When Should Women Obey Their Husbands?

[Terrywoodenpic]

It is the Anglican Church, is it not. As Paul said, he became whatever he had to become in order to save but some.

As for it being a problem, that depends on what priesthood you are following. The Church had equality 2 thousand years ago and did not use it; then they were behind the secular world; and now they follow the secular world.

I think it would take great humility for women believers to not take up such a role if it was on offer in this day and age. Is that right or wrong? We all answer to God, though it is interesting that the 'same' God tells one man that men should rule and another man (or woman) that a woman should rule. What do you think?

The Earliest Judo-Christian Church can be seen represented in The Didache.
It is written entirely in Gender inclusive Greek. " This is not an option in an English translation"
the Training of the new gentile recruits was done by both men and women mentors and all the instructions were given entirely gender free. It seems that Christianity acquired its male leadership bias some what later, and would have been reinforced by Greek and Roman society norms.

When translating Gender free Greek into English we usually choose the normal male option.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Rebut what you say? What are you saying?
If you are trying to say that the bible says that the universe has only been around for a few thousand years, then it doesn't. Is that what you are saying?

Absolutely
the Bible makes no reference to the age of the World or the universe.
Young earth ideas, were derived by trying to count the generations since Adam.
This is a rather pointless task as Adam himself was mythical.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The Earliest Judo-Christian Church can be seen represented in The Didache.
It is written entirely in Gender inclusive Greek. " This is not an option in an English translation"
the Training of the new gentile recruits was done by both men and women mentors and all the instructions were given entirely gender free. It seems that Christianity acquired its male leadership bias some what later, and would have been reinforced by Greek and Roman society norms.

When translating Gender free Greek into English we usually choose the normal male option.

I would certainly think the modern Church would be heavily effected by Roman thinking.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Absolutely
the Bible makes no reference to the age of the World or the universe.
Young earth ideas, were derived by trying to count the generations since Adam.

Quite so.

This is a rather pointless task as Adam himself was mythical.

I see everything as showing something earlier, within higher-consciousness, that is, of God. So to me, that is the real Adam and Chavvah. As for an Adam on this planet, Yes, but not the starter of humanity. That is why there is a difference in the first few chapters of Genesis and the ''adam''.

 

[Underhill]

Well I don't want to derail the thread, so I won't answer, accept to say you have a lot of misconceptions there. The Bible, and scripture in general, is not an easy read. One should not think that by reading the surface text, one understands it fully.

I haven't assumed anything. As one who went to a baptist high school and went on to a year at Bible school (Word of Life), I think I have a pretty clear understanding of what the book says.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I haven't assumed anything. As one who went to a baptist high school and went on to a year at Bible school (Word of Life), I think I have a pretty clear understanding of what the book says.

I can only say you don't if you think that everything came about in six 24 hour periods. Look a little deeper yourself.

 

[Underhill]

I can only say you don't if you think that everything came about in six 24 hour periods. Look a little deeper yourself.

Millions of people think it took 6 days (most of the christian world believed it until relativity recently). But regardless of the methodology, it's absurd to think the god who created bacteria, the axolotl and the leafy seadragon would concern himself with who people sleep with or the length of their hair. Why would the god who brought us asexual creatures care about homosexuality. Why would a god who created the praying mantis (a female that kills her mate after conception) put men in a position of authority over women?

These things are clearly cultural. The fact that these holy books, 'inspired by god', focus on such trivialities is just one more evidence that they are inspired by men and not some higher power with ideals beyond the bounds of mankind's petty garbage.

 

[Ingledsva]

Rebut what you say? What are you saying?
If you are trying to say that the bible says that the universe has only been around for a few thousand years, then it doesn't. Is that what you are saying?

You know perfectly well that is not what I'm saying. We have already put aside the thousand years as a day!

I have asked for the proof using the stated genealogies, - and you still have no answer. And when you go back and look - you will note that I also purposefully left out Adam and Chav'vah, - starting the genealogies after them.

