Reply to “Wives submit to your husbands”

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "“Wives submit to your husbands”"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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?[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]
dp.. after 40+ years of going to church, listening to sermons, reading the Bible, books about the Bible, and studying with pastors, I've come to the conclusion that the men who dictated that the Bible is "inspired by God" were men from a time period that treated women as second class citizens because that's the way the culture was, and they didn't want to upset the culture.  Jesus tried that, and the Pharisees didn't like it.

Someone posted above, I believe a passage from Galations, where it was stated that in Heaven, there is no husband/wife relationship. That tells me that such relationships are not so important that bond transcends into heaven, which means that it's not all that important from a salvation stand point.

IMO, a lot of the "do's and don'ts" were written within the context of the culture of the time.

The Apostles, and Paul, may have been inspired by God, but they were not God; they were just men prone to influence and bias just like any other human being.

King David, Abraham, Moses... all were inspired by God but they too were not infallible.  Why would these men who put the Bible together be any less infallible?[/quote]

Ok. So you reject the NT epistles as authoritative (and perhaps also the Old Testament). Perfectly fine for you to do, but you are not an institutional Christian and you are arguing what?  That the every mainline Christian denomination is wrong to find teaching authority in the epistles?  [/quote]
I'm stating that Christians who don't look at the Bible in context of when it was written (and by whom despite how "inspired" it is by God) are missing the forest for the trees.

Saying that the Bible is infallible because the Bible says so is circular logic.  Any man can claim that what he says is inspired by God and then stick it in the Bible. That's how cults are made.

I don't disregard everything in the Bible. I just read it with a grain of salt, knowing that it was written in a time when slave owning was legal, and women were considered second class citizens, neither of which we approve of today (though I'm sure some people would love to go back to that).

Or, are you saying that owning slaves is fine? Because the Bible states for "Slaves to obey your masters".  [/quote]

Any faith is going to be circular. That is precisely what makes it a faith!   If you outright reject it as a faith or are only viewing it as persuasive philosophy, ok, great.

But then the whole thing collapses on itself.  Including whatever parts you like. Poverty in the time of Jesus meant something completely different than it does today. I suppose that one could thus read the Sermon on the Mount and the beatitudes “with a grain of salt”  and dismiss those, right?

I do not read the Bible as saying chattel slavery is fine. [/quote]
There are two truths in the Bible that we are to follow: "Love God with all your heart, your mind, your soul", and "Love your neighbor".  That's all encompassing, IMO. The epistles were letters instructing members of the early church on how to conduct themselves  based on Jesus' teachings and within their culture of that time.

The Beatitudes support those two truths above and are blessings for those who suffer for their faith.

I'm not saying none of this applies to us today, but they should be read with the lens of the time.

The passage "slaves obey your master" as written is tacit support of slavery. So, are you saying that slavery is ok?  Is non chattel slavery fine, then?

No, slavery is not fine, and no actual Christian would say that it is, but back then, it was acceptable.

Times and culture change, though Jesus' message does not.  But, His message had nothing to do with wives obeying their husbands. [/quote]

Biblical slavery was different from chattel slavery of the west….  There is a very fine point to be made here, but this is not the convo for it.

Jesus was shockingly unconcerned with the political affairs of man. He was ultimately rejected as messiah for it and eventually crucified for it.

Jesus also said that we should render unto Cesar what is Cesar’s. Was that tacit approval of dictatorial egomaniacal emperors?  Of course not!  So, I think you are playing a dangerous game when you (or the historical church) suggest that Biblical orders of obedience and care within the context of [empires/slavery] is a tacit approval of [empire/slavery] (or anything else)[b]. I think the most any of us can say is that is was an order to submit to any given station in life[/b] (or perhaps that liberation from oppression was not Jesus’s mission).

Yes, Jesus said that to love God and your neighbor were the two greatest commandments. But He did not say they were the only commandments. And He also said immediately thereafter that the whole law and prophets build off the foundation of the two great commandments.

That suggests to me that the two great commandments build a foundation for more. Not that it stops with the timelessness of the two great commandments. Which is what I think you are saying.

But if it is a foundation for more (the law and the prophets) what is that more? [/quote]
I always find this logic perplexing.

Those letters tell people to obey their masters and their leaders. Does that mean that Hitler should've been obeyed and submit to him?

Jesus didn't care about worldly possessions, so when He said "give to Cesar's what is Cesar's", it was in the context of someone asking Him what he thought about paying taxes to the Roman empire.  His response: I don't really care, do you?

Again, it wasn't Jesus who said for "wives to submit to their husbands" or "slaves obey your masters".  That was Paul, and the reality of the time when slavery was part of the culture.  The reality of that time also had women as second class citizens.

But,  people twist the words in the Bible and don't read it in context.  Just as slave owners used that verse to justify owning slaves, so to do some use the  "wives to submit to their husbands"  to subjugate women. That is not what Christ taught.[/quote]

maybe throw away your Bible and use common sense?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics