relationship.

Twilightprincess wrote:
The Bible is a misogynistic handbook. There’s no reason why women can’t achieve the same things men have (unless it’s being able to hit targets with their pee).
[/quote]
Yeah...and I realize a lot of this comes from a place of negative experience and pain. It's not my purpose to invalidate that, so it's pretty tough to try to argue anything differently. The Bible is a lot of things, and no doubt that instructions WRT submissiveness have been twisted to an unscriptural effect. But in looking at the Bible in the greater context, is abuse of women something Jesus actively taught in the gospels? What evidence is there that women are beneath men in every sense? What evidence from the gospels is there that men ought to keep women underfoot? If there are no such instructions from the gospels, is a misogynist really a Christian believer? If he calls himself a believer and doesn't abide by Jesus's teachings, is he really a believer? This is not a "no-true-Scotsman" argument. The question is about identity and what makes someone a believer. How is that defined? What does that look like? A lot of times people will move the goalposts on what a Christian is or isn't, so for me this is quite simple. If one believes in Jesus as Savior and follows His commands, certain behavior is to be expected. If that behavior is not forthcoming, or the opposite behavior is observed, then evidence shows the person making faith claims living inconsistently with his own words. That indicates he is lying. Can a misogynist use the Bible as a handbook? Maybe. Is the intended purpose of the Bible to provide a blueprint for misogynists? No, unless you mean a blueprint for repentance and treating women with dignity and respect. With love and kindness. I don't doubt that you've experienced pain. I'm sorry that happened. That is not what the Bible is about. That's not what Jesus is about. That's not what the church is about.

You have to make up your own mind and draw your own conclusions. I do hope that one day you'll view it all positively. We're not all like that.



kdm1984
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 31 May 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 408
Location: SW MO, USA

16 May 2019, 2:10 pm

@AngelRho nice thorough reply. Husband and I agreed it would be best for me not to engage Twilightprincess further because of our completely different backgrounds and ways of viewing things, so I put her on the foe list to avoid further confrontation and derailing of this thread. I appreciate that you are trying to build a bridge. Many of your points make sense.

To go back to the original topic, I still defend marriage when both men and women are fulfilling their roles properly. As I explained to another poster in this thread, obviously abuse and other disagreements should be taken to higher authorities when they get out of hand and the woman has good grounds on which to establish the husband is likely abusing the submission principle. Those passages, along with any others, must be viewed in light of other contextual verses/passages, including the husband submitting to higher authorities (particularly the church elders and especially God, who commanded that husbands love wives).


_________________
34 yr old female; dx age 29. Level 2 Aspie.


Twilightprincess
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,919

16 May 2019, 2:15 pm

AngelRho wrote:
Ok, kdm1984, I've got some remarks on what Twilight has been saying and her objections. Part of it is perfectly understandable given her experience. So this isn't about her being wrong necessarily, but I think it would be a mistake to completely disregard and invalidate what she's said.

Twilightprincess wrote:
Having been in a submissive marriage as a Christian wife, I have had the opposite experience. It was degrading, demeaning, offensive, and...I’m running out of negative adjectives. I need to drink more coffee!

There's an underlying assumption that "submission" necessarily means abuse. Logically, one can conceivably "submit" willingly based on a Biblical definition of submission. The Biblical model for marriage is basically that the husband is the spokesman or representative of his family and, in turn, is God's representative in the home. It's a spiritual role that's in view here. That doesn't mean he has license to ignore the needs of his family. Doesn't mean he wields absolute power. I see my wife as someone who has strengths I lack, and I often defer to her judgment for most family issues. The last BIG fight we had, which wasn't really a fight since it was one-sided... We'd had some money problems for a while when I made a unilateral decision on how money was to be handled from that point forward. We had a good start, but then she made some mistakes and HID what happened from me until things got out of hand. She knew I was going to yell at her. And I did. And that was a sort of turning point when she actually could see in tangible terms I was right. We were 100% on the same page after that, and you really wouldn't know we were the same couple now vs. then.

