Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Christian husbands that throw around the command of submission,
IMHO just don't get it.
I completely agree. I also doubt that Jesus would have prevented women from becoming preists. I think that many men just like the idea of being the boss and this is a convenient method for basing it on something that appears to be authoritative to certain religious people.
I completely agree. I also doubt that Jesus would have prevented women from becoming preists. I think that many men just like the idea of being the boss and this is a convenient method for basing it on something that appears to be authoritative to certain religious people.
No need to give up individuality in a partnership of any kind
I only give up the illusion of individuality; in a relationship 'the other' at least becomes as important as yourself (read: your ego).
In this state of mind 'violating' the other is the same as abusing yourself. So submitting to 'the other' is the same as submitting to yourself and vice versa.
I used to be a submissive wife in my first marriage, and I was submissive to the Jehovah's Witesses when I joined them, but then I got wise. I am not in my first marriage nor am I a Jehovah's Witness anymore. I joined a few religions after that where they wanted you to be submissive to the guru, but instead I stood up for myself, was shunned by the guru, and left. I don't put up with anything anymore, and I don't submit to anyone. I don't believe I am an atheist, but I certainly can relate to what they have to say much easier than any religion. Submitting to anyone means to me that they want to control me. I am my own person. I don't even believe in equal subservient. I have remarried, and neither of us try to control the other.
The problem with submission and Christianity is that most Christians have problem with acknowledging that Jesus as a leader was totally submissive to his followers.
Most Westerners have trouble with seeing that Jesus was not a leader in the traditional sense. That the followers of Jesus followed him out of their own free will and not because God or some other deity told them to.
Jesus doesn't care if you follow him or don't follow him, so in that sense he wasn't a traditional (read: Western) leader. Neither did Jesus' ego grow because 100's of people adored him. At 1 point in time he even despised the fact that he had to play the role of leader (read: martyr) and yet he continued to do so, simply because he believed it was necessary for his followers. You do things for a greater good and not because you only individually profit from your deed.
Originally Posted by lwowl The problem with submission and Christianity is that most Christians have problem with acknowledging that Jesus as a leader was totally submissive to his followers.
Most Westerners have trouble with seeing that Jesus was not a leader in the traditional sense. That the followers of Jesus followed him out of their own free will and not because God or some other deity told them to.
Jesus doesn't care if you follow him or don't follow him, so in that sense he wasn't a traditional (read: Western) leader. Neither did Jesus' ego grow because 100's of people adored him. At 1 point in time he even despised the fact that he had to play the role of leader (read: martyr) and yet he continued to do so, simply because he believed it was necessary for his followers. You do things for a greater good and not because you only individually profit from your deed.
... the global question of us following what kind of leadership.
Any more -isms, or the quite refined royalty currently representing some European countries (apart from the hedonistic lifstyles they apparently cannot hide from the yellow press)?
The last time I saw a similarity to Jesus as you portray him was a few months ago on TV: the leader of a Mongolian tribe (he's also a fine writer!) saying:
"I belong to my people." 'Belonging' in the language he writes has to do with HEARING.
IMO, and without using any belief system here, you simply cannot take customs, and politics that were popular in the Arab Countries 2000 years ago and expect us to be able to follow them today.
IMO, and without using any belief system here, you simply cannot take customs, and politics that were popular in the Arab Countries 2000 years ago and expect us to be able to follow them today.
Heck, we can't even take customs and politics from fifty years ago and apply them to today. The world changes that rapidly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I only give up the illusion of individuality; in a relationship 'the other' at least becomes as important as yourself (read: your ego).
So submitting to 'the other' is the same as submitting to yourself and vice versa.
can't help giggling ---
You do things for a greater good and not because you only individually profit from your deed.
.... which takes us to ...
