12 Nov 06
1 Timothy 2: 11-14:
11 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection.
12 But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve;
14 and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression:
No "cultural norms" there; the reason a woman must not teach and must be quiet is tied directly to Genesis.
12 Nov 06
Originally posted by no1marauderAgain we are talking about the union of a man and a woman, namely Adam and Eve. In such a union the woman should be in subjection to her husband and should not excercise authority over him which includes the setting of the church . If this were inclusive outside the marital union, how then could we have Deborah the judge and prophetess in the Old Testament that I referred to?
1 Timothy 2: 11-14:
11 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection.
12 But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve;
14 and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression:
No "cultural norms" there; the reason a woman must not teach and must be quiet is tied directly to Genesis.
12 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI believe that in most cases it's possible to reach an agreement either by compromise or because one part has the more convincing arguments. Of course this requires a willingness on both sides to respect and listen to the other person and work on the relationship. In the few cases where an agreement can't be reached, I think each part should be prepared to give in sometimes. Often the decision has a stronger impact on one person, in which case it would sound reasonable that this person makes the final decision. You also have to take into account that some people are more flexible than others, which often leads to one person giving in more often than the other one. As long as both are happy with that, I don't see a problem with that. It's quite different from saying that one of them has the God-given authority.
The reason I feel that someone needs to assume the role of authority in the context of a marriage is that when two people may not agree on certain issues who has the final vote to make difficult decisions? I suppose if you had three people in a position of authority you could run things democraticly and vote on issues, however, you only have two people to ma ...[text shortened]... s that more than likely the union will dissolve if neither is willing to submitt to the other.
Also, who do the children listen to? If one parent is telling them one thing and the other parent is telling them the opposite, is this a good environment for children to be in? More than likely the child will play one parent against the other in such circumstances.
If the parents discuss and come to an agreement on how they want to educate their children and what rules they want to establish, there won't be many cases where one parent tells the children the opposite of the other one. I don't think those few cases will do much harm. I do think it will do the children harm if one parent always acts against xyr own wishes. The child will get two different messages from one person - children usually pick up very well if people don't mean what they say. The person acting against xyr own wishes is also more likely to be inconsequent, because xe doesn't believe in what xe's doing. This will be very confusing for the child.
12 Nov 06
Originally posted by whodeyYou're truly thick, as well as a sexist. Verses 11 and 12 don't say anything about a marital union, do they?
Again we are talking about the union of a man and a woman, namely Adam and Eve. In such a union the woman should be in subjection to her husband and should not excercise authority over him which includes the setting of the church . If this were inclusive outside the marital union, how then could we have Deborah the judge and prophetess in the Old Testament that I referred to?
12 Nov 06
Originally posted by whodeyI'll tell you something about men and women. It is a healthy man who wants his woman to have authority and be decisive and is not threatened by it. When I see men in these controlling relationships where they always have the last word (partly becuase that's what they grew up with) I can smell the lawyers (sorry, No. 1). What man in his right mind cares if his wife carries some authority in the home? I bet Ted Haggard's wife is wishing she busted his balls.
Again we are talking about the union of a man and a woman, namely Adam and Eve. In such a union the woman should be in subjection to her husband and should not excercise authority over him which includes the setting of the church . If this were inclusive outside the marital union, how then could we have Deborah the judge and prophetess in the Old Testament that I referred to?
13 Nov 06
Originally posted by kirksey957The verse doesn't refer to the raising of the family; in this the man and the woman share the mantle. The passage does refer to authority in the church ecclesiastical, and the prohibition against a woman teaching a man, not a woman teaching a male.
I'll tell you something about men and women. It is a healthy man who wants his woman to have authority and be decisive and is not threatened by it. When I see men in these controlling relationships where they always have the last word (partly becuase that's what they grew up with) I can smell the lawyers (sorry, No. 1). What man in his right mind car ...[text shortened]... arries some authority in the home? I bet Ted Haggard's wife is wishing she busted his balls.
13 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAnd what, pray tell, is wrong with a woman teaching a man?
The verse doesn't refer to the raising of the family; in this the man and the woman share the mantle. The passage does refer to authority in the church ecclesiastical, and the prohibition against a woman teaching a man, not a woman teaching a male.
