“Wives submit to your husbands”

[Anonymous]

Blame the Mormons and their whole "trad wife" propaganda. Everyone should be aware that the vast majority of "influencers" you see on the internet are part of the Mormon propaganda machine. Even the tv show depicting Mormon cool moms are part of the propaganda machine. They are trying to recruit you, sweetie pies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

This.
You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

[Anonymous]

There is so much sexual and other abuse in ultraconservative Christian communities. It's not a coincidence. Doesn't mean liberal men don't ever abuse their wives, but there is a clear pattern of "Christian" leaders participating and promoting the abuse of women and children.

https://childusa.org/the-darkness-within-reflecting-on-shiny-happy-people-and-the-connection-between-extreme-religious-groups-and-child-sexual-abuse/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We went to wedding this weekend where the main reading was “wives submit to your husbands”.

I fear for that bride.

In other news, non-Christians don't understand Christian marriage.

l

Not all Christian marriages are the same.

[Anonymous]

That’s the verse we chose for our wedding (including the second part about husbands giving their lives for their wife). We had a full Catholic Mass wedding.

Traditional gender roles have suited our family very well for twenty years. Others wouldn’t want that. I’m mildly surprised that someone is posting a thread about this, but given how polarized our world has become, I guess some have never come across this verse before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians clearly states that. Paul is not Jesus, obviously, so unless you’re a bible literalist (very few remaining), Paul’s pastoral letters aren’t relevant on this point. Also Paul allowed women to preach in church, so there’s that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians clearly states that. Paul is not Jesus, obviously, so unless you’re a bible literalist (very few remaining), Paul’s pastoral letters aren’t relevant on this point. Also Paul allowed women to preach in church, so there’s that.

DP, where is this coming from? What denomination are you a part of?

The New Testament epistles are almost universally* viewed as inspired by the Holy Spirit and authoritative teaching of God by Christians. I’ve never met any Christian belonging to a mainline denomination, whether liberal or conservative, that dismisses the NT epistles as non-authoritative.

*qualified only because I’m guessing there is some random sect that rejects the epistles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians clearly states that. Paul is not Jesus, obviously, so unless you’re a bible literalist (very few remaining), Paul’s pastoral letters aren’t relevant on this point. Also Paul allowed women to preach in church, so there’s that.

I'm sorry, where did you conclude I was a literalist or even believed the stuff. I am simply explaining the meaning behind the verse. How much of the Bible is Jesus words verbatim? Are you not supposed to follow Paul's teachings at all because he isn't Jesus?

[Anonymous]

As some others have pointed out, the rest of the verse says in no uncertain terms that husbands are supposed to serve their wives. A lot of non-Christians who criticize these verses don’t read the whole passage and do not appreciate what Paul is actually saying.

Also, one of the reasons that Christianity grew so much after the death of Christ was its appeal to women. It’s really important to keep in mind the cultural context of the Greco-Roman world, which was nothing at all like we have today. Women basically had zero legal rights and it was assumed that men could and should cheat on their wives and there was nothing that the woman could *really* do about it. Even if she could technically get a divorce, she couldn’t get a job. Men had all of the power and acted accordingly. Also, infanticide was very common back then especially for female babies and that was particularly heartbreaking for mothers.

Christians came along and said the complete opposite on all of these fronts — men and women are completely equal before Christ; that men should not cheat on their wives; that excessive lust is wrong; that female infanticide was wrong; that it is OK if women do not want to get married at all; and when women become widows it was the responsibility of the church to take care of them and provide for them — previously widows were not cared for at all and usually just left to wither away.

My point is this — we can fixate on this one line from Paul that is being taken out of context to argue that Christians are “anti-women” or you can look at the entire context of what was happening at the time and why Christianity was RADICALLY different — and why it was so appealing to women back then and for many women today as well.