Doesn't work - it is BULL. And as already stated, adding the later Ark story kill off, down to three breeding pairs, makes it even more laughable.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

You do know that is speaking of a group of people on a certain land, don't you? Please don't tell me that you think it was global.

LOL! Red-herring. Of course I know there was no global flood as stated. However that is what the Bible says. And it states that God KILLED ALL of the OTHER PEOPLE and ANIMALS. This makes it a BULL story. And again - it gives us genealogies.

EDIT -Forgot to add that the details they give show they meant a true global flood. Also the detail of the water covering the mountains - obviously would mean global, not just their area. So, not true.

*

 

[Robert.Evans]

You know perfectly well that is not what I'm saying. We have already put aside the thousand years as a day!

Have we? Says who?

I have asked for the proof using the stated genealogies, - and you still have no answer. And when you go back and look - you will note that I also purposefully left out Adam and Chav'vah, - starting the genealogies after them.

Proof of what?

Doesn't work - it is BULL. And as already stated, adding the later Ark story kill off, down to three breeding pairs, makes it even more laughable.

*

Meaning what?

LOL! Red-herring. Of course I know there was no global flood as stated. However that is what the Bible says.

It's what it says in mine. Get yourself a better one or learn how to read it better.

And it states that God KILLED ALL of the OTHER PEOPLE and ANIMALS. This makes it a BULL story. And again - it gives us genealogies.

Not all... it was on a land.

EDIT -Forgot to add that the details they give show they meant a true global flood. Also the detail of the water covering the mountains - obviously would mean global, not just their area. So, not true.

*

Floods can happen at any time. They do not have to be the flood you are thinking of. And no, that is not bull. If you want to learn then you need to listen, not lecture.

And you will still have to explain in plain English what it is you are saying.

 

[Ingledsva]

Have we? Says who?

Proof of what?

Meaning what?

It's what it says in mine. Get yourself a better one or learn how to read it better.

Not all... it was on a land.

Floods can happen at any time. They do not have to be the flood you are thinking of. And no, that is not bull. If you want to learn then you need to listen, not lecture.

And you will still have to explain in plain English what it is you are saying.

And you obviously can't support your assertions so I get this repeated bull instead of a rebuttal to the original question.

*

 

[Robert.Evans]

And you obviously can't support your assertions so I get this repeated bull instead of a rebuttal to the original question.

*

What assertions? I don't even know what we are talking about now. You mention genealogies saying that it showed the bible was wrong. I say you have it wrong . You explain better what you mean and I might be able to defend it then, once I know what you're talking about. Geeez

 

[Ingledsva]

What assertions? I don't even know what we are talking about now. You mention genealogies saying that it showed the bible was wrong. I say you have it wrong . You explain better what you mean and I might be able to defend it then, once I know what you're talking about. Geeez

LOL! Start with # 341 on page 18 = "It is a myth. And There is not enough time from their children, to now, for all the diversity we have in humans."

Followed by YOU # 359 = "But that is YOUR misunderstanding of scripture. We all have some, you just have more than most "

And you haven't given an actual rebuttal to what I said.

We are not talking - a thousand years is as a day - because I purposefully started with the children, and the Bible stated genealogies, which give us a time. There is not enough time listed for the diversity we have, and it becomes even more stupid when we add The Ark story and starting over with just three breeding pairs.

Gen 5

Here is a chart - Family tree of the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*

 

[JerryL]

Under what conditions, if any, should a woman habitually obey her husband? Are there any conditions under which a woman should not obey her husband?

When she has chosen to.

All relationship have power-exchange. Sometimes it's formalized (see D/s relationships as well as some religions), sometimes it's informal. Some times it's universal (that one is in charge of basically everything), sometimes its segmented (one makes food decisions, the other car decisions). Sometimes it's consistent (one always chooses where vacation is), sometimes it flips around (I chose last time, they chose this time).

