does bible state that? ...if yes then it must be stating something for husbands too...what if husband himself doesnot know what he it talking about?...if wife expected to obey husband even if husband is irresponsible?
With in the understanding of God by Truth, the husband and the wife are expected to be as one.
With that in mind only one Of the two could must be head,otherwise there would be constant disagreement in who gets their way.
Therefore Since the man is the picture of perfection and stability, it is up to him to assume the leadership role.
Women are generally very unstable , thus their kind of leadership will lead to more confusion.
And in keeping with his roleas leader, He is expected to love hos wife as himself.
A perfect unity as can be derived while still in the flesh.
Aren't you exactly saying what every religion in history has been saying? That man is superior, higher and more perfect than a woman and that the man can decide whatever in marriage. Sure, a man and a woman "can be one" but only when the woman submits to the man... seriously, look at what you've written...
Wow! I guess I don't know very many men then
Perfection is impossible dude, no man can claim perfection and as such is no picture of perfection and stability. Stability is not guaranteed in men and honestly I know more stable women then men!
I guess you don't know many women! Take any good single mom and you have a vision of stability, raising a kid and holding down a job and keeping on top of all bills and responsibilities alone, that takes serious stability. I have known so many men would couldn't function if it wasn't for their Mom's bailing them out of the messes they get into, the Moms couldn't do this if they weren't stable.
Welcome to reality
This sounds very wrong to me. Man is the picture of perfection? Really? Women are generally unstable? Wouldnt want to be you when the women here see this comment!
Those who pursue power and control over others will see any form of two-way communication and cooperation as getting in their way of getting their way. They also believe they are right even when they are wrong, and don't want to hear it.
The misogynist mindset, half-baked with religious ideals, will most certainly see themselves as ultimate superiority to any gender specific relationship. This is not relegated to just marital relationships, but is predominant in all aspects of society. And their god said it's all good.
Yes, a perfect unity, the master and his slave, in the flesh.
"Since the man is the picture of perfection and stability"
Please pardon my French, but WTF are you talking about? Nobody, male or female, is perfect, and neither sex has a legitimate claim to being more "stable" either. I know quite a few stable personalities from both sexes, and quite a few unstable ones from both too.
Furthermore, if you want a stable society, it is pretty well established at this point that you want women in positions of power and influence. A majority of non-profit organizations now working to create more stable societies by reducing poverty, promoting peace, supporting sustainable development, etc. are now working exclusively or almost exclusively with women and there's good reason for that. When women receive extra income, they are far more likely to reinvest it in the well being of their family than men, who are more likely to squander it on alcohol, gambling, or prostitution. (In part, I suspect, because they have been raised to think that women are inferior and therefore see no point in improving the life of their wives and daughters, only themselves.) Thanks to behavior like this, microfinance organizations such as the Grameen Bank give 90% or more of their loans to women in many countries, and organizations such as the Barefoot College no longer work with able-bodied adult men at all.
"Of the two could must be head,otherwise there would be constant disagreement in who gets their way."
I agree with Beezledad. You only see "constant disagreement" in reasonable discussions of differing opinion if you believe you're entitled to absolute authority over your spouse. That's not marriage, that's dictatorship. When two spouses genuinely respect each other and each other's opinions, they are able to sit down and work out a compromise 99% of the time. Sometimes it results in a true compromise, sometimes one spouse is convinced by the other's argument, or gives in because the other is more invested in the decision, sometimes there are agreed upon spheres of influence so one spouse has more say in certain types of decisions and the other has more say over others. Regardless, if a couple is genuinely unable to come to a mutually acceptable decision on a regular basis, maybe they need to get themselves new spouses.
If a man really loves his wife, he will always want to please her. He may be the head of the family, but still let her have what she wants when it makes sense.
Saying a woman is unstable compared to a man is quite the statement. I'm a woman and have found most women are the stable ones in many instances.
"Women are generally very unstable , thus their kind of leadership will lead to more confusion."
Yeah... beacause men's leadership through history has been so stable and peaceful, right?
"And in keeping with his roleas leader, He is expected to love hos wife as himself."
He's "expected to love hos"? Ouch, bad typo.
And by your own logic, if man is the image of perfection, then you must be a woman.
Actually it does. It says that a husband should serve his wife. He should love her as he loves himself. It also states that the wife is bound to submit to the husband as he submits to christ. This means that "technically" she is only bound by christian authority.
Neither would responsible if they allowed the bible to rule their lives.
they should obey and respect each other. Although I will be happy if I obey my husband as long as what he is saying or telling me to do is beneficial to our family and our relationship.
Yes, the bible does instruct wives to obey the husband, but it then goes on to instruct the husband,
"Love your wives just as Christ loved the church",
That measn being prepared to , if necessary, die for the protection of his wife. (Eph 5:22-26)
Marriaage is a two way street, but a ship must have one captain.
For the perfect wife see Proverbs 31:10-31.
What reason Bible provides for this expression?
same expression which allows woman to be softly beaten in quran...
Quran gives reasons and wisdom of its commandments; Bible does not.
Please quote from Bible, the reasons given by Jesus in this connection.
no book can reason out beating ....but why blame book...the authors of those times wrote as per what they thought was right...in current world not applicable...hit a woman and go to jail...simple law...
What did Jesus say about obeying the husbands by the women. Did Jesus give any good reason for it?
there is never good reason for something like this...the reasons written in gita or quran or veda or bible should be seen more in context of social structure of those eras than making it as timeless truths...that what makes people turn blind in faith...considering books written thousands of years ago as something which is timeless classic...yes there are certain things in all books which are timeless...like principals..but definition of wife or husband and who should obey whom etc are time bound things not timeless...it depends on social structure of era...
Please do not confuse the words or actions of Jesus with those of others. If you study his words and actions, you will see that he treated men and women equally. Say what you want about what anyone else might have said or done that was written down in this book, but this mentality can not be attributed to the words of Jesus.
I agree with you. Jesus was a man of the Creator-God; he treated men and women equally.
It is the sinful Paul, sinful Church and the sinful scribes whose mind seems to be at work when they change the teachings of Jesus in Bible.
husbands love your wives...
it's the root of all evil in marriage. husbands who obey their wives and wives who love their husbands (as in love them like a mother).
relax. it was written thousands of years ago way back when the survival of women depended largely on what their husbands say...there's a bandit, cover your face and your legs. we will wake up in the night and run and hide (but the children) do as I say woman or---(too late the guy got hit by an arrow)
...it even says to kill gays and oh so many other "crazy" things.
The imagined "god" of the bible is a genuine "nut."
Well... let me clarify that a bit more. Let's just say that NONE of the "non-Pauline" doctrines/gospels are like that. Only Paul's letters talk about women obeying men and this and that. But seeing how the majority of the NT is based off Apostle Paul's letters, the answer is yes. Let's just say Paul, not Jesus Christ, believed women were inferior to men.
Jesus Christ on the other hand was completely different. And, all too often people forget that Paul was simply a man, interpreting Christ's desires, wants, and commands. Thing is, Paul never knew Jesus, he never met him, and NEVER heard Christ speak nor read any of the Gospel's of Christ. Paul didn't even honor Christ's own religion, and Apostle Paul wasn't a fan of many of the disciples who were hand-picked by Christ himself. In fact Paul was on the road to Damascus, chasing down Jesus' biological brother James, the day that God blinded him and made him change his name from Saul to Paul.........
And not knowing Christ's own religion part, well that means he was clueless to the laws of Moses, clueless about King David, oblivious to the wisdom of King Solomon, and if someone would have handed Paul a copy of Job- he'd probably think it was a help wanted ad or something. Paul was a clueless idiot, when it came to the true Jesus.
There is SOOOOOOOOOOOO much untold history about Apostle Paul, which just isn't known. Most writings about Paul have it completely wrong about the guy. In fact, I'd call him a real, roman pig in real life, he was very judgmental, very prideful, and plus he wasn't Jewish. Didn't even know how to speak Hebrew, Coptic, or Aramaic. Which was important at that time, to understand the meaning behind Christ's words. And I mean the literal, translated meaning of a word. There are many words found in the Pauline epistles, where Paul has read a Greek translation of a Jewish text or something, in which some scribe translated the Hebrew or Coptic word into Greek wrong!
And, Paul didn't even have a clue who John the Baptist was, Jude Thomas, Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. I personally do not put any stock into what the Pauline doctrines say. Unfortunately that is a big portion of the NT to dismiss. But when I write that the NT is really a Canon featuring Jesus Christ as a star in the book, then it's safe to say that Paul's the NT biblical SUPERSTAR! Shoot, the whole of the Roman Catholic Church is based off the Pauline doctrines, and the crazed madness of Peter.
I find it even more interesting that in other "Jesus" documents and Gospels, like the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Mary- Christ is very much on the woman's side. His disciples, such as Jude even wrote in some of these gospels, of how Jesus felt that women held the true spiritual key to his religion, and how women were to be put before men, in some instances to be leaders of his new faith. However, a Christian world were men are dominant of course, would keep out such Gospels out of the Canon, and naturally they did. There were no women at the Council of Nicea, now were there? Nope, not a one. Thus we have male Christian priests molesting children, male popes, male bishops, and so on.......
The most ironic thing about Christianity of the 21st century is that NOT much of Christ is found in it.
Sorry but I think the fact that Christ selected, COUNT THEM, 12 men to teach and send out into the world makes a impressive point. I'm sure that it is unlikely that He couldn't find a women diligent, intelligent, or even equal enough to do the job.
I believe your point is completely invalid in this light as Jesus said He is the same God who spoke the words in Genesis and was following up in His word from the beginning.
(God speaking, a.k.a. - The Father, The SON, and the Holy Spirit)
16 To the woman he said,
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”
You do realize that, had you read the document alone, without the guidance of another the trinity is not the conclusion you would have come to. And if you had put the words into the perspective of the reality you know, you might have seen the symbolism and not mistaken it for history.
The Bible is an invaluable tool. It was not meant to be a weapon against anyone.
Nope. The husband has the foremost responsibility to behave in a Christian way as a husband should do.
I'm not gonna obey my husband if he's acting stupidly or irresponsibly or dangerously. And I don't know any woman who would.
Of course it states something for husbands too. Have you read that scripture, or not? It does not end there, and very few scriptures can be taken out of it's respective chapter and context and be worth the paper that they were printed on.
1 Cor. 11:3 – “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
What if woman has no husband..she has no head? Sounds like Paul to me. Jesus said nothing like this, but, I'm sure that if hubby wasn't such a !@#$%^& and showed proper respect, then wifey would have no problem obeying. It does tend to be a two way street, marriage, that is. Maybe that is a test to see how we would treat our mates!
I think that this should be compared to a ships captain.
Every ship can have but one captain. Can you imagine a naval vessel having a day captain that wants to head east and a night captain that heads west?
Whether the captain is male or female there can be but one successful battle plan going on.
Suppose that the man is the head of the house. It is also written that it is a wise man who can keep his wife happy, cause by making her happy he is in fact making his own life more bearable.
I paraphrased a bit, but it went something like that.
Somebody has got to have the veto power. I think that this is what those scripture was talking about.
I understand but the scripture was written by... men. That says enough I think.
And I am good with that. Women went about their own business. They ran their household, had businesses outside the home, made their own money. BUT ? The women did not tell the men how to take care of their business, and I think that the wise men as stated in my previous post, didn't interfere in their wife's business.