What's most important to remember here is I have no power whatsoever in our marriage that she doesn't give me. She could have done whatever she wanted without my "permission." She doesn't need my permission. But WILLINGLY put me in the position that I'm in. She ALLOWS me to say "no," to make firm decisions, to hold her accountable as she holds me accountable. I think what's really meant by submission is a respect for position as the authority in the house, the willingness LET a husband lead and follow in that. While I stand in as God in my home, I'm NOT God. I'm not all-knowing. I'm not all-powerful. My wife can see more and do more than I can by myself. So while she makes me assume the leadership roll in our home, I almost never make a decision without going to her first.

Under Biblical submission, similar to how things work in BDSM circles, one must wonder who wields REAL power in the home. Is it really the husband, who must rely on and trust his wife for good advice? Or is the wife really the power behind the throne? In normal relationships, like in work or in government, it's always the leader, the man or woman out front, who has to answer for why things go WRONG. At least publicly, subordinates are shielded from the embarrassment of their mistakes. But when things go RIGHT, it's always subordinates who receive all the CREDIT. Nobody looks at the boss. A successful husband is one who keeps his wife in the spotlight and makes sure everyone knows what she accomplished. A successful father is one who ensures the progress of his children and highlights their abilities above his own. A successful teacher is one who builds up his students. A successful leader is one who is concerned primarily with the achievement of his team. I mentioned BDSM--activities that stretch human tolerance for pain are inherently dangerous, and it's necessary to have a means to "tap out." Safe words. A sub who can end something with a word has a tremendous amount of power that the dom is compelled to obey. While I'm not personally into sexual kinks or role-play, especially BSDM, it's hard to ignore rules of power being played out. If a woman has the ability to command in a submissive role, imagine the implications for relational and family dynamics.

And I do believe that's what Biblical teachings regarding husband/wife relations mean.

When you see negative effects from submission being played out in marriage, I believe it's because Biblical teachings about submission are being taught in non-objective terms. I believe submission was meant as objective. By objective, I do mean tangible, which you certainly get in abusive relationships. But by objective I also mean RATIONAL.

"You must submit to me because the Bible said so" is an appeal to authority, or something like that. It's fallacious, whatever it is. Is there a REASON why the Bible calls for submission? Is there a scriptural basis for a mutual definition of what submission is, or what it looks like? Is it reasonable? Is it livable? Does it accomplish some tangible purpose? For instance, how does one solve a 50/50 impasse? Is it reasonable to allow one of the partners to serve as a tie-breaker? See, I do believe that instructions for submission in the Bible are there for specific purposes to achieve mutually beneficial goals in relational contexts. In church meetings, some "rules" are there for the sake of maintaining order in worship services, and some social/cultural conventions may make some of these "rules" irrelevant, as can be cited about a large swath of Old Testament laws.

What happened to Christianity over the millennia is it was used as a means of maintaining political control. So buzzwords like "submission" were used to enforce stability by making people feel guilt and fear. And if there's anything I hate more than wishful thinking, it's guilt and fear. If I have violated my principles and caused harm to someone, I have REASON to feel guilty. If my actions are leading to my own harm, or if my life is in danger, I have REASON to feel fear. So when it comes to one person controlling another person, I want to know one thing: Where in the New Testament did Christ teach that our primary motivations were to be fear and guilt? It seems to me when I read the gospels that Jesus is concerned with erasing guilt. So if believers are saved, why should anyone else make us feel guilty? If we have nothing to fear, why would we allow someone else, another human being, to make us fearful? It doesn't make sense. The conclusion I take from this is if taking a willingly submissive role to a husband causes guilt, fear, or distress, then something is wrong. Whoever is assuming the dominant role is doing so in an unscriptural context. Any man, or husband, who exploits calls for submission in order to achieve selfish goals at the expense of another person's agency is an unbelieving parasite. If he truly wants to be a Christian, if he wants to claim that he is saved, then he needs to examine whether he really is a believer. If he's only acting out what he's been taught or what he grew up with, as often happens, then he needs to examine whether he is rational in his actions or if he is delusional. Appeals to tradition or upbringing are all lumped in there with red herrings. Without a REASON for faith or action, behavior is pointless. It's animalistic. It's mindless and dead. Sure the Bible calls for submissive wives. But the Bible also calls for ALL believers to love the Lord with "all your mind." Yelling out "Woman, SUBMIT" JUST BECAUSE it appears once or twice in the New Testament (or however many times...it doesn't appear that often)? Explain to me how you are loving God with all your mind by doing that? You're a parasite making unreasoned demands pulled from a false gospel of guilt. And if you're invoking God to make a case for submission for the sake of your own personal greed, then you are guilty of violating the 10 Commandments (do not misuse the Name).