With "habitually", you touch on one of those three criteria... whether it flips around.

There's no single answer other than when that's what happens, by agreement or relationship dynamic.

If a woman should habitually obey her husband, why should she habitually obey her husband?

Because she's chosen (perhaps she likes it as a power dynamic, perhaps she doesn't like making decisions, perhaps she's just easy going and wants to let him do his thing, perhaps she just thinks he makes good decisions) to either directly or via her choice to participate in a moral or religious framework.

Is a woman who does not habitually obey her husband acting in an immoral manner?

That would depend on the moral framework in which the question is asked.

If a woman believes her husband is a fool, should she still habitually obey him? If a woman believes her husband is abusive, should she still obey him?

I would say "no". I would further say that she shouldn't have let him become her husband. YMMV

Bonus Question: Why is nearly every woman on the Forum secretly in love with Debater Slayer despite his appalling taste in socks?

Because expressing their love for me in public would be too difficult.

 

[Robert.Evans]

LOL! Start with # 341 on page 18 = "It is a myth. And There is not enough time from their children, to now, for all the diversity we have in humans."

Followed by YOU # 359 = "But that is YOUR misunderstanding of scripture. We all have some, you just have more than most "

And you haven't given an actual rebuttal to what I said.

We are not talking - a thousand years is as a day - because I purposefully started with the children, and the Bible stated genealogies, which give us a time. There is not enough time listed for the diversity we have, and it becomes even more stupid when we add The Ark story and starting over with just three breeding pairs.

Gen 5

Here is a chart - Family tree of the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*

The bible is speaking of a group of people a few thousand years ago on a particular land. That is it. It is not speaking of anything else in real terms, only in spiritual. Does that answer it? I see no problem with it at all. I can only think that you see it the wrong way to say that.

 

[Unification]

All conditions. There are no exceptions.

1 Peter 3
3 Wives, respect and obey your husbands in the same way.

Ephesians 5:22-33
22 A wife should put her husband first, as she does the Lord. 23 A husband is the head of his wife,

Colossians 3:18
Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.​

Nope. If there were they would have been mentioned.

The Bible tells her to.


Don't know about the morality of it all, but it cannot be countenanced.

Absolutely. There are are no exceptions to the law.

Absolutely. There are are no exceptions to the law.

1 Peter 3
3 Wives, respect and obey your husbands in the same way.

Ephesians 5:22-33
22 A wife should put her husband first, as she does the Lord. 23 A husband is the head of his wife,

Colossians 3:18
Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.​

Under what conditions, if any, should a woman habitually obey her husband? Are there any conditions under which a woman should not obey her husband?

If a woman should habitually obey her husband, why should she habitually obey her husband? Is a woman who does not habitually obey her husband acting in an immoral manner?

If a woman believes her husband is a fool, should she still habitually obey him? If a woman believes her husband is abusive, should she still obey him?

Bonus Question: Why is nearly every woman on the Forum secretly in love with Debater Slayer despite his appalling taste in socks?

If a human doesn't see anything wrong with a female placed below a male, this is unjust and not equal, and not something of God.
The natural sees the natural.... And carnality equals death.
If a husband cannot get his wife to respect him through love and sacrifice, and needs to force or use control, or better yet, condemn himself to the extreme by using scriptures written by God to oppress her, he doesn't deserve her.
Everyone speaks of a prudent wife, but why not a prudent husband?
Because the Spirit is seeking a prudent physical human body to dwell in.
The husband is the Spirit and the wife is the body.
The body was created for the Spirit. The Spirit was NOT created for the body.
The body is the weaker vessel.
The body is a vessel that the Spirit dwells in.
The Lord is the husbandry.
The body(consisting of carnality-carnal mind/flesh) is not permitted to speak in church.
The Spirit should be covering the body. (A nice healthy head of hair, one being led by the Spirit)
Everyone is focused on earthly stuff.... Their earthly marriage, etc. .... Seek the Lord properly. The divine marriage of husband and wife is Spirit and body.
In the Lord, your earthly marriages do not exist in scripture. . Besides a few passages spoken by Paul, in which he clearly states "I, not the Lord" when discussing earthly matters.
The bible has been used to oppress women, and people for many, many years. Now we have female below male, all the slavery that occurred, physical abuse, oppression for money.... Get spiritual and the only way is meditation on the Lord.