I think that the book of Ruth was written as an example as to how marriage was supposed to be.
As it is written, Women honor your husbands, .. a lot of men stop reading there. The next verse says Men honor your wives (or something like that)
Somebody has got to be leading, Somebody has got to be able to put their foot down when appropriate. Key word, appropriate,
ONLY , only, ... when necessary.
And in this modern age, sometimes that SHOULD be the woman.
I think equity is implied here. That who comes to equity should do so with clean hands. It is not fair for the life of a woman to be determined by an irresponsible man.
I agree. In a perfect world this might be accomplished.
The person that is best at managing money should manage it, regardless of gender.
I do agree with kiss that harmony in marriage in almost impossible in absolute equality.
When we come to an impasse, someone must have authority to break the stalemate in order to proceed in life's decisions. And as I said earlier. It is a wise "HEAD of Household" that can accomplich harmony in the home. or anywhere for that matter.
So, what happens when the wiser and brighter of the two is the woman?
Wouldn't that be a lesbian couple?
If woman will be brighter and wiser, she will be the leader .
Ahhh, but that's not bibical...
In any event, I don't buy this leader/follower thing.
It reminds me of transactional analysis - parent, child, and adult.
Adults can work things out between them. Only those that are still clinging desperately on to their issues have a strong need to be parents and/or chidren in appropriate situations...
Suppose that the man is the head of the house. It is also written that it is a wise man who can keep his wife happy, cause by making her happy he is in fact making his own life more bearable.
LOL If Mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy!
I like your explanation and analysis.
every women should submit to their husbands. they should respect and obey them even if the husbands abuse them, or beat them. they should suffer even disloyalty silently but still should love their husbands and should never question them. only by this they will be entitled for heaven or else they all will be damned
so spake the great religions
it is upto women whether to think rationally and take the yoke out or BELIEVE and do the men's bidding......
Any man who has had a pure heart towards a woman know this,,,
A woman never desires truth unless it acts in her personal benefit.
And it is also plain to see in life, only when the woman is submissive toward their husband that their relationship prosper, them and the entire family.
This is not limited to religion but was always beyond it, nevertheless they use this knowledge for their own benefit....
Cause a woman and religion are synonymous.
Kess, I have to say that there was a time I thought you might be somewhat enlightened..I've changed my view after reading this nonsensical answer. I have no idea what makes men fear the mind of a woman, but it is little more than fear that makes men feel the need to insist on superiority. It is possible to attain harmony when both members of a relationship are adult enough to understand that they need to listen to each other and bend when it is obvious that one has a better idea than the other, or is more capable of something than the other; without having to play some ridiculous game to stroke the ego of an insecure man.
I agree. Men generally dislike a bossy wife, even if she bosses over out of love. But generally, woman can submit to a man if she perceives love in her man. Women are more of emotional creatures. In moments of crisis, they are likely to take a wrong, emotionally surcharged decisions and then suffer emotionally more out of the consequence.
As you said, it is a sociological reality. Religions do contribute fairly well through their wisdom, to the general welfare of the society.
sociological reality must be presented as how we evolved ,rather than using god's name and promoting as divine...most men are irresponsible..i am not using many , i am using most which can be confirmed that 1 out of 7 go without two times meal ...malnourished children and all such stats..half of women in world are not healthy...this is what religion has given to them...instead women must be taught to avoid knee jerk reactions and become more and more independent...obeying men should be taken in context to era when books where written...not as divine and absolute truth...
My understanding is this: Women should obey & submit and Husbands are to do the same. This tells me a marriage is a contract of equality between a man and a woman, however, when it comes to dealing with someone outside of the marriage, men are to take the responsibility of ensuring the happiness of their wife. It's not the woman's job to ensure a mans happiness outside the home (only inside) but it's the mans job to ensure his wife is happy inside & outside the home - by taking charge of outside influences, situations, & circumstances.
@rafini and what is women in the marriage is more capable than her husband in taking charge both inside and outside?...what then?...
2000 years ago, when bible as supposedly written, men were considered superior beings to women. So, men did no wrong. And women were expected to obey them blindly.
The Bible is COMPLETELY relevant today, and they were NOT expected to blindly follow anyone. Christ said "seek"... Not Blindly Follow. You must use the ENTIRE Bible in order to understand God's instruction. Jesus also said to search the scriptures, (Matthew 5:39) meaning not to rely on one or two statements from it. And it also says men and women are equal... Not that men are superior. This whole discussion should be based on scripture if what the Bible says is the question. And I haven't really seen very many quotes at all, just a bunch of useless opinions with no base whatsoever, except "hearsay" from a bunch of ding dongs that didn't know what they were talking about. Everyone wants answers but no one wants to do the work to find them, and they will never find the truth if they don't try hard to find it.
Here's some examples of women doing God's work during the time of which you all condemn and obviously have not studied at all.
God sets roles no matter whether we see them as fair. God is the author of the book of life and can write and erase anything he deems necessary. Those that don't believe his ways are fair will have their chance to take it up with him once they pass away from this earth and face him personally.
God has set up the basic family unit so that the man is to be the head of the house hold and the spiritual leader of the family. It is the mans responsibility to adhear to the precepts laid out by God and the woman is to adhear to it in the same. If a man is not living by the laws of God then he is not a spiritual leader and has forefitted the rights of spiritual leader of the house, hence "many are called but few are chosen". No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood only by persuasion, by long suffering, gentleness, and meekness, and by love unfeigned, which will greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy and without guile.
That is not true women are very stable and man is not the picture of perfection
Many of you male do posses the feminine mindset, which can only relate to carnal things because spirituality is still beyond you.
That being so , You can never understand that it was intended from the beginning that the female was separated from the male in order that she would go astray.
And the beginning is the female going astray from her male.
And the end is the female uniting with her husband.
So we see one become two and then two becoming one.
Again we see the male is both the beginning and the end - perfect.
But then again the feminine must submit to the masculine to be able comprehend this.
Actually, what we males share with women are brains and the ability to spot control freaks who would use religious platitudes as a means to satisfy their ends.
Clearly, that is some impossible fantasy that is hardly distinguishable from egocentric power tripping and religious delusion.
Yes, of course, why have it any other way.
Justify those claims with an argument other than "because a book says so". Every argument should be able to stand on its own despite the sources.
As a side note, do you honestly think it is a coincidence that you feel men are perfect while coincidentaly happen to be male?
I always obey my husband...when he says:
Let's go out to dinner.
Let's go to the beach.
Let's go to the mountains.
You need to take it easy today.
Here, take this money.
Go buy yourself a new car, new clothes, shoes, etc.
Get another dog.
Other than these examples and ones like them, I'm not very obedient.
I believe that women and men are completely equal...you can not have one with out the other..therefore as a couple they should be as one...period...and after reading some of these posts I am embarrassed of how some of the modern men still think...
I obey my husband...sometimes. On everything but financial decisions, he has the final say. I'm the one that keeps track of the bills so I'm head there We both trust each other to have the others best interest in mind when making the decision. Just an example of a real relationship with trust, love and respect.
Who says women are unstable? Do they actually know how to have a grown up relationship?
women are unstable?????????...what a ridiculous statement...
I think in some situations any one can be unstable.
Kess said it and apparently thinks men are the picture of perfection and stability. Ok we need to stop laughing for a second, cause men ARE perfect and....excuse me a second
Ok can't keep a straight face, sorry. This is one of the many reasons I don't follow a religion. A book can not dictate what goes on in my relationship. People have to work it out themselves.
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 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. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
People misquote this verse frequently....
CHRIST FIRST DIED FOR THE CHURCH AND HUSBANDS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE SAME WAY INCLINED FOR THEIR FAMILY AND WIVES it is not supposed to be used as a beating stick or for anybody be over another, however to have a peaceful loving relationship where there is safety and love.
what is head of wife is irresponsible...then wife must not submit and take charge...right?
Yes. Or ask for God's help... which ever way you want to use it....
Simply, if my husband was horrible, I would not submit nor stay. As he is supposed to be a Christ like example in the family according to this verse not an arrogant self assuming git.
I agree, once a man undertakes to exercise any degree of unrightous dominion over his wife he is in danger of the judgment of a just God. Sadly this precept has been overlooked throughout the generations.
The english translation says submit to.
I wonder what other words could have potentialy been used when translated fron the origional word?
Yes, wives submit to your husbands and a couple of verses later it says and husbands, submit to your wife.
Are we argueing again about stuff that isn't in the bible.
If you are referring to Ephesians 5:22-33 there is no verse that says any such thing. It says for the husband to love the wife as himself, and to treat her appropriately as a equal but opposite and fully capable individual.
If there is such a verse I would LOVE to know about it so that I could clear my understanding of God's will up. I do not wish to overlook anything that I may have.
Met a woman with 2 children, pregnant, who had just left her husband due to domestic voilence. She quoted this phrase in her dispair.
I suddenly had an epithany. That phrase was written by a man!
C;mon guys! Are you saying the same ancient goat herders who wrote the "inspired word of God" in the Bible, made a mistake? This was the way women were thought of during that time in the male dominated society. Beneath the man in importance and judgment. Not to speak aloud in religious concerns.
But they got everything else right, of course. Doh!
First and fore most -
Women can lead just as well as Men.
And stop taking this verse out of context. Read the verse the follows and you will better understand.
Show me a man intelligent enough, compassionate enough, forward thinking enough and better than a woman and I'll believe they should be bowed to. Maybe guys were better back then, and women were stupid. Circumstances change. People should recognize the changes and adjust.
women since humans came into being have been intelligent...It is men's stupidity which makes them believe that they are in charge of world and their lives
Couldn't have said it better, except I would have added that there is also an element of fear that motivates men to be that way.
I agree with pisean.
Not to mention that the God of the bible was a evil sadist, vile and full of hate.
What a monster!
The BIBLE disgusts me!!!
I think however, it is more a reflection of what men and women value than an actual commandment.
Men want to be trusted. Obedience, is a sign that you trust his judgement. It is not obedience as in obey your mother and father. It is trust. I have to check the actual language, but I bet my old sneakers it has another context. Women however, above all want love. In this way a man is not so much interested in mushy romantic goo goo eyes, more than he is interested in a woman's high esteem of his abilities to protect and provide. Women however, can rise above a man's lack in these abilities, if the man shows her love.
These bible quotes more often than not reflect man's consciousness.
Whenever there is a phrase, that said, and G-d said, it is usually an instruction.
when it says G-d commands you, it usually depicts nature.
G-d commands you to multiply...which means, you will not be able to help but multiply, because it is in your nature. The language of the bible is not literal. It needs to be analyzed based on style and context just like any ancient piece of literature.
Interesting that you say they want to be trusted. I think we probably agree, but are seeing different words as that expression. To me, I think it is a need for control. It isn't a need for trust, it's a need for someone to validate them.
You are probably dead on with the woman's view, but I think it is as more about cooperation, than an emotional need.
I used to marvel at the different techniques used to train horses. I wanted cooperation. A flow between the two minds involved. Men had a need to'break' the mind to their will. I don't see a lot of difference in their philosophy toward relationships, of any type.
And yes, I think your assessment of the words in the bible are accurate.
and I will quote the recent karate kid, which is actually kung fu kid...
"there is no bad kung fu, only bad men teaching students very bad things"
i think they think they want control but its trust they really need. If he was controlled as a child, he too will control. But a child who has a good model --like for instance the gladiator or spartacus, he will get that a man's power lies in the woman's certainty of his ability to defend and protect.
