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.
Thrill will be only too happy to attend to a few of June's "concerns":
No husband worth his salt takes advantage of his wife's "inferior" position in the marriage i.e. use her to make money to support his profligate lifestyle. If he loses his job, it would be proper for her to assume the "pants" and he to assume the "skirt" but it should not a permanent fix.
As to the terminology, "woman's lib" it was just a figure of speech to help ID the basic philosophy of equality between the sexes and Thrill reiterates that before the 60's the divorce rate was miniscule in comparison to post 60's. There is a definite correlation.
The best thing to do is to question WHY Paul said what he did. What was Paul trying to teach the Ephesians? Was he a sexist pig attempting to cement men's eternal power over woman. OR was he trying to show that when the relationship between husband and wife mimics the relationship between Christ and the Church, then all things are in perfect balance and harmony?
Girls, you've danced around with cute questions like, "Are your women allowed to vote" but that's just a smokescreen to avoid addressing the larger truth that a wife's relationship to her husband should be a perfect mirror to a Christian's relationship to Christ. True or false?
Just wanted to point one thing out. While the divorce rate may have been lower before the 60's that does not mean marriages were happy. It just means miserable people did not divorce. I do think women's liberation has something to do with that. Now that we can earn a living and take care of ourselves we no longer have to stay in miserable marriages for financial reasons.
For all we know, marriages were just as bad back then as they are now.
My relationship with my husband will be a perfect mirror to a Christian's relationship with Christ when, like Christ, my husband is perfect. When God made man the head of the woman, he wasn't making him her boss. He was making him responsible. That's his punishment for sinning with eyes wide open (remember, Eve was fooled by the serpent, Adam was not but ate the fruit anyway. She believed a lie. He knew the truth but chose to sin.).
That said, I believe I should follow my husband's decisions unless I believe they are not in my best interest. I'll give you an example. I just got a new job. My husband wants to move to the community I will be working in because he wants the kids to go to school there. He wants to buy a house that I think is too expensive. He started explaining why he thinks we can afford it and I interjected that *I* can't afford it if something happens to him and pointed out that the term life policy we have on him was only intended to get the children through college. So now he's rethinking what we can afford but he has told me there will be a plan in place to pay off the house if something happens to him (can be done because he has a, sizable, inheritance from his parents that is slated to pass to the kids when he passes on). He wasn't thinking about what I'd do if he died. If we just bought that house without a plan to pay it off if he dies, I'd be out of my house as soon as the kids were in college because I wouldn't be able to afford to keep it once I was no longer collecting social security for the kids.
I do not think I was in the wrong to challenge him on this. He's not Christ. Christ would have taken my fears into consideration from the start because Christ knows the innermost workings of my heart and mind. My husband is human and, sometimes, makes decisions that don't consider all contingencies. While I do believe that the model for a Christian marriage should be the relationship of a Christian to Christ, we are imperfect humans so we're not likely to actually achieve the model and it goes both ways. Christ always has my best interest at heart. My husband is human and sometimes doesn't. He doesn't mean to not consider my fears. He just doesn't share them. If I died, between my life insurance and his inheritance, he's set for life while I will be struggling to keep a roof over my head after the kids are out of the house if he dies.
Just to explain the life insurance situatoin. I used to have a very good job, making twice what I make now with great benefits, that covered my husband's life insurance and my pay was high enough that I could handle the bills on my own. I did ask him to take out a second life insurance policy, when our daughter was born, but he felt it wasn't necessary (How was this modeling Christ in the relationship with a Christian?) Then he had a heart attack and, a couple of years later, I lost that job in a downsizing. Now life insurance is cost prohibitive for him. We pay a rediculous amount for what little we have and all it will do is get the girls through college. For me, not having a place to live when I'm 65 is a real fear. It isn't for him. Because I'm healthy, we could put five times the insurance on me we did on him for one tenth of the price. So moving is scary for me. The house we're in is half paid for and I could refinance it and stay in it if something happened to him. I can't do that in the houses he's looking at.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 07-17-2010 at 05:11 PM..
Just wanted to point one thing out. While the divorce rate may have been lower before the 60's that does not mean marriages were happy. It just means miserable people did not divorce. I do think women's liberation has something to do with that. Now that we can earn a living and take care of ourselves we no longer have to stay in miserable marriages for financial reasons.