 

[Unification]

As for creation.... The entire process in Genesis:1 is the creation of the human. Not the physical/literal Earth.

 

[Ingledsva]

The bible is speaking of a group of people a few thousand years ago on a particular land. That is it. It is not speaking of anything else in real terms, only in spiritual. Does that answer it? I see no problem with it at all. I can only think that you see it the wrong way to say that.

And that is your SPECULATION, - it does not say that in the Bible.

The Bible specifically tells us Adam and Chav'vah were the first, - their child produces the first earth children, and genealogies. Then the Ark story says the flood was over the tops of the mountains, thus earth wide. It tells us whom survived, and their genealogies.

It very obviously means a whole-earth flood, and it is bull. The diversity of people and animals could not have happened in that time.

So no, - your speculation on "only spiritual," in what "some" of the Bible says, does not answer the question.

Obviously it is myth, however - most of Christianity pushes it as truth, - which we must accept, - or go to Hell.

So, it is either truth - as the religions of Abraham teach, - and thus can't be fooled with.

Or it is MYTH, - like all other religions, - meaning NONE have to follow it, - and Christianity needs to stop telling people they are going to hell for not following the laws, or for not accepting what they know is just MYTH.

In other words - the rather convenient switching back and forth between some parts being myth, and other parts that are equally fantastic/mythical (virgin birth, no male father other than YHVH, trinity God, Jesus appearing after death, etc.,) as being truth, and thus we MUST believe and follow the religion, shows a tendency for such believers, and teachers, to be hypocrites.

*

 

[Unification]

And that is your SPECULATION, - it does not say that in the Bible.

The Bible specifically tells us Adam and Chav'vah were the first, - their child produces the first earth children, and genealogies. Then the Ark story says the flood was over the tops of the mountains, thus earth wide. It tells us whom survived, and their genealogies.

It very obviously means a whole-earth flood, and it is bull. The diversity of people and animals could not have happened in that time.

So no, - your speculation on "only spiritual," in what "some" of the Bible says, does not answer the question.

Obviously it is myth, however - most of Christianity pushes it as truth, - which we must accept, - or go to Hell.

So, it is either truth - as the religions of Abraham teach, - and thus can't be fooled with.

Or it is MYTH, - like all other religions, - meaning NONE have to follow it, - and Christianity needs to stop telling people they are going to hell for not following the laws, or for not accepting what they know is just MYTH.

In other words - the rather convenient switching back and forth between some parts being myth, and other parts that are equally fantastic/mythical (virgin birth, no male father other than YHVH, trinity God, Jesus appearing after death, etc.,) as being truth, and thus we MUST believe and follow the religion, shows a tendency for such believers, and teachers, to be hypocrites.

*

Laying down the law, nice . Why all the scriptures occur inside of a human body.

 

[Skwim]

If a human doesn't see anything wrong with a female placed below a male, this is unjust and not equal, and not something of God.

Eexcuuuuse me! If you don't care what the Bible says, fine. However, if you do care then you can't dismiss what god said by pretending it doesn't exist. God said:

1 Peter 3
3 Wives, respect and obey your husbands in the same way.

Ephesians 5:22-33
22 A wife should put her husband first, as she does the Lord. 23 A husband is the head of his wife,

Colossians 3:18
Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
​

And, there are are no exceptions mentioned are there? Nope. So you can't go around making them up.