He becomes the mother of the woman, so the woman can be mother to his child.
probably a difficult lesson for me. I'm short on maternal instinct or patience with men, but it does makes a lot of sense. It probably is the best explanation.
you must be popular with the boys! leaving a string of men unable to break your will.
love your husband is really BAD BAD advice. they get suffocated. leave them alone is a better advice. they usually want to be more available when you don't expect them to be domesticated.
Well, the women I've met that believe they need to show subservience to show love get walked on. They are never happy, and they never seem to understand that lack of respect for one's self instills the same belief in others. You can certainly be a unit. What's the line from My Big Fat Greek Wedding? 'The man is the head, but the woman is the neck. She can turn the head in any direction she chooses.' I simply don't mind letting the symbolic head know this fact.
the symbolic "head" only means in essence : DESIRE. the desire lies in the man and the woman is the receptacle of that desire. desire/will is motivated. meaning it initiates, the body fertilizes, it responds.
It is more biological than political. As for the battle of the sexes. I believe that (to quote jackie chan)
"the best battles are the ones not fought."
my husband: "blah blah blah blah"
me: continue to create an atmosphere of no sex.
my husband: -silence-
I do like your explanation of the symbolism. We do have rule though, we never go to bed mad, or at the least, we don't go to sleep that way. We just pick up where we left off sometime next morning after coffee. I decided a long time ago to stop thinking anything in life is worth creating regrets over.
The word that submit was translated from ? How many meanings did it have?
Does scripture not also say "And husbands submit to your wives?
Maybe we are defining submit improperly?
It is written that the man should be the head of the house.
As there also should be but one Captain of a ship.
Can you imagin? A day shift Captain and a night shift Captain.
Not going to travel in a straight path for sure.
the greek word is hypotasso'
strongs defines it as:
1) to arrange under, to subordinate
2) to subject, put in subjection
3) to subject one's self, obey
4) to submit to one's control
5) to yield to one's admonition or advice
6) to obey, be subject
This word was a Greek military term meaning "to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader". In non-military use, it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden".
kinda fitting since this is the one thing eve did not do, she did not even consult her husband, she just took and ate and is not this same pattern with women prevalent today
You make an excellent point. The very thing that the first woman did, many, many other women continue to do today. And although I believe Eve was wrong in eating and not talking to her husband before she did, Adam was no less wrong in eating when she gave it to him. So both Eves who don't want to be in subjection, and Adams who don't lead correctly still follow the path of disobedience. It it quite remarkable how the situation has not changed since then. The apples certainly do not fall far from the trees...
hanging out, I agree there are women who does not consult their husbands. Adam put the blame on the woman after he ate the fruit. He quickly told God "It was the woman you gavest to be with me." Adam did not take responsibility for his own actions. Not all men, but this is the same pattern for many men today. No offence, but I felt a need to share this. Good to see you back.
Yes;according to Bible Eve's mistake was double than Adam's.
But the mistake of Adam and Eve had been forgiven by the Creator-God Allah YHWH; so there is no need to stress on it; to err is human; and they were human beings.
[20:121] But Satan whispered evil suggestions to him; he said, ‘O Adam, shall I lead thee to the tree of eternity and to a kingdom that never decays?’
[20:122] Then they both ate thereof, so that their shame became manifest to them, and they began to stick the leaves of the garden together over themselves. And Adam observed not the commandment of his Lord, so his life became miserable.
[20:123] Then his Lord chose him for His grace, and turned to him with mercy and guided him.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … ;verse=121
How was Eve's mistake double than Adam's? That's not true.
As per Bible Eve enticed Adam to eat from the Tree; so that makes her mistake more that him.
That's your view. I have to respectfully disagree. It was after Adam ate the fruit that God called unto Adam asking him "Where art thou?' God held Adam responsible for his actions. In Genesis 3:9, God did not call unto Eve.
Genesis 3Genesis 3 introduces the Serpent, "slier than every beast of the field." The serpent tempts the woman to eat from the tree of knowledge, telling her that it will make her more like God and it will not lead to death. She succumbs, and gives the fruit to the man, who eats also, "and the eyes of the two of them were opened." Aware now of their nakedness, they make coverings of fig leaves, and hide from the sight of God. God asks them about what they have done. Adam blames Eve, and Eve blames the serpent. God curses the Serpent and then curses Adam and Eve with hard labor and with pain in childbirth, and banishes them from his garden, yet promises that "the seed" will be through Eve, that is, humankind's redeemer. God then posts a cherub at the entrance to the Garden of Eden in order to block the way to the Tree of Life, "lest he put out his hand ... and eat, and live forever."
I think it is clear from the above that She (Eve) succumbs, and gives the fruit to the man (Adam), who eats also. It is Eve who first ate the fruit as per Bible.
This is my last attempt with this. God made Adam the leader of his wife Eve. Adam was to obey what God told him before Eve were created, regardless of Eve enticing him. That's the point I am making. For some reason you seem to overlook this.
Noting that God held Adam responsible.
I certainly overlooked the fact, yet it speaks mountains.
If the man is not to lead, then why address him first and not them both at the same time?
I believe this speaks for itself as everyone understands the system.
yes it does and message is MAN created religion...if bible would have written in today's world , it would be very different...can't blame authors of those era...they wrote within limit of their experience and social order of those times...
vector, I overlooked the fact when I first started reading the bible I read and studied this chapter later, and paid attention to the order of how God work. Yes this definitely speaks for itself.
The God of the Bible is pure love and has given everything that lives life, not to mention constantly sustains it's life while it curses his name and disobeys him. Everything in existence points to his truth. If you created a machine and it didn't do anything you told it to and destroyed the other machines you created, you would recycle it's defective self... So how is GOD wrong for people's disobedience? We don't understand that a defective machine that recreates defective machines are all subject to the scrap yard? But even then he saves his creations if they simply try to be obedient. We seem to think our children are suppose to obey us, but we, being God's children are not suppose to be expected to obey him. We should do what the inventor invented us to do, obey and love... Disobedience is a DISEASE, and it has overrun this world...
And to address the question, the man is the be head of the household, not the "dictator." It is a very powerful responsibility that is laid upon the man's shoulders, not just a privilege. And the Bible also tells the man to love the wife as he loves himself. (Ephesians 5:23-25)
This means to protect her with his very life, just as Christ died to save us. You all have the answer to the question because you have all stated it, and know it to be true because you have all said so in attempts to dismiss the Bible's actual obvious instruction. The husband and wife should be on the same page in following God, and therefore should almost ALWAYS come to the same conclusions in their decisions. The man was given the responsibility to hold the household to God's instruction.
Furthermore, 2 Timothy 3:16 States - "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."
And as for the Bible not saying men and women are equal it says they are in 1 Corinthians 11:11-12.
God Bless You All,
Daniel C. Buchanan
Bible is not the role model; Jesus should be the role model of the Christians. Did Jesus himself give some specific teachings to the wives to obey husbands.
Mary was also the role model of the Christians; did she obey her husband in day today things or not?
Jesus also got married; did his wife obey him or not?
The church is the bride of Christ, and the people that make up the church are often disobedient to Christ because of our sin nature. That's why we need Jesus in the first place.
Jesus never got married. And unless you are pulling something from some off the wall book or magazine you have nothing to back such a statement. The Bible does not teach any such doctrine, and the Bible is the authority all these people are questioning, not other books or magazines.
Wake up people!
Of course men are the stronger sex and their word should be the law!
A woman should ALWAYS do whatever her man tells her to do without question... and be happy to do it!
Not only that, but she should it without delay, and with a smile on her face!
Furthermore, I think...
opps.. gotta go.. wife is calling me and if she sees this she's gonna kill me
It's better to read straight from the Bible and let it interpret itself. The answer can be found in Ephesians 5:23 "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body." The words of God are strict rules that must be followed.
This philosophy is a recipe for disaster, and could never be considered by anyone that understood the message, as shared by Jesus. So, I assume you are not claiming to follow Jesus, or you are joking. If joking, then
Well, you should know the difference between human philosophy and words of God.
Human philosophy is better understood, as where the words of a god are misconstrued by humans, so as to control people.
Because of people's inability to understand the Scriptures, they considered it not important. They do not know that only God's messengers can understand it and should teach the doctrines contained in it.
So I know we're on the same page here, you do realize how ridiculous it is to think a woman should be subservient to a man? Because if you honestly believed that was the will of any god I would have to say
Really? Your post appeared to imply that one should follow an outdated idea. I'm sure I misunderstood.
This time would have been as good as any. I was simply seeking clarification on your statement.
How do you define subservant?
We all choose thr roles that we want to play.
If a woman CHOOSES a role where she stays home with the children, cleans house and prepairs the meals; while he goes out into the work place to pay the bills, Is she being subservant in fulfilling all of his domestic needs.
We all choose the roles that we play.
And if we have chosen wisely we choose someone that confortable fulfilling our needs.
When we have chosen unwisely .... we feel subservant ...
regardless of gender.
At least that is what I have come to believe.
Someone else can not make you subservant. We do it to ourselves.
Choices are fine Jerami. There is logic in the one income model for a family. I think people should make their own choices, and if one is in a good relationship those choices will be made together, as to what is in the best interest of the family. But pushing this philosophy on women has done nothing more than enslave them. It forces single women to believe they are in need of finding some master, and a married woman to believe her opinion carries less weight. I would think we could all rise above the use of this word.
Well there you go...it is rich in Jewish Symbology.
In Judaism, the "woman" is the body/the earth that enables heaven to create. The "head" is where desire/ will is generated. The marriage of the head and the body is a key teaching in those days. The woman is a receptacle of information and the man is the giver. It is interesting to note that the sperm has dna and only dna. The egg however is a circular habitat for that dna to fertilize with it's codes.
The double entend is aimed at teaching the idea that we must act on the fertilization of the head "Christ."
But also it teaches the nature of humanity and the parallels of the sexes with mind and body. WE all know who the mind is in the home, and its definitely not the man. () but it should be.
Jesus was a man of the Creator-God; he treated men and women equally.
It is the sinful Paul, the sinful Church and the sinful scribes whose mind seems to be at work when they change the teachings of Jesus in Bible.
There are alot of valid comments and opinions here. The awesome thing about being an individual is that we can share our veiw without neccesarily conforming to everyone else. I am in agreement that the times have changed drasticaly; for the worse. Today, alot of men do not even know they are men, or don't want to be men. Likewise for women. It is mainsteam to be gay and it is just nasty. Everyone wants to smile at the silly cute guy with a lisp prancing around on the screen, but really think about what they do. It is not cute or silly. Women have much to deal with nowadays. Men that are worthy of respect earn it, and men that prance around on makeover shows....well, let the women be the man.
Okay, lets clear a few things up. Jesus IS God. And the ENTIRE Bible is the WORD of God. He stated that he came to FULFILL the law and the prophets, meaning the words he speaks are to prove every word in the Bible true.
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
So to say that Jesus' words matter but not the people he endorses and sends out as His servants is ridiculous. Jesus Christ also pointed out how we are to treat the commandments presented by the Word of God, and that is more strict than we make them out to be.
27 "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
So here we see that Christ states specifically that what WE think is ok to do is a perversion of His law. A law that was stated in the Bible from which Jesus himself often quoted and taught from and stated he came to fulfill. We should not apply our opinions to GOD'S words if we seek to know what HE is saying. If you don't care what He says, then your debate will never find it's end, and there isn't much point in debating on those grounds anyhow.
