• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ask and I Shall Answer; An Interview with ForeverFaithful

Shuddhasattva

Shuddhasattva

Well-Known Member
ForeverFaithful said:
Moral authority? the only Moral authority for Christians is Christ and His Church

The wife should submit because it is meet and right to do so, the man is the provider
Click to expand...

It seems to me that your idea of male authority is also rooted in superior moral status for men; superiority in ethical decision making, and ecclesiastical rights far in excess of those extended to women in your/"His" church.

If it's right that the woman submit to the man because he is the provider, what then of relationships wherein the woman is the provider? Should the man submit?
 
waitasec

waitasec

Veteran Member
ForeverFaithful said:
Moral authority? the only Moral authority for Christians is Christ and His Church
Click to expand...

but the church is not christ...isn't christ supposed to provide morality authority...and isn't this moral authority understood by faith that christ can meet everyone on their level of understanding?
 
ForeverFaithful

ForeverFaithful

Son Worshiper
waitasec said:
but the church is not christ...isn't christ supposed to provide morality authority...and isn't this moral authority understood by faith that christ can meet everyone on their level of understanding?
Click to expand...

Christ is the head and guide of the Church, and in a mystical way Christ is the Church

As St. Joan of Arc said ""About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they are just one thing and we shouldn't complicate the matter.""
 
ForeverFaithful

ForeverFaithful

Son Worshiper
Shuddhasattva said:
It seems to me that your idea of male authority is also rooted in superior moral status for men; superiority in ethical decision making, and ecclesiastical rights far in excess of those extended to women in your/"His" church.

If it's right that the woman submit to the man because he is the provider, what then of relationships wherein the woman is the provider? Should the man submit?
Click to expand...

I do not believe men are morally superior, I believe that men have duty to be providers and heads of the family and to love their wives like Christ.

Though this might seem a cop out I much agree with what Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity on this issue
So much for the Christian doctrine about the permanence of marriage. Something else, even more unpopular, remains to be dealt with. Christian wives promise to obey their husbands. In Christian marriage the man is said to be the ‘head’. Two questions obviously arise here. (1) Why should there be a head at all — why not equality? (2) Why should it be the man?
(1) The need for some head follows from the idea that marriage is permanent. Of course, as long as the husband and wife are agreed, no question of a head need arise; and we may hope that this will be the normal state of affairs in a Christian marriage. But when there is a real disagreement, what is to happen? Talk it over, of course; but I am assuming they have done that and still failed to reach agreement. What do they do next? They cannot decide by a majority vote, for in a council of two there can be no majority. Surely, only one or other of two things can happen: either they must separate and go their own ways or else one or other of them must have a casting vote. If marriage is permanent, one or other party must, in the last resort, have the power of deciding the family policy. You cannot have a permanent association without a constitution.
(2) If there must be a head, why the man? Well, firstly, is there any very serious wish that it should be the woman? As I have said, I am not married myself, but as far as I can see, even a woman who wants to be the head of her own house does not usually admire the same state of things when she finds it going on next door. She is much more likely to say ‘Poor Mr X! Why he allows that appalling woman to boss him about the way she does is more than I can imagine.’ I do not think she is even very flattered if anyone mentions the fact of her own ‘headship’. There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over husbands, because the wives themselves are half ashamed of it and despise the husbands whom they rule. But there is also another reason; and here I speak quite frankly as a bachelor, because it is a reason you can see from outside even better than from inside. The relations of the family to the outer world — what might be called its foreign policy — must depend, in the last resort, upon the man, because he always ought to be, and usually is, much more just to the outsiders. A woman is primarily fighting for her own children and husband against the rest of the world. Naturally, almost, in a sense, rightly, their claims override, for her, all other claims. She is the special trustee of their interests. The function of the husband is to see that this natural preference of hers is not given its head. He has the last word in order to protect other people from the intense family patriotism of the wife. If anyone doubts this, let me ask a simple question. If your dog has bitten the child next door, or if your child has hurt the dog next door, which would you sooner have to deal with, the master of that house or the mistress? Or, if you are a married woman, let me ask you this question. Much as you admire your husband, would you not say that his chief failing is his tendency not to stick up for his rights and yours against the neighbours as vigorously as you would like? A bit of an Appeaser?
Click to expand...
 
ForeverFaithful

ForeverFaithful

Son Worshiper
waitasec said:
is trust a part of morality?
Click to expand...

Trusting in God is a way of life, I believe having trust in a part of morality, that we loving our neighbour and God put our trust and hope in virtue and eternal things, rather than trusting the ever shifting world and its snares.
 
waitasec

waitasec

Veteran Member
ForeverFaithful said:
Trusting in God is a way of life, I believe having trust in a part of morality, that we loving our neighbour and God put our trust and hope in virtue and eternal things, rather than trusting the ever shifting world and its snares.
Click to expand...

can you show me the difference between the two?

give me an example of how you trust god vs. trusting the ever shifting world?
 
ForeverFaithful

ForeverFaithful

Son Worshiper
waitasec said:
can you give me an example of a particular martyr...?
Click to expand...

Stephen; Act 7

54 When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

57 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58 dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.

59 While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.

Stephen was able to hold fast to his beliefs till the day he died, he found peace before death, having something to die for gave him something to live for.
 
waitasec

waitasec

Veteran Member
ForeverFaithful said:
Stephen; Act 7

54 When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

57 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58 dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.

59 While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.

Stephen was able to hold fast to his beliefs till the day he died, he found peace before death, having something to die for gave him something to live for.
Click to expand...

hmmm doesn't compute.
this biblical story is so far removed from my life experience in todays world.
in other words practically speaking, how to you trust god and not trust the world?

give me an example of how you trust god vs. trusting the ever shifting world?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top