I do believe that ACTUAL Christ-like behavior is affirming. No, I do NOT believe in wishful thinking. I do not believe in prosperity gospel. I do not believe that EVERYONE is worthy of affirmation. I believe that what the Bible labels as sins REALLY ARE sins. I can't affirm those things, nor people who consciously do those things. But I see it as pointless to emphasize personal guilt as a driving force for the believer. The unbeliever, maybe, who is in NEED of salvation, who DOES have guilt. But beyond true saving grace there is no guilt. If there is, it's either a desire to draw closer to God and to unite with fellow believers, or it's an indication that one is not saved. I do think a lot of believers have been deceived into thinking one of two extremes in Christian faith: 1. You must do what I say because if you don't, you're going to hell. 2. It doesn't matter what you do; you're saved, so just do anything/everything that makes you happy! For 1, that's simply untrue and is being uttered by someone who wants to control you with no benefit coming back to you. For 2, salvation means correcting course. We're not going to be 100% perfect. But we don't get to heaven simply by wishing it to be so (getting to heaven is simple. But the way there is not by wishing upon a star).

So in conclusion here, you don't want to be in a submissive role in a marriage "just because" when you're at risk of abuse. But imagining that you will always be in perfect agreement in marriage, that you can both affirm each other to "just do whatever" and still call it a functional marriage is just wishful thinking. For the integrity of the relationship and the mutual benefit of BOTH partners TOGETHER, sooner or later SOMEONE is going to say NO to something. Being told "no" is going to hurt feelings. Being right risks a night on the couch. I don't think a relationship in which the prospective husband feels worried his wife won't have his back, even if she disagrees with him on something, is a safe relationship for a man to be in. A woman who loves a man would hopefully want to stay on the same page with him, and the real challenge any man has is finding a woman like that. Hopefully she is smart and he feels secure taking advice from her. Figure that out and "submissive" directives are NOT going to be an issue.

Twilightprincess wrote:
I wouldn’t be against a marriage based on equality, but I don’t think that a piece of paper necessarily has a whole lot to do with love.

Well...what IS equality, exactly? Most people I'm aware of at least pay lip service to equality being literally just that: equal opportunity, equal access, equal value... Nothing wrong with that. But what a lot of people actually MEAN by equality is rooted more in resentment or envy. You have something I do not, therefore I feel unequal to you. There's no regard for achievement. People ARE created equal. People BECOME unequal when you look at actual ACHIEVEMENT. I EARNED a master's degree from a university. My wife earned a bachelor's degree from a different university. Does our differences in education make us unequal? Well, depends on what sense you mean in terms of equality. I AM her superior in educational and credentialed terms. I have greater income potential in the education field where we both work--her as a teaching assistant and I as an actual licensed educator. However, she is my superior in terms of ACTUAL income: She's employed full time AND operates an on-site after-hours daycare. I only teach three periods a day, though I have another part-time job besides this one. And because I have a few freelance gigs besides those two jobs, we're right about equal in income. I COULD take a full-time job and quit my other part time and make $10k more than her. We are NOT equals in that regard; however, that is not based on our worth as human beings. It's not based on sexual organs, either. It has to do with past educational achievements and work experience, and I've worked in education longer than she has. But could I do what she does with small children ever afternoon? Noooooo...and I won't dare set foot in a pre-K learning center. I just won't. That's not my strength. But she does this every day. In that respect, she is my superior. I'm ok with that. And she's better than me at a ton of other things. So I encourage her and help her advance in those directions every way I can, even trying to convince her to go back to school to open up more possibilities for her.