I don't see why anyone who doesn't believe scripture is the Holy Word of God is even debating this. It doesn't make sense to argue the intent of scripture if you flutter the Holiness of it being from God away with "It was written by men not God, thousands of years ago...etc etc.." These statements shouldn't even be posted if you believe that, because then you don't believe ANYTHING in the Bible matters at all.
Also, all the debates on men not being fit to lead pertain to men that are not in full subjection to Christ. If the man is following what Christ truly taught, then there is no debate that he will treat her in a way that will CERTAINLY make her happy, and I don't think there is any question that Christ taught love. The man is the head, but is also TO SERVE HIS WIFE WITH LOVE, TENDER MERCIES, COMPASSION, PROTECTION, ATTENTION, and all the other wonderful things a marriage should include that women seek. Here's your scripture:
35 "Stay dressed for action and keep your lamps burning, 36 and be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the wedding feast, so that they may open the door to him at once when he comes and knocks. 37 Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will dress himself for service and have them recline at table, and he will come and serve them."
That's Jesus by the way speaking. The men are to be the head of the women, and Christ is the be the head of the man. In other words, Christ is teaching us that the one that is the head is to serve his loving wife as He himself says if we are faithful to Him, He will serve us GLADLY out of happiness.
To adorn Christ's words as the only relevant scripture to go by is to contradict Christ himself. Furthermore, Paul was probably the hardest working, most diligent apostle and servant Jesus had. And if he was so as someone said 'evil' then why on earth would Christ give him the power to do miracles through his name and deliver him from harm so many times? Those miracles were given to establish Jesus Christ's Church, and to prove that it was God's true words that Paul taught. The miracles separated the true Gospel from false ones taught during the same era and established it's truth in history.
It might be helpful to clear up that your post is one interpretation of the meaning of the text. Not necessarily the correct one.
My interpretation is hundreds of years of scholars... Not my personal interpretation. The Bible also tells me to be subject to my government even when they are unfair, but I make no personal opinions about it, I seek what God tells me to do. Please do not try to personalise my statements as they can be reviewed and are not my own teachings. Everything I have wrote has been proven over and over for many decades back. Research as opposed to speculated opinion will show that there are no new insights. Things haven't changed as in Rome during the time which Paul wrote Ephesians women were revered very highly in society and had plenty of power.
According to Roman Life by Mary Johnston (Scott Foresman and Company),
"Men made way for her in the street; she had a place at public games, at theaters, and at great religious ceremonies of state. She could testify in court and until late in the Republic, might even defend a case. Often she managed her own property. The first book of Varro's work on farming -- dedicated to his wife -- was intended to guide her in managing her own land."
Many of the "opinions" here are overruled because they have no weight carried with them. I do not base my conclusions on my personal views and experience but by hundreds of brilliant men AND women who have also done their fair share of hard work to seek the truth. I DO NOT TAKE CREDIT FOR ANYTHING I HAVE SHARED.
Therefore, it is NOT "MY" OPINION. It is fact.
If the Bible is Divinely written by God, then what I've said is true.
If you don't believe the Bible to be written by God, then the debate whether what it says is relevant does not even matter, because just like many of the rest of you believe, I see most men as very ignorant, lazy, and a sad excuse for what they claim to be and would not want to follow in any of their footsteps. But I certainly believe the Bible is the word of God.
Not to mention, if it isn't correct I gladly accept correction. WITH a backing of some sort - i.e. : scripture - theologians - intelligible books - facts from history - etc.
I am not here to bicker, but express what I have found in my many studies and research.
Not to mention since when was just stating someone isn't correct enough to disprove them?
I am not here to bicker either, but you need to check your facts. This is not an interpretation as agreed on by all. It is one you feel comfortable with and have chosen to follow. It does not make it right, or wrong. It makes it your opinion.
I've OBVIOUSLY stated every resource I've used. ( i.e. FACTS)
I have encouraged a disagreement on ANY topic with some sort of PRIOR BASE besides " I THINK " .
AND I've addressed every point with dignity and love.
I've also stated that it is not my opinion but years on top of years of research and scholarly teachings. ( if God's word is taken as God's word)
And you continue to attack me with "It makes it your opinion."
I have no say in the matter as it is what God said, not me. There are hundreds of Biblical teachers who will tell you the exact same thing even if you separated them and asked them individually, because they seek what God says and the truth behind it.
BTW, I am not COMFORTABLE following every rule my government requires of me, but the teachings of God's Word (the Bible) state that God commands me to adhere to the laws of the land in which I live EXCEPT when they conflict with God's laws.
I think I'm done posting here as I can see facts are unwanted.
I love each and every one of you, and only wish to show what I have learned. I wish you all well and may God Bless You...
womens are being underestimated just because males are physically stronger......this is what i think...... as otherwise if we see womens are as good as mens.....intelligence, leadership quality etc etc, women has all these qualities just like mens....
Actually you should refered with a context when said.Bible also decree the same for a husband.If a husband is caring and loving then s woman must obey him to run the home affairs.Women are weaker than men so they should obey their husbands is a positive statement.God has created women for the comfort of man and simmilarly men for women comfort. Both are responsible as a life partner to each other.There is always one ruler or Leader and Man is a ruler who rule her wife through love,care and utmost protection to make her strong.
The God I know allows me the freedom to take it or leave it.
Thats what a gift is all about.
But...I would never say everyone SHOULD accept what I have or love who I love.
Ok back to OP:
Bible decreed that woman should obey their husbands AS husbands were to obey Christ. That text is often taken out of context sadly.
Jesus liberates women
Why do many women have a problem with the word subservant ?
I know that we are ALL subservant to many people in one way or another.
We are subservant to our employers !
A father is subservant to his family, and a woman is subservant to her family.
Is it the word, or the action of being, that we have a problem with?
I am subservant and proud to have the oppertunity.
I don't know. There are men who abuse the authority God has given them as husbands. This could be a reason why some women have a problem with being submissive. It's easy for me to submit to my husband because he love and respect me, but I will not submit to anything that is not right. You made a good point about being subservant to employers and other people in authority in our lives.
I think that your stance is nice; women are often more patient and tolerant; they can try to improve their husbands lot to realize that they don't misuse the authority naturally afforded to the husbands as token head of the family unit; and I am certain women can do a lot in this connection; children who are mostly influenced by mothers can also play a positive role with the family unit.
What was Jesus trying to tell us when he washed the fet of the isciples ?
Subservant is a good thing ????? or not !
Yes Subservant is a good thing, and I am not ashamed to say it. Being submissive has been a blessing to me.
I think that it is more in the word Submit.
We don't understand it as it was ment I don't think.
To submit to our spouse is to give ourselves to.
But then there are them stupid ones, who can not controll themselves so they look for someone else to controll.
A wise person will not marry such a person that they can not submit to.
Or something like that.
Spouses are supposed to submit to each other.
Edit ...And the person that is going to be responseable for the consequences is the one that are supposed to be in control over the situation
But Jerami, consider the fundamentalist stand on this issue. It doesn't matter how unwise your choice. You are stuck in it. You have two somewhat untenable choices. Live miserably, or sin by divorcing. How long do you think a person should be forced, by a ridiculous interpretation, to live in misery?
You have a good philosophy, but the word itself is a poor one to use when explaining this concept. Many within certain branches of Christianity confuse it with a form of slavery somehow ordained by God. These are not the teachings of Jesus. No one is meant to be subservient to any human being on this level, in my opinion. Were I to believe this was part of the message I would assume the rest was bogus too.
I must admit that scripture does say that a man is suposed to be the head of the household.
It also says that it is a wise man that can do that and keep his wife happy.
It is much better to live on the roof top than in the house with a contemptious wife.
So it seems that god does give permision for A
a wife to be contemptious (especially when maried to a fool)
I honestly don't believe a higher power has any interest in my domestic hierarchy. Lucky me, I guess. Heaven help the man that had the misfortune of living under the same roof as me with a belief I would submit to his authority. It'd be a rocky ride.
It is highly misunderstood. When Jesus said, what G-d has put together, man cannot put asunder only means that when somebody becomes your husband or your wife, your lives intertwine, and you become as one. So even if you physically remove yourself from your husband or wife, your lives will still be entangled particularly when children are involved.
I often say, when G-d commands it, it does not mean...here do this. It means it is nature, you cannot help it. It is the law of your body. The ten commandments are laws of the nature of man. to deviate from this programming, means to cause disease upon yourself. That is the understanding then. They believed the sin leads to disease so when you are sick, they believe you to be at fault until Jesus introduced the idea of self-forgiveness. (misconstrued as Jesus forgiveness) Self-forgiveness results in healing in the body and in the mind.
There are many layers that many Christian fundamentals cannot access. You can only access what you yourself understand by living it. You should have lived it, to get it.
Many people are still children.
Like yesterday I went to church for the ash wednesday ritual. And the lady there was explaining the value of sacrifice. What would you sacrifice for G-d this lent.
I thought it was an incredible waste of attention that she failed to point out (or even understand) that the sacrifice is not just sacrifice for sacrifice sake. You sacrifice something you just enjoy for something you truly need to acquire within you.
Power to release yourself from the enslavement of the body. Will. The will to be able to command your body stop. it is a good exercise.
But alas, she was just talking about depriving herself of chocolates for G-d. I don't think she truly understood why she was doing it. But since I did, the reminder that sacrifice is a key exercise for self-mastery, it still worked. The message was delivered. The meme activated.
Jerami, I have to agree. It is more to the word submit. Submission is a natural response to loving leadership. The man is not submitting to God if he is selfish, harsh, and controlling. The wife is not required to submit to abuse.
Wouldn't that make the bible a sexist book apparently inspired by an omnipotent god? That strike anyone else as odd?
Nope..god is after all concept and it is manifestation of authors who wrote it...why should it sound odd?...if some one today writes those books, it would have google/facebook in it , it would have aids in it...it would allow divorce and such things...
Maybe I didn't explain my logic.
If an omnipotent god was involved in the writings why would those inspired by this god concept be sexist in their inspired writing?
it has big "IF" in it...yes if omnipotent god was involved in it , either he literally believed that man is superior to woman and if he did that HE never had any gf or wife ...so he has no first hand information or else he wont have written that
As opposed to the quran, which advocates the beating of women? Sorry paar, all the monotheistic texts are based in an archaic and patriarchal beginning. They are all simply that. No hand of any god involved in those concepts. These are the ideas of men, and not very enlightened ones at that.
Earnest, it strikes me as being very odd indeed.
There are a few other things that strike me as odd about that particular book.
The distinct lack of commandments against trying to control others, keeping slaves, beating wives etc. People always say something along the lines of 'people couldn't handle God telling them that owning and abusing other people is wrong' but I think that is total cr*p. Jesus could loose his sh*t in the temple for money changing but a man beats his wives, kids and slaves and nothing! I really couldn't care less where you do your money changing but seriously I get physically ill at things like slavery yet if anything the bible tells slaves to obey their masters! Sick, sick, sick!
There might be nice little stories in the bible that are all lovely and gooey with warm fuzzy messages of love and kindness but at the end of the day these supposed religious leaders, chosen and inspired by God, say and do nothing to stop slavery (both physical and sexual) or child abuse or spousal abuse. If God doesn't have the courage to actually tell people to stop being d*cks to each other then I got no respect for that God, period. Is it really so hard to say, its not OK to own another human being?!?!
well but that is loving god for humans...can't help it...
Jesus said the greatest commandment was to love one another ,so I dont get your statement about Jesus saying nothing, or distinct lack of anything.
Quite the contrary.
There are many scriptures against the use of violence. Many.
Jesus also liberated woman long before any suffergate movement came into being as well.
Woman at the well.
Admonishing the woman that was being stoned for adultry. Christ was against it and didnt just say it,but took a stand against it.
If men obeyed the first commandemnt of serving Christ ,then a woman would have no trouble obeying the 2nd part ,obeying the man.
This liberated them both,and they served each other.
Personally I dont know why many people get so hung up on this scripture,maybe its because they jump to conclusions and dont read the entire instruction,but basically to me its about love and respect for one another. Cant see how that would hurt any relationship, and if we look around us in this century ,we can see how the alternatives work (divorce skyrockets,domestic abuse,crime ,etc)
Funny, if Jesus ACTUALLY SPOKE AGAINST slavery then why his?!?!
"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)"
Pretty damned pro-slavery there, from the new testament, not the moldy old testament that is always the argument used to dismiss such evil! EVIL! Either the bible is evil or God is based on this hateful, destructive, lazy, permission giving crap that has been used to justify the murder of soul. EVIL! And you justify it!
A modern day definition of slavery or a first century definition of the word?
We are all slaves to our jobs, and our desires.
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
Do you toil at your job with deep respect and fear? Or do you quit?
Hmmmmm, the fact that you have the option to quit means you are not a slave, the fact that you consider yourself one says something else completely.....
Power corrupts, don't give it to anyone lest you help them become corrupted, to your well deserved suffering.
hey kirsten...now i get why god remains invisible..HE would be booked in today's court...
It is all in the delivery of the definition of slavery.
First century or first century?
Time for me to get in the truch and go to work...
It really doesn't matter which century, either century a slave was forced to preform a service like working the fields against their will, with no recourse to choose differently, and for no personal profit. Basically a slave back then and a slave today are the same thing, the difference is, now it is illegal in most areas back then it was legal and supported by religion and governments. If you choose to stay in a job where you are being beaten, thats too bad but if you don't quit then that is your choice, you are free to make that choice, you have never had it denied to you, a slave has that choice denied them. Then and today. You can't go around changing the definitions to justify an evil religion and expect anyone to take you seriously. I certainly don't. You obviously have no idea what it is to have no choice over your own life.
Off to work now (where I choose to be, because its good work and makes my community a better place, not because I will be beaten for refusing, that is what being a slave is). Try to discover your freedom will ya? You have it even if you are blind to it.
and what about those other thousands of hate filled verses about obeying and the fear they obviously invoke Jeremi? I could understand someone justifying a few wrong things in a book, but to try building excuses around thousands of them in the one book?
Come on Jeremy!
hey but god wrote that book and gave you free will...earnest may be god's nickname is satan
I really do gotta go to work but first ..
I agree that THE BOOK in many instances is a perverted rendition of a bunch of rules about commonsense of getting alomg with each other.
The laws of any country can be examined in the same fashion causing them to apear just plain stupid.
Hi Ernest ,yes you are right. It would make the Bible a sexist book,if that were correct. It is not.
Here are about 20 quotes from the bible showing massive sexism. Enjoy!
There are hundreds more too. I got sick of quoting from the thousands of hate filled verses in this tome.
I don't blame you mate!
It is hard for me to understand how any person who tries to be a good person could defend that book when it's filled with so many hateful verses.
I could easily post hundreds of love scripture too ,but if youre mind is set to only see the negative then thats all you'll see.
I am not blind to the nature of mankind ,I think most of us agree thats its dodgy to say the least,but its illogical to blame the worlds problems ,murders,wars ,evil on God,but its easy to blame someone ,a god ,rather than our own natures,I spose!
well I have very clear stand on this...no blame , no praise to god...god if does exist has not role to play...it cannot be blamed nor can be praised...if praised , he takes blame too and if blamed HE takes praise too...both are two sides of same coin...coming to bible...well point here is not love or hate verses...point is that it has been written by humans and so has both love and hate verses...if it was divine it would lack hate verses...
If there are hate filled verses in the bible along with "love scripture" it's not a matter of only seeing the negative, it's weighing the negative against the positive and understanding that both are being taught to followers.
I wouldn't agree at all, that is the 'negative' scripture in which is taught, hence the negative has already had a negative effect on its followers.
And the same can be said of positive.
Is it not all a matter of perception?
For example I perceieve the 10 Commandments to be a solid working document,if one were to adhere to it.
I do not see commandments or instructions for my life to be harmful or negative ,on the contrary it saves me from many unnecessary problems.
No criminal history to name a few.
I also think the people who point out'hate scriptures' dont bring an open mind to the table,because how can you read the Bible and not see all the love?
They are the same people who think God should love and forgive anything and everything they do and say? or..
If you are a parent ,youd know that analogy is absurd.
Believe they dont need anyone's help to live their life ,exactly they way they want to.
That was their choice 2,000 years ago and still is
No, it's a matter of what's written in the bible and what the bible is teaching people.
That's odd, you actually need the 10 Commandments to run your life in what is obviously just a matter of self-control? Are you saying you couldn't have figured that out for yourself or talked with others who faced those problems already. Are you also saying that you would fall prey to all those problems if the 10 Commandments didn't exist?
Actually, it's the other way round, we are bringing open minds to the table to show those who have closed minds that the bible is not just about "all the love." We are showing that the negative aspects of the bible have an enormous influence over the delusional.
what do you do with the other 593 commandments. Ignore them?
A good read of the whole book is what most believers seem to lack.
"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)
Matthew 22:37-40 negates the insanity.
Love God, Love your neighbor. All the laws are fulfilled with this. People ignore it because it's too much fun poking at other people's assumed transgressions.
Sorry, not preaching. I just like to point that out from time to time. It appears to drive the fundamentalists crazy.
but Earnest, this is referring to the Torah, not the Christian Bible. It is written equidistant and in blocks and must never be rearranged for they believed it was a code and it contained all the secrets of the universe.
hebrew letters are numbers too.
Cherry picking is what Christians do best when quoting the bible! I guess if they're going to try to attach a modern moral meaning to an iron aged book full of bum-wad, then they have to be!
Just one of those early morning ... before my first cup of coffee thoughts
What IF ?
Them angels that is said to have rebelled against God and were cast down to the earth ..?
What IF that was us. Here we are showing God that we have a better way to do things!
We can't even understand what it is that we are rebelling against. ... That doesn't sound like a better way of doing things to me.
does god live on earth?...how does HE know what is best way to life unless HE himself has lived on earth as ordinary human being...God is said to have sent his son who was hanged by fellow human beings..so surely it was not the way to remain alive...it may be way to reach god as per some believers but not the way to live!!!!!!!!...so god is last being to know what is way to live on earth ...HE needs some practical experience before HE preaches
God did live on earth as Jesus.
Jesus was known as the son of God and the son of Man.
He remembers we are dust too.
Jesus was known as the son of God and the son of Man??...first decide who was jesus god , son of god or man?..if son of god was father then did we are talking about clones out here...guess cloning should be made legal in that way , since god showed the path...
coming to jesus how long did he live?.if practically every human lived till age jesus lived and remain unmarried , well human species would end...not great way to live...yes muhammad is better example..he lived till ripe age , married , had pacified all his opponents and was in control ..he kept preaching and showing the path ...
Is this YOUR god that you are talking about or mine Or both.. Are they the same ??
good point...i am talking about general god of human species ...those who believe in religious god like jesus or any such...if your defintion of god is not what bible states or quran states or veda states, then i am talking about different god out here...
Did the caffeine kick in yet ,lol
Is that a bit like that song that goes..
What if God were one of us?
God is all around ,in everything ,our past and in our future,so yep ALL things are possible I guess.
The bit about what if we knew how to do things better?...I dont mind this fact being true ,but you see the news, you only have to step outside your own front door sometimes and know for a fact ,mankind doesnt create ,he tears down, robs and steals.
Enjoy yer coffee
Some country is always at war ,and then we have the audacity to blame God.. oh were good at blaming other people too.
cant help it...dont we keep giving credit to god when humans have done so many nice things...so humans have tendency to blame others and give credit to others...human nature...
The reality of a peanutbutter and Jelly sandwich ????
Depends upon who you ask.
Some people love it. Some people only like it and it will kill somepeople. But the reality of peanutbutter doesn't change
12 "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends."
The greatest love is sacrifice. Not to mention Christians know Heaven is real, therefore we serve happily wherever we are in life to show God's Love and His kindness.
38 "You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. 43 You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
Not earthly Love, but Godly Love. Give.. Give.. Give..
Sacrifice shows God, Jesus, and Heaven are real and that Love conquers all. This world and this life are temporary anyhow.
Yes, Jesus was a mind master. He knew about reverse psychology, projection, affirmations and things like that. A truly ascended master.
Or just maybe He told the Truth. If everyone was Loving the world wouldn't have 90 percent of it's problems. I don't see how telling people to Love is a manipulation and find such accusations sickening personally. And that is my opinion.
That's like saying a mother who tells her child to share his toys is a 'mind master using reverse psychology' on her kid. Love is not a manipulation, it is exactly what this world needs.
Couldnt agree with you more
Isnt it amazing how people who cant/wont beleieve in God still manage to have an awful lot about someone who doesnt exist to them
Oddly, you both owe her an apology. Her point was twisted, as the meaning of the scriptures is often treated. I've never known her to say anything derogatory about Jesus.
Reverse psychology implies deceit for purpose. Please do not try to direct me to do anything. I have said nothing improper, especially if we are 'entitled' to our opinions. I did not twist anything.
As for the meaning of the scriptures, it is LOVE... No question there. Not anything implied by the following statement of my original post. If it is said that Love is not the meaning, then the implication is that Jesus is a liar because He expressly says to Love everyone and to show Love more than once. I do believe 'controlling' is the attitude your showing everyone now as to directing me to do something as if authority was given you to do so.
I state everything in Love, and simply stated that saying someone who teaches LOVE is a 'mind master' who uses 'reverse psychology' makes me literally sick to my stomach at such a notion. I do not see how this requires an apology at all with any line of reasoning or rationalisation.
Reverse psychology is a technique involving the advocacy of a belief or behavior that is opposite to the one desired, with the expectation that this approach will encourage the subject of the persuasion to do what actually is desired: the opposite of what is suggested. This technique relies on the psychological phenomenon of reactance, in which a person has a negative emotional response in reaction to being persuaded, and thus chooses the option which is being advocated against.
I'm not sure I understand it shows love to search for the bad in the words of another, but since you have already stated you are here to share what you have learned I assume you might be too busy preaching to take the time to listen. I understand, sometimes it is difficult to juggle everything. Some things have to be set aside in order to complete the mission.
I didn't have to search. Reverse psychology was posted very quickly and obviously directly below my post and was expressly applied to Jesus by the poster. This is obvious to everyone.
And what does me preaching, which is an assumption of which I have no clue where you got, have to do with any of this? I have listened to and responded appropriately, where the response shows I must have listened in order to address what was said.
Your posts are becoming very personal and I think this attacking me thing is becoming a little silly. Please quit. I have said nothing wrong to anyone.
I see you remain in confusion. You posted a reply to a comment I posted to someone else. I apologize if honest dialogue is not what you seek. It is what I attempt when responding to a post.
Please clear the confusion. What post did I incorrectly address that was not directed toward me?
And please stop applying attributes to me. I have said nothing in dishonesty, and am sure there is nothing to show I have.
You appear to be wound quite tightly. I'm not attempting to attribute anything to you. I posted a message to someone else. You responded to that post. I'm sorry if an opposing opinion frets you, however they are a fact of life. I embrace them, and have found after contemplating them, sometimes they aren't as opposing as I first believed.
One.. I most certainly do seek honest dialogue and am sorry if I posted a reply incorrectly.
Two.. I prefer truths to personal experience opinions but God certainly gave us all free will and I would not try to take it from any one of you as it is not my place.
Three.. I Love you no matter what my posts seem to say, they are out of Love for everyone.
Four.. Not wound tightly. Very motivated for my Saviour.
Five.. I'm glad to see you smiling.
Glad you're smiling. I doubt there is anything we see eye to eye on, except the fact we both seek truth. But, the good news is we're both looking, right? Maybe we'll meet one day in the middle. I look forward to finding common ground.
Yes it is. It is Jesus' message.
And He deserves all the credit...
This is "lip-service" based upon idealism.
1. the bible is "incredible" (So implausible as to elicit disbelief).
2. The NT is "incredible." and corrupted by story telling passed down thru generations for about 300 yrs b4 being ready for textual promulgation.
The "human" creature has vocally proffered love for one another since "man" began to record his history.
BUT! "His" actions belie his written intent!
"He" IS a genetically programmed killer and "he" has been involved in predation for millions of yrs.
The biblical god thing is described as flying into psychotic rages of anger and ordering the murder of tens of thousands of "it's" alledged creations and finally of all but a chosen few. "It" is a man created "killer!"
The NT is a collection of stories that during the dark ages, catholicism, while destroying all transcribed history but that which they accepted, was being refurbished to meet their needs.
Man is a naturally crafty, guileful, cunning killer developed and trained by millions of yrs of successful survival on a planet where balance is maintained by birth and death.
The majority of fearful, ignorant humanity is an easily led lot.
I think you prove my statements true actually and Jesus'. lol
Man is evil, God is good.
The Bible has hundreds of prophecies for people to look up and decide whether it's actually divine, but people usually don't, as that is 'hard'.
13 Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
This statement from Jesus says a whole lot.
And as for God being evil, lol, how can you be evil if you give life, give instructions and then punish accordingly only 'some' of the evil and try to save what you can? We all deserve to die, but He isn't killing us all. And if God kills a man's body and that man deserves a reward, He can do whatever He sees fit to that man's soul. God can give ten times back what He has taken as He gave it in the first place. If God is real, then He also knows the future and can tell which men will never turn from evil, and which ones will. How is He evil for taking evil out of the world?
People who think they know better than God have a very high opinion of themselves.
No facet of your response is "credible."
Look up the word: "ignosticism."
If you understand the defintion, that will satisfy your need to ask me why I consider your words to be incredible.
If you don't, I'd say get some education in other than myth.
I am quite satisfied with what I know is true and not even the threat of death can change my mind.
I'm sorry that you believe that my God and my Christ Jesus are a myth.
I love you.
I just tell it like it is.
It's your personal decision to believe in myth.
I just accept you and what you are, as you present yourself.
Check this out if you want to.
Just something to think about if your open to it.
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/resur … -video.htm
Wish you the best...
After 2 1/2 yrs in baptist seminary preparing for the pulpit, I don't think there's a "living" human being who can enlighten me regarding this alledged jesus.
But you give good "lip service."
Have a good life.
Hey qwark. 2 1/2 years in the seminary huh? 6 weeks in this forum and I'm beginning to see the ignostic side of this thing more and more. I didn't want to grow up to be like you this quick.
With your permission, no jokes, persuasion schemes or underlying reasons...
Just out of pure, and sincere curiosity.
I would like to ask a question, but don't want to impose or seem prying.
Let me know something I suppose.
...ask away Vector:
I'm open for any questions...no problems at all :
For arguments sake:
If God doesn't exist, then why the interest in proving it?
Personally, I at one time doubted God, and wouldn't have wasted my time pointing it out to others, but rather spend what time I had on MY life.
If God doesn't exist, sure I was loving, but drugs, and alcohol were on my top list of occasional use. I enjoyed many things in life that the Bible considered evil but didn't think they were that bad, and I certainly wouldn't have spent time arguing His non-existence as I seen it as obvious, and personally... Why should I care? ( or at least, that was the thought at the time )
In other words, to me, if no matter what we believe changes where we go, then why should I tell a bunch of happy-go-daisy Christians their wrong? Or Muslims? Or whatever the religion or non-religion...
(with all sincerity) I just want to try to understand why people who don't believe in Jesus or God feel such the need to fight the notion, as I myself never felt that way when I doubted. But I find a burning passion inside many of them to fight the idea with so much of their effort and time and energy, whereas I would have NEVER wasted a lifted finger on what other people believed if it brought me no profit or someone I knew something good at least.
I'm just baffled is all, and while baffling me isn't impossible, it isn't the easiest thing to do either.
By the way, no I don't doubt God at all (been through all the major tests).
Just very, very intrigued as to why one who concludes there isn't a God wouldn't be, say... spending more time on children, or fun, or college for more money, beautiful sweet women, or anything besides something that doesn't exist. I spend time on God because I see Him as 'real', but why would one spend so much time on a subject of something that is non-existent?
Hope I don't seem insulting, certainly not the intent.
I wonder the same thing and have often voiced it.
Doesn't make sense ,except of course for diversity and confusio.
Ive heard many theories like, because we ( sometimes they speak as a group) are sick of tired of you Christians pushing your imaginary god down other peoples throats.
And Religious people caused all the wars and most of the evil of this world.
But honestly how intelligent does it sound to try to disprove something ,or someone you dont believe exists?
It's obvious that you didn't look up the definition of "ignostic." If you had and you had understood it, you wouldn't have asked this question of me:
"If God doesn't exist, then why the interest in proving it?If God doesn't exist, then why the interest in proving it?"
I have not asked you to prove anything.
If you had looked up and understood the term "ignostic," you would have realized that none of what you just offered has any meaning at all.
You have not insulted me. I cannot be insulted.
Here's an outstanding blog from a woman of faith who defines her married life by obeying her husband:
I don't believe as she does, but I admire her for her truth and grace in how she lives her belief.
Peace to ya'all.
[2:229] And the divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three courses; and it is not lawful for them that they conceal what Allah has created in their wombs, if they believe in Allah and the Last Day; and their husbands have the greater right to take them back during that period, provided they desire reconciliation. And they (the women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in equity; but men have a rank above them. And Allah is Mighty, Wise.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … ;verse=228
Quran presents a more equitable stance for men and women; one may the above verse"And they (the women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in equity; but men have a rank above them. And Allah is Mighty, Wise".
What the world needs now is love ,sweet love
No,not just for some,but for everyone
And sadly, that message is sorely absent from the words of the standard evangelical on this site.
Why the doom and gloom and accusations?
She's saying Love is great, so why not agree rather than point out a stereotype on evangelicals?
I Love you too just_curious!!! Period. No matter what anyone believes.
Ok, I'm feeling the love now.
It simply saddens me that we tend to push the doom and gloom more than might be healthy in our relationships with others on this site. I do understand why it is done, I simply don't agree with it.
I know the 'doom and gloom' or 'Hell' is a horrible sounding thing.
But if it's real, then my job is absolutely essential, and the most important one in the world. Wouldn't you agree?
I don't want to tell people, "It's ok, your safe." If they most certainly aren't!!!
That would be soooo unloving and uncaring, and just indifferent that they will be suffering for eternity!!!
I love EVERYONE!!! I don't want ANYONE to suffer. And I'll die if I have to, to get the message across, even if it only saves one single soul.
If I didn't know it was true (and I certainly didn't always) then I wouldn't be willing to die for it.
But I do know. And I do care. And I don't want anyone to drive off that cliff with the painting of a road on a tarp hanging in front of it.
Pushing the doom is not the intent, it's to spare them from the gloom....
Your most dedicated friend...
Appreciate your stand. Beg to disagree on your idea of what is true. But, to me, diversity makes life interesting. Look forward to healthy debates.
I'll make a soldier out of you yet!!
I'll try to do a better job showing more proof in my truth.
To a blind man, many things do not exist including the dangers. But those who see, can only lead the blind who agree to follow. I give a outstretched arm to all, I don't wish to push just_curious.
And no I'm not better than anyone... Quite the contrary, God uses some of the least in the world to accomplish his greatness. I am a poor man with not much in life but God. But I am the happiest man on this planet because I know him.
God... Is... Good...
Daniel, I fear that soldier willl never be a term that will apply to me. But I'll make you a deal. You argue the stand of a soldier for Christ, and I'll argue the idea of following the message as shared by Jesus.
All the colours of the rainbow make for a beautiful day
Thanks jc, hey same initials of you know who too lol
I know. I was a little embarrassed when people first started calling me jc. It seemed a horrible presumption on my part to end up with the initials, but I've never felt comfortable calling Jesus that, so it isn't so if we have the same name.
How about a servant of Christ then.
A good soldier does what his commanding officer tells him to.
And soldiers protect, they aren't meaningless killers. Many children are saved by them. (Anyone say otherwise and your troops should hear your words that they are all evil)
I am willing to die for Christ and the lost. Just as a good soldier should stand with his life to protect those in need.
No. Any ground given would appear that we were in agreement. We are not. I consider your stand untenable and in no way in line with the spirit of the message. As I previously stated, I do understand what motivates you and I am sorry that the meaning has escaped you.
With the exception of dying for belief in the message. I do believe that sacrificing your life to save another is commanded, and a worthy action.
That said; have a nice day.
I can see that you have no concept of how a discussion forum operates. That was not an attack, it was a point of logic regarding a two opposing statements.
Perhaps, some understanding of how a discussion forum operates might greatly benefit you.
Absolutely not. The fact that you have religious beliefs that have no basis in fact or reality does not mean you have the right to go around threatening people with them as that is exactly how conflicts and wars start.
Then, you yourself are not safe as you will suffer for an eternity of another gods hellfire, a god that you reject. So, why not just worry about yourself and the rest of us can make our way along fine, thank you.
Save yourself from an eternity of hellfire of the other gods whom you'll have to stand in line to be judged. They will not be pleased with your rejection of them.
A very good reason to show just how dangerous your religious beliefs are to mankind.
See... This is what soldiers do...
I LOVE YOU BEELZEDAD!!!!
<3 Start a war with that. <3
So, soldiers lie in order to get in good standings with their military generals?
Notice that if you actually do believe that your god knows your thoughts, he will be most displeased with that statement as he knows it is not true.
Oh but it IS TRUE..
No need in calling me a liar ya know...
I DO LOVE YOU no matter what you say or do...
I Love EVERYONE. Even those who hate me.
I detect paranoia in your response.
Who said anyone hates you?
I can only speak for myself.
I HATE the level of ignorance you exhibit...not you!
Do you suppose that, maybe, you mistake that hate, for hate for you?
No Qwark, it implies there is no one I cannot love. No paranoia. No mistake. I Love everyone no matter the circumstance.
