Anonymous wrote: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.
Let's be honest... too many husbands don't do that, but many are quick to point out the first half of the verse of "wives submit to your husbands".
-Christian
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?
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 wrote:Anonymous wrote:It sounds like the church I grew up in - LDS. It's the reason I left. I wish it would change as the church gave me a mostly lovely childhood, and I wish I could give some of that to my kids, but I can't do it anymore. How can I run a successful business and sit on boards, but at church, my role is to submit? I also have a daughter to consider.
Lady, you're supposed to "submit to each other." It's not a one way passage. Does no one read the 5:21 line?
Anonymous wrote:It sounds like the church I grew up in - LDS. It's the reason I left. I wish it would change as the church gave me a mostly lovely childhood, and I wish I could give some of that to my kids, but I can't do it anymore. How can I run a successful business and sit on boards, but at church, my role is to submit? I also have a daughter to consider.
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.
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.
Anonymous wrote:I had a Catholic wedding to make some older people in my life happy. I didn't take any of the religious stuff to heart (I'm an agnostic), and maybe this couple didn't either.
Anonymous wrote:PP again. Here is the whole verse:
Ephesians 5:22-33 NKJV. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
Anonymous wrote:I had a Catholic wedding to make some older people in my life happy. I didn't take any of the religious stuff to heart (I'm an agnostic), and maybe this couple didn't either.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
NP
I understand it. I just don't agree with it.
It’s not like your view is valid.
Anonymous wrote:The world absolutely runs better when women are submissive
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.