I don't resent her for being smarter than me. I don't resent her for making better decisions than I could by myself. I don't resent her for making more money than I do. And she doesn't resent me for all the things I can do better than her. We love each other just the same regardless. It's even a positive thing for us, while she has strengths I lack and I have strengths she lacks. We're perfect for each other. I believe that complementarianism addresses the fact that all humans are equal despite all humans being different and unique, and therefore it's important to reward each and every person for actual achievement and what they can bring to a relationship.

Twilightprincess wrote:
The Bible is a misogynistic handbook. There’s no reason why women can’t achieve the same things men have (unless it’s being able to hit targets with their pee).

Yeah...and I realize a lot of this comes from a place of negative experience and pain. It's not my purpose to invalidate that, so it's pretty tough to try to argue anything differently. The Bible is a lot of things, and no doubt that instructions WRT submissiveness have been twisted to an unscriptural effect. But in looking at the Bible in the greater context, is abuse of women something Jesus actively taught in the gospels? What evidence is there that women are beneath men in every sense? What evidence from the gospels is there that men ought to keep women underfoot? If there are no such instructions from the gospels, is a misogynist really a Christian believer? If he calls himself a believer and doesn't abide by Jesus's teachings, is he really a believer? This is not a "no-true-Scotsman" argument. The question is about identity and what makes someone a believer. How is that defined? What does that look like? A lot of times people will move the goalposts on what a Christian is or isn't, so for me this is quite simple. If one believes in Jesus as Savior and follows His commands, certain behavior is to be expected. If that behavior is not forthcoming, or the opposite behavior is observed, then evidence shows the person making faith claims living inconsistently with his own words. That indicates he is lying. Can a misogynist use the Bible as a handbook? Maybe. Is the intended purpose of the Bible to provide a blueprint for misogynists? No, unless you mean a blueprint for repentance and treating women with dignity and respect. With love and kindness. I don't doubt that you've experienced pain. I'm sorry that happened. That is not what the Bible is about. That's not what Jesus is about. That's not what the church is about.

You have to make up your own mind and draw your own conclusions. I do hope that one day you'll view it all positively. We're not all like that.[/quote]

Having read the Bible in its entirety multiple times, I have formed my own conclusions based upon the evidence at hand.

Deuteronomy 22:23, 24 tells us that a woman is to be stoned to death if she doesn’t scream while being raped.

God increased Eve’s birth pains for eating a piece of fruit (I hope it was delicious) (Genesis 3:16)

Woman are told to be silent in church. (1 Corinthians 14:34)

Christ is the head of man and man is the head of woman (1 Corinthians 11:3)

“Wives be in subjection to your husbands in all things.” (Ephesians 5:22)

None of Christ’s apostles were women

God impregnating Mary against her consent could be viewed as rape

Nowhere in the Bible does God or Jesus speak out about the deplorable conditions women are living under, so it apparently doesn’t bother them a whole lot which isn’t a surprise considering there are scriptures encouraging parents to beat their kids with rods. (Proverbs 23:13)

The Bible says that the only grounds for divorce is adultery. (Matthew 19:9)

The list could go on and on.

Apart from all the inherent misogyny in the Bible, I still couldn’t be a Christian. It’s just not for me. Liberal Christianity is fine. I just don’t like it when religion limits people in some way.



Last edited by Twilightprincess on 16 May 2019, 3:09 pm, edited 4 times in total.

BlueIris24
Raven
Raven

Joined: 18 Jan 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 112
Location: USA

16 May 2019, 2:19 pm

Marriage is an abstract concept and it means different things to different people. I'm not a religious person, so I don't subscribe to the Christian view on marriage (which can be pretty subjective too depending on your interpretations of the Bible). I think if people want to base their marriage on Biblical teachings, so be it. I do have a problem though with religion mixing with law.