I love both of you, with all sincerity, no matter either of your thoughts, without condition, no matter the circumstance, no matter how ignorant you say I act, or no matter the posts that are constantly engaged and relentlessly and heartlessly shot down. I do not call you ignorant for your disbelief, but I get the claim I show ignorance for my belief and me presenting it.
No matter ANYTHING including and up to hatred, I love all people, black and white, sick and well, young and old, Hindu, Atheist, Muslim, or Christian and any other category you could possibly list of any sort.
I LOVE EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING ON THIS EARTH, and every living thing period for that matter.
I'm done answering questions like these though, as they do not profit me anything and only provoke more questions.
I wish you both the best, and I MOST CERTAINLY DO LOVE YOU.
If the shoe fits...
Sure you do, your words here exemplify that so-called love.
Well Im sure even the non-believer has a standard of love and chooses to do and say many good things, but I recieve insults and accusations,critism cloaked in disgust,childish grammar Im assuming written to demean my intelligence.
All because they dont agree or like what I said? Seriously
Pretty darn sad if you ask me, but I follow Gods will to respond with love ,not my own will which would be to shoot them down with sarcasm so fast ,chew them up and spit them out.
How dare a fellow human try to put me down (disrespect) me for following my beliefs? how dare they!
I agree that the atheist stance is out of line with the reality of religion. But, I stated that not so much because any person stands up for their beliefs. We all have that right. I think the lack of love I was refering to is a belief that we are somehow better, and anyone else needs to follow our idea of the light. It is the message many of them seem to get and I would probably be irritated if I felt that was the message too.
Like I have told them before. Turning the other cheek should not turn anyone into a bobble head doll. We all have the right to stand up for what we believe without it being labeled unchristian. No matter how different our philosophies on the definition of this term might be.
Love, Love, Love!!!
Thank God for Love and all the problems it solves!
I agree with you.
There is nothing worse than anyone who uses condescending language or holier than thou 'speak' when sharing their points of view or testimoney on a public forum thats for sure.
I do beleive that many atrocities have been committed or attributed to 'Religion' and there certainly is a list of individuals who were deluded and committed acts of evil ,or supposedly 'for god'.
But the list of goodness and kindness and works of mercy that goes on around the world in the name of God far exceeds those deluded ,evil people and their actions.
Maybe we need a post about those people,those organisations ,but I suspect it would not have the same drama or hype such as the ore edgy threads.
Good news doesnt sell papers (so the saying goes)
The greatest act of love is sacrifice.and if youre a parent ,at least a good one these numerous acts are not uncommon.
God gifted his son, a sacrafice to Him.
I respect that some may not accept or even beleive in the gift.
But that to me says the most about the love of Christ!
It isnt self serving, or to be paraded by the show of fine buildings and fancy adornments,or wealth ,or education, or status,but by ....Sacrafice of the heart ,mind and body
Am I there ,is that me? my goodness nooooo,
I try..I try ..and because he knows me and loves me ,I am content.
I decided to stop by to say I love each and everyone of you.
Oh! ME ME! I hope I count in there too! haha Woman I just saw your post.
Love ya too!
Yes you count in there too Brenda. I didn't leave you out. I love all people. God bless you!
Bible decreed that ''women should obey their husbands'' ?
It is a wrong notion of the scribes; both men and women should respect one another and obey one another on merit of right; this is the Truthful teaching of the Religion. The scribe of the Bible are sinful person; they could mis-state the things in a wrong manner.
Six translations paar... Not much use denying it..
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-wife-be … n-4-34.htm
And that is still the current view.
And translations are never a truthful alternative to the original Word Revealed.
Ok paar.. I'm sure every translation they have is wrong..
That would mean that the words in the original language wouldn't hold any meaning..
What a statement...
Not only the Word should be in the origian language but it should be the exact Words Revealed by the Creator-God. It would be very appropriate if the original word in the original language is given on one page and its translation is afforded on the opposite page, so that the mistake of the translator is checked by anybody. Another method is to give the original word in the original language in an upper line and beneath it its translation is given.
Exact Translation is almost impossible.
Hogwash. Anything can be translated effectively and accurately.
first off we ARE talking about Christian marriages, right? Then the UNchristians have no idea how Christian marriages differs. Many heathen marriages are founded on the woman getting pregnant and the man opts to marry her. Of course this does not continue for very long or love wains thin, because sex is NOT a reason to base a marriage on. Many heathen marriages are based on a 50 50 partnership which breaks down when partner falls below that percentage and one person is carrying the load. Heathens are prone to sexual promiscuity hence there are instances of jealousy in certain situations before the act occurs. When heathens 'carry the load' themselves they have pressures and if the load gets too big the pressure affects the marriage negatively.
I could go on in a list but i won't
Now lets talk about a Christian marriage. And i am not talking about false christians whose statistics are listed as "divorced christians". I am talking about the percentage you never hear about, because there is nothing to tell. I am not saying anyone divorced is not christian either.
The beauty of a woman comes from within. It doesn't rely on makeup to boost her confidence, or wicked curves, her confidence comes from God and believe me, Christian women are so much more attractive than heathens its like a and z. Now since each member of the pair have the wisdom of God in them their discussions are completely different than two heathens battling for supremacy, which constantly happens in UNchristian marriages. In Christian marriages, God is the head of the household and therefore, as praying Christian couples do, pray enters the equation in decision making, selfishness and personal wants go out the window and righteous answers flourish. Both persons have waited for their spouse to 'show up' and often prayers have been uttered to the effect of "God send me a wife". Now the qualifications of that wife have been upped since God is doing the sending.
I know many couples who are loving and quite divine in their marriage sanctity and respect the other person enormously. Any Christian man who does not thank God for his wife is a fool and vice versa.
If Christians are married, its a more than wonderful thing but in all honesty a crap shoot for the heathens.
There are more advantages to Christians marrying (an institute started by God btw) than i care to list, but to touch on the 'obey your husband': this is not a slavery kind of obey (as the carnal mind can think of no other connotation) but an obedience which comes from love, dedication to the man and respect for God. Christian couples discuss things together, one may even get a word from God and when that is acted upon no one can blame the other thus alleviating yet another situation that destroys a marriage.
I do not purport that one is above the other nor do i purport that male and females are equal. God took a rib (which is a supporting bone, rib cage supports the chest and protects the heart and other organs) and said a "help mate" or someone to help the man. A union of two, single in purpose, striving toward the same thing, whether it be the tending of the garden of eden or journeying through life as Christians together. Men are to love their wives and this includes respect, adore and admire and at times a mental decision to do so is required also, as when shopping .
I read your post yesterday, and shot off a heated response which I deleted shortly thereafter. I don't feel I have been fair in responding to ignorance and untruths in a less than civil manner. I am attempting to change my ways.
But your post deserves a response, simply because someone needs to point out that this type of thing is so far removed from the way Jesus suggested one attempt to conduct oneself it is sad. Posting untruths is lying. Using words with the specific intent to elicit a negative reaction is unkind. And implying that those who would call themselves christian are somehow not, simply because their ways might deviate from your own, is unloving.
You have certainly displayed a great deal of the behavior that shows how far removed christianity has become from the source.
yah i noticed that and waited for your second attempt. I think you have issues so please don't put them on me. My post in no way insults women it speaks a truth about Gods chain of command. God, (angels) male, female, child. This is truth. I did not say the woman was a slave, under obedience to the man, the reference is that the man is the head of the household (as Christ is the head of the church: Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body).
If you have never had a christian marriage or been around Christians in whose life Jesus is FIRST and foremost then you will not be privy to the excellence that, as in everything, God manifests.
I am sorry you got all in a snit but with some women this topic can never be mentioned because it rears ugly heads; and men, when they post to this often become the receptors of bullying and foul mouthing from women, just as you have exampled.
Good luck in the future with this topic and remember the Garden.
So if you would care to show the ignorance and untruth and lies that i typed - I prefer the list method as i can respond to each one succinctly i would appreciate a chance to help you in this matter.
I am not looking to argue, I know we don't agree on things. I just what to ask a question.
Do you believe that the Middle east culture treats thier wives justly? Because they follow what you described above to the letter.
In my opinion. It seems more of a Master/Slave relationship than it does a loving relationship between two people of equal standings. If this is, in fact, the case. Does this make the man responsible for all actions taken by the wife? Since he is over her? If a man is truly a christian, then he would be responsible for the actions of the wife, since he is the head of her? Correct?
I may be off base here with what you are meaning, just looking to clarify is all.
Thanks double... I am not familiar with all the customs of that people and i am familiar with the customs of North american women. Putting the two side by side and comparing them i see noticeable differences but this does not necessarily encompass cultural differences. So as i am not equipped to give a full analysis of the situation, from what i know it seems to me the eastern culture leans to the side of what we colloquially term, 'overboard'. I think they way they treat their women is terrible, women are people, created by God and deserve opportunities based on that and more. I know a woman who works in Qatar and she is quite happy there, she was born on vancouver island, canada. She teaches etc..receives cosmopolitan magazines with the female arms blacked out with large felt markers (no skin showing).
As to what i have described in my above letter, i must be a poorer writer than i think i am and if so, i have to apologize for that. I said the man is the head of the house, i cannot cover all the inferences that this sort of statement conjures up in the minds of people. This is the trouble with writing - all the bases have to be covered and that makes for long posts indeed.
The master slave relationship you mention i thought i had debunked in an earlier post. One of the things to learn in Christlikeian lifestyle is humbleness, humility both for the man and woman. The man must not allow his authority to become a dictatorship. Since both parties are to be humble the next human quality to follow is listening and reasoning follows next. This is not a master slave situation.
Is the (North american) man or (eastern man) responsible?
This depends on the woman. I can't go into all the scenarios of events in each situation but i suppose that if the woman goes off and does her own thing against the advice of the husband, the woman is responsible the man in this scenario should still be loving and i mean loving. If the husband is off base and refuses to see the womans good points and just stubbornly tries to impute his will, perhaps by her subjection he will in time see the wrongness of his ways. Christians are not supposed to try and change each other, change is the work of God. Our mission is to pray and put things on God to do. In the meantime we learn patience and being christian we both are commanded to love one another.
hope that suffices.
Ok. I understand.
In the Middle East, In certian countries, the husband is responsible for the wifes actions...which is why some of the husbands act as they do...They spend the jail time or pay the fine for the "crimes" of the wife. Of course that might have changed in the last 2 years or so. It has been a few years since I was "boots on ground" over there.
Thanks for the response and clarification.
I try not to point the gun until the last instant.
It might be nerve wracking to be responsible under every circumstance.
male, female; both are people. I know a few women who have done "community service" i think i'd be picked if i had to peel the potatoes instead of the perpetrator. I wonder if that gives the woman opportunity to 'hold it over her mans head' so to speak. "honey if you don't let me go to such and such you'll be peelin potatoes by wednesday".
This is why i like God in the picture, kinda evens out the playing field.
They are a different kinda human over there.
The only muslim i ever met even receptive to the word jesus could not understand the love of Jesus and we were makin progress until it was time to get off the bus at a designated stop ( i bussed across canada to see my parents) and the driver braked and muslim buddy went into some guy not very hard and some other guy looked at him funny... the muslim fellah said 'why you look at me like that?" This led to a firey conversation between the two and the muslim wanting to go into the truck stop and buy a glass bottle of pop and smash it up against the other fellahs head.