For all we know, marriages were just as bad back then as they are now.
Incorrect!! It means the moral compass of current people have declined compared to those in the 60s and before.
It means people have drifted further away from God and no longer obey God on this issue of marriage. People do not have the same integrity anymore to honour their husband or wife. Moral decay and a further distance from God has caused a higher increase in divorce.
God never said that abuse is grounds for divorce. We cannot add to the bible things which God never said. Unfortunately people try to add things to the Bible to give themselves justification to divorce their husband or wife. But now this... if you divorce if no adultery has been committed then you will live in willful sin. I realise this truth upsets a lot of people, but that is what God said and if God said it, then it is so!
Only for unfaithfulness is it legal, in God's eyes, to divorce.
If someone is abusing their wife or husband, then they are to separate but never be divorced and will remain legally married in God's eyes. But if the husband or wife later commits adultery, then in God's eyes they are no longer legally married. But should a person willfully sin to get a divorce? Or should they remain faithful to the marriage vows and God? That is something a Christian need to ask themselves.
I know this topic upsets and angers a lot of people, but that is what God taught.
We cannot and we should not start adding things to the Bible which aren't there. We cannot and should not add, or take way, what God taught about marriage.
That is why people really need to pray a lot and consider carefully BEFORE they marry, because marriage is for better of worse, till DEATH do you part. ONLY if ADULTERY and UNFAITHFULNESS occurs are a husband and wife legally divorced in God's eyes. If anyone divorces for any other reason then they are still legally married in God's eyes and commits willful sinning against God if they then marry someone else.
Thrill will be only too happy to attend to a few of June's "concerns":
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
No husband worth his salt takes advantage of his wife's "inferior" position in the marriage i.e. use her to make money to support his profligate lifestyle. If he loses his job, it would be proper for her to assume the "pants" and he to assume the "skirt" but it should not a permanent fix.
June's likin' the notion of the male "assuming the 'skirt' aspect" of the above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
As to the terminology, "woman's lib" it was just a figure of speech to help ID the basic philosophy of equality between the sexes and Thrill reiterates that before the 60's the divorce rate was miniscule in comparison to post 60's. There is a definite correlation.
June will "by pass" the demographics regarding how many Christian marriages end in divorce vs. otherwise secular ones. Either way, it would appear to June that "divorce" has become, and is far more common place than most (fundamentalist) Christians would like to acknowledge, or perhaps believe. Yet the data/facts are there for a reason. --Does June discount the fact that there is a "societal" aspect contained within that fact? No, of course she doesn't. But when others do, and pretend that they are exempt from the realities of life in spite of, or within the practice of their faith, that's when June goes "Oh really!?"
It's 2010. June does not discount or disrespect people of faith. But she is a realist, and somehow suspects she knows the difference between how people portray themselves and "real life."
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
The best thing to do is to question WHY Paul said what he did. What was Paul trying to teach the Ephesians? Was he a sexist pig attempting to cement men's eternal power over woman. OR was he trying to show that when the relationship between husband and wife mimics the relationship between Christ and the Church, then all things are in perfect balance and harmony?
Given the time and culture in which Paul wrote what he did to the Ephesians, June has no problem saying that for all she knows, perhaps he was a "sexist pig" as you put it. June also is able to acknowledge and understand that there would have been very good reasons, based on the time period in which Paul wrote to the Ephesians, that he said what he did. June's not so sure that one can rely upon, much less quote Ephesians without seeing it within the context within which it was written.
But that is also why June said that to her way of thinking/reading, the NT as a whole (it's over arching message) needs to be understood and applied as regards "Christian marriage" and divorce. One cannot take one portion and hold another person to a standard, without also understanding the overall message, collectively, and holding oneself to that standard, as well. Otherwise, you are saying that there is a built-in inequity as regards the overall message of your God, and that to resort to a purely patriarchal mindset of 100 AD is an adequate solution for living in modern society. It's not.
June says this with the notion in mind that for those who rely on what they read in scripture as regards modern living in general, and divorce in particular, there needs to be some degree of understanding as regards the overall context of both what it means to be a Christian, as well as what it means to be in a Christian marriage. BOTH partners have a "role" within any marriage. All