[Anonymous]

I'm still surprised by how many people base their moral compass on Christianity and the Bible, considering it is make-believe. The construct of religion has historically reinforced the idea that men should hold authority while women must submit. While I value the importance of good parenting in raising children, claiming that women must stay home 100% of the time to achieve that is a complete straw man argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm still surprised by how many people base their moral compass on Christianity and the Bible, considering it is make-believe. The construct of religion has historically reinforced the idea that men should hold authority while women must submit. While I value the importance of good parenting in raising children, claiming that women must stay home 100% of the time to achieve that is a complete straw man argument.

Well just do like most modern Christians do then, and pick the good stuff you like to believe in and ignore the other stuff you don't like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm still surprised by how many people base their moral compass on Christianity and the Bible, considering it is make-believe. The construct of religion has historically reinforced the idea that men should hold authority while women must submit. While I value the importance of good parenting in raising children, claiming that women must stay home 100% of the time to achieve that is a complete straw man argument.

Why should that be surprising ? Western civilization's morals and laws are largely rooted in Christianity and the Bible, ( For eg., Ten Commandments, Golden Rule, the sanctity of life, and the importance of family structure directly stemming from biblical teachings, making it a substantial foundation for Western legal and ethical frameworks; however, it's important to acknowledge that other historical and philosophical influences also play a role in shaping Western morality and law.
Key points to consider:

Historical Impact:
Christianity was the dominant religion in most Western societies for centuries, deeply impacting the development of legal systems, social norms, and ethical values.

Specific Concepts:
Concepts like the prohibition of murder, adultery, theft, and the importance of charity are directly reflected in biblical teachings and have been incorporated into Western legal codes.

Common Law:
The English common law, which is the basis for many Western legal systems, is heavily influenced by Christian principles and biblical interpretation.

Beyond Christianity:
While Christianity has had a profound impact, it's crucial to recognize that Western morality and law also draw from Greek philosophy, Roman law, and secular ethics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As some others have pointed out, the rest of the verse says in no uncertain terms that husbands are supposed to serve their wives. A lot of non-Christians who criticize these verses don’t read the whole passage and do not appreciate what Paul is actually saying.

Also, one of the reasons that Christianity grew so much after the death of Christ was its appeal to women. It’s really important to keep in mind the cultural context of the Greco-Roman world, which was nothing at all like we have today. Women basically had zero legal rights and it was assumed that men could and should cheat on their wives and there was nothing that the woman could *really* do about it. Even if she could technically get a divorce, she couldn’t get a job. Men had all of the power and acted accordingly. Also, infanticide was very common back then especially for female babies and that was particularly heartbreaking for mothers.

Christians came along and said the complete opposite on all of these fronts — men and women are completely equal before Christ; that men should not cheat on their wives; that excessive lust is wrong; that female infanticide was wrong; that it is OK if women do not want to get married at all; and when women become widows it was the responsibility of the church to take care of them and provide for them — previously widows were not cared for at all and usually just left to wither away.

My point is this — we can fixate on this one line from Paul that is being taken out of context to argue that Christians are “anti-women” or you can look at the entire context of what was happening at the time and why Christianity was RADICALLY different — and why it was so appealing to women back then and for many women today as well.

This is a good post. Judaism ensures the place of women through passage of line via the mother. But Christianity is arguably the first feminist writing in western history, and it sets the stage many centuries later for first wave feminism.

Viewed through the light of current times, it may not live up to standard of the day. Nonetheless, a couple freely choosing to live a marriage within the Christian ethic is not some crazy idea.

Ejecting it is also fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The world absolutely runs better when women are submissive

The world would run better if more men were the Christlike leaders they were supposed to aspire to be, and therefore worth submitting to.

We've got a bunch of overgrown, entitled boys demanding submission when they can't lead themselves, let alone a wife and family. Pathetic!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

But if the husband is the spiritual leader, he is commanded to put his wife's needs above his own. So, she turns out just fine.

This part.