13 Nov 06
Originally posted by NordlysI liked what you said about respecting each other in the relationship. I happen to think that a loving relationship demands respect. After all, if one does not respect another what basis for a relationship is there? As I said before, I am talking about loving relationships where man and wife respect each other. Those relationships that do not have this quality tend to become abusive in many regards. As I said before, the rights of authority of the male in the marriage is then undermined if he becomes abusive. The woman has rights in this event despite the man having authority over her.
I believe that in most cases it's possible to reach an agreement either by compromise or because one part has the more convincing arguments. Of course this requires a willingness on both sides to respect and listen to the other person and work on the relationship. In the few cases where an agreement can't be reached, I think each part should be prepared to g ...[text shortened]... cause xe doesn't believe in what xe's doing. This will be very confusing for the child.
13 Nov 06
2 edits
Originally posted by kirksey957I would label a controlling relationship abusive. I do not equate having authority as being controlling or abusive necessarily. Granted, it can be. In such circumstances the abuser, in my opinion, then surrenders any authority they may have had. Neither do I begrudge women having authority as long as it does not superceede the husbands authority. This, of coarse, is unless their husbands become abusive as they excercise authority over them.
I'll tell you something about men and women. It is a healthy man who wants his woman to have authority and be decisive and is not threatened by it. When I see men in these controlling relationships where they always have the last word (partly becuase that's what they grew up with) I can smell the lawyers (sorry, No. 1). What man in his right mind car ...[text shortened]... arries some authority in the home? I bet Ted Haggard's wife is wishing she busted his balls.
13 Nov 06
Originally posted by whodeySo what part of my post do you object to?
I liked what you said about respecting each other in the relationship. I happen to think that a loving relationship demands respect. After all, if one does not respect another what basis for a relationship is there? As I said before, I am talking about loving relationships where man and wife respect each other. Those relationships that do not have this qu ...[text shortened]... becomes abusive. The woman has rights in this event despite the man having authority over her.
Respect isn't worth much if you don't act on it. Try to imagine how it would be for yourself to be in a relationship in which your partner makes all the decisions.
13 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by NordlysA loving relationship implies that one attempts to please the other and therefore does not attempt to trample the will of the other by making all the decisions all the time.
So what part of my post do you object to?
Respect isn't worth much if you don't act on it. Try to imagine how it would be for yourself to be in a relationship in which your partner makes all the decisions.
13 Nov 06
Originally posted by whodey...but, the bible isn't politically correct. it's shocking. it was shocking then, and it is shocking now. i mean, Jesus was befrending tax collectors and prostitutes. the lowest of the low! i watched "borat" the other day. he took a prostitute to a dinner party, and they got chucked out. doing that just isn't PC. it's doesn't align with society. It is, however, what Jesus did.
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=47556
Here is an article about how a group of 52 biblical "specialists" have released a new version of the Bible in which inclusive language and "political correctness" have replaced some "divisive" teachings of Chrisitanity in order to persent a "more just languauge" for groups such as feminists and homosexu ...[text shortened]... ance clubs and ends up "cleaning bathrooms at McDonald's".
hey, people, it's okay to be a practising homosexual and a practising christian! ignore all that stuff about sexual immorality-we're living in the age of sexual freedom! yeah!
*rolls eyes*
13 Nov 06
Originally posted by geniusWell said.
...but, the bible isn't politically correct. it's shocking. it was shocking then, and it is shocking now. i mean, Jesus was befrending tax collectors and prostitutes. the lowest of the low! i watched "borat" the other day. he took a prostitute to a dinner party, and they got chucked out. doing that just isn't PC. it's doesn't align with society. It is, howeve ...[text shortened]... bout sexual immorality-we're living in the age of sexual freedom! yeah!
*rolls eyes*
13 Nov 06
Originally posted by whodeyA few pages ago you said: "Men have the burden of making the right decisions for the family unit and women have the burden of supporting their spouse with these decisions." Aren't you contradicting yourself?
A loving relationship implies that one attempts to please the other and therefore does not attempt to trample the will of the other by making all the decisions all the time.