I remember the change in his appearance, he went from nice to super nasty in an instant. Hot tempered i might call it. I had to repeatedly say, "Jesus would not act like that". The whole trip was different after that.
Good to be home? or do ya miss the warm weather
Not unlike the words uttered to many of the Christians who change in appearance here from atheists.
Always good to be home. You never truly appreciate what you have, until you see what others do not.
Interesting that you say you would prefer a list method. If that were true, you could have easily responded to my first post. I believe I listed several problems I found in your post. The fact that you didn't speaks volumes. The fallacies in your post are so glaringly obvious, I see no reason to waste my time pointing them out to any greater degree than has already been done twice
And oddly, you appear to be in a snit. I apologize that pointing out the obvious would cause you grief, but reality is what it is.
I would say...just post how you feel...being "rude" or being "nice" seems to get the same responses more often than not.
I can't post what I feel and maintain a clear conscience when responding to a fundamentalist mentality. The post I originally responded to was so offensive and full of clear untruths as to make my initial reply quite rude. Refering to those who don't agee with a childish take on religion as heathens is beyond offensive and, of course, it was meant to be.
I have spent a lifetime counting to three and smiling through gritted teeth at this type of hateful mentality, but I remained quiet because it was simply directed at me. These types of posts are thrown out as an insult to anyone he can insult. Which is why I made the mistake of responding to him in the first place. I have no earthly idea how any religion of that type can continue to exist. People are truly better than was displayed by his post.
It is hard sometimes I agree. You want to know what I do... I pretend not to notice the "insult" and continue talking like being called a "insulting term" is a perfectly acceptable title that I go by and state my point anyways. Of course that doesn't always work, because I am having a bad day or something...or it is one of those occasions when being openly rude is the only way to grab someones attention long enough to get my point across. You know... sometimes the record gets stuck and you have to bump the machine to continue the song.
I don't agree with alot of things discussed here in the forums...But I find it immensely educational...From verifing my information before posting a rebuttal, to getting a look at the varied personalities and viewpoints of others who talk here. And if I get to teeked off...I simply turn off the PC and approach it the next day with a clear mind and fresh eyes.
And I don't care what anyone says...I think you have a very deep insight into the subjects brought up here in the forums and somewhere out there someone is benefiting from your thoughts and ideas.
You mean something like this DS?
"Attack the false idea, not the person who holds that idea."
-Martin Luther King Jr.
Thanks. I think I was in need of a kind post. That was very sweet of you to say (sadly untrue, but kind nonetheless).
I enjoy your posts a lot. It must be nice to have taken the time and opportunity to study so many religions. It seems to have given you a very level headed perspective.
God advice, too; about walking away. My problem is I'm on a droid most of the time. When it beeps, no matter how hard I try, my curiosity tends to get the better of me. This place, even when it disappoints me (or causes me to disappoint myself), is always fascinating.
I didn't see any. Maybe you could quote him and point things out so we are clear on what was said?
Vector, my man. You are obviously playing the part of the peanut gallery today. Nice to see your post, but you know as well as I do there would be no point in following your advice. If you don't see the point now, I couldn't explain it to you. When have we ever seen eye to eye on anything?
take your time
i can be emailed at your convenience the addy is on my profile page.
I have no idea what you are talking about, but trust me. I would never share my email address with you. Even at this level of anonymity, that is more information about me than I would feel comfortable knowing was in your possession.
vector, Agreed. There is no hateful mentality in his post. Odd how one can quickly label a person as being unloving when they disagree with them. It's quite obvious who have issues with the husband being the loving leader.
I agree with how you posted jc and I do see and understand your stance.
Like being between the devil and a hard place
For the record I have not been offended by how you communicate,sure we may not agree on topics,but mature and secure adults can usually communicate without anger or insults.
Sometimes Ive caught myself midstream and backspaced so as not to be offensive ,but other times doesnt how much I carefully and sensitively word something it irritates anyway.
In the end ,one must 'Be true to oneself'
So spit it out,lol.
Well, I'm embarrassed I reacted so poorly. It wasn't so much the post, as the mentality. I get very fretted when men try to argue biblically for a woman to know her place. Its bs. Around here it's usually coming from uneducated men who seem to be afraid of the thought that a woman is smarter than they are. And they are usually at least bright enough to know that most women are.
Their poor wives look miserable. I go between feeling sorry for them and thinking they must deserve what they are obviously willing to accept. I've tried to help one or two over the years, but I always end up being the bad guy for trying.
And here's a guy on the forum arguing as if that mentality is somehow above the rest of us.
I hear you.
Honestly I think God knew exactly what he was doing ,since He knew a smart woman would know her strengths.
Most men are just boys in bigger pants anyway.
GOD is amazing in EVERY situation!!! (no wonder we give praise to Him)
My favorite music is still jimmy swaggart
be edified in Christ
No. it isn't sarcasm vector. It is, to me, an example of what I consider to be the backseat mentality this faith structure instills in women.
"Bible decreed that ''women should obey their husbands''
People who should not think for themselves
are to follow higher authority. This authority resides with the male. Like Rush Limbaugh no argument allowed since he and his principles are incapable of it.
Bible decreed that ''women should obey their husbands'' ?
It is a wrong notion of the scribes; both men and women should respect one another and obey one another on merit of right; this is the Truthful teaching of the Religion. The scribe of the Bible are sinful person; they could mis-state the things in a wrong manner.
paarsurreyposted 30 hours ago
"Bible decreed that ''women should obey their husbands'' ?
It is a wrong notion of the scribes; both men and women should respect one another and obey one another on merit of right; this is the Truthful teaching of the Religion. The scribe of the Bible are sinful person; they could mis-state the things in a wrong manner."
We call this babbling paar. The broken record. Loss of memory. Beating a dead horse..
Repeating yourself isn't going to help your argument nor make anyone look bad..
And how would you like it if I told you the author of the quran is a sinful person? He was a very sexually active person, including with very, very young girls.
I think you should re-think your Bible slandering in a Christian forum little buddy..
It's not very respectful..
As I have said before the bible was written by a bunch of ignorant sexist goat herders.
No surprise that it puts women in the same position as cattle.
Thank God he does not use the higher gene pools only. I am glad that the lowly of the earth gets a chance at pursuing things that some think only the mighty and renowned of the world should partake of.
But isn't that what jesus said and God of course used weak vessels also.
c'mon earnest you claimed to have studied the bible from cover to cover and you did not notice that?
I'd like to know your definition of 'study'
I think that is the weakest argument I have seen for some time.
"I think that is the weakest argument I have seen for some time."
I'm not sure that's an argument at all.
Heck, I'm surprised you responded in the first place. I think you were giving it too much credit by calling it an argument. It was better defined as gobbledy gook. It barely made sense.
earnest, i think youre retort was the weakest i have EVER read. I am surprised after "studying" psycology and the bible and who knows what you can't even define the word study. I am not surprised the gasoline engine is your forte'.
now i know you're out to get me, being all angry and stuff, but i think if you cannot grasp that short post then obviously you can't grasp longer posts.
Vector is correct!
It wasn't an argument at all. It was an astute observation that became known to me after i studied - applied my mind by reading and investigation - the BIBLE. I have of course, scripture to back the 'gobbledy gook' up.
Don't play with fire you will get burnt.
Some have been burnt by supposed 'bible contradictions' before, but i see even mortal wounds can heal wayyyyy too quickly, or is a short memory a good substitute for a clear conscience? huh, earnest.
More fifth rate threats and personal abuse? As I said, unworthy of a reply. I am not out to get you, that would be your paranoia.
If I did learn to hate, it would be someone who actually had something to say that meant something to me. You don't cut it.
I am not 'out to get you'. It never ceases to amaze me how often people have the need to feel persecuted. I'll admit. Your posts give me the heebee jeebees. And when you suggested I email you it did make my skin crawl. But, I've figured out why. I always thought pentacostal meant fundamentalist. I looked it up today. I went to
I realize I was wrong. There are people with your brand of religion in the area I live in. I've seen these men with their wives. I get your posts now. I guess I always did, but hadn't put two and two together. I don't react to your posts any differently than I react to these men. The pentacostal behavior in relationships is a throw back to another time. It is, in my opinon, a brutish way to look at life and the women I have met that are married in the pentacostal faith are, in my opinon, a shell of what a woman was meant to be.
I consider this type of mentality born of ignorance. It is perpetuated by men of lower intellect afraid of the minds of women. It is, in many ways, no different from fundamental islamic beliefs
I did take offense to your comments about heathens. I consider your take on life heathen. Go figure.
I used heathen because i drew a definite line between people actually being christians and living for God and those that do not, a distinction had to be made.
Pentecostalism is not a sect to be discredited. The first church was pentecostal and the last church will be too. This is not to say that all other denominations will melt away, but pentecostalism has the fire that other denoms do not have.
Some pentecostals can be legalistic but it is important to realize here that the congregation does not create change in the person, change is the work of the holy spirit. If a legalistic church of any denom is found.. find another, i did.
The views on marriage were not given to me by my pastor.
You have to get around your stumblingblock and read the post at face value, the way it is intended to be read. I am sorry you have such a nasty library to draw from concerning this topic, however, your perception, although it may well be true for you cannot be splashed across the board and neither does it apply to any married couple i have met.
and the principles i set forth are so far removed from islamic beliefs that i seriously am disturbed by your misinterpretation, i am only glad that others can read my post also.
Yes, others can read. I doubt many bothered with your post after the first few sentences. It was obvious that you have no respect, or understanding, of people outside of the sect you belong to. Those of us who chose to live in the real world do sympathize, but have no way to empathize with a mentality that was laid to rest in our world a century or more ago.
And I just don't see it that way. As long as you push this philosophy, as if it is the correct one, I don't see that wishing me, or any other woman, well at all.
I do wish you some enlightenment. Which, to me, is wishing you well in the most positive way imaginable.
Yes, you and them. The superior and the inferior. The good and the evil. The righteous and sinful. It would be funny if it wasn't so dangerous.
Yes, we can, and we can see that the only difference between your beliefs and Islamic beliefs is the use of the word 'heathen' which is denoted as 'infidel' in Islam.
"As I have said before..."
Yes, we are aware..
and honored to be considered among the least and the last and even, peculiar.
I agree, it is much better to be the underdog, then you can cry that you are being victimized by the naughty non fairy believers.
by ngureco 3 years ago
Why Do Wives Get Mad With Husbands Watching Porn? How Does It Interfere With Marriage?
by dashingscorpio 5 years ago
What do you think of 1 Timothy 2:12? (NIV)"I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[a] she must be quiet."Do you find any parts of the bible to be sexist? or Do you believe God has his reasons?
by Sima Ballinger 8 years ago
In a marriage, does the man (husband) have to be the main money earner?Does it matter if the husband or wife is the breadwinner -- main income earner?
by Waitingforyou 9 years ago
Are you currently in a relationship where you fully trust your man? Well ladies, let me inform you that there is no such thing as a trustworthy man unless he fears God. If your husband doesnt have a close relationship with Him, then consider your relationship up for grabs. Do you know what can...
by Jamie Gates 11 years ago
And that's what this is - strictly my opinion and everyone has the right to agree or disagree. I wouldn't take offense because we all feel strongly in our beliefs.Here's the deal. First of all, I'm a female. After 57 years of living, I've decided that monogamy isn't natural for the man. Male brains...
by Kebennett1 8 years ago
Why do many women find it a threat to be a submissive wife?Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. Colossians 3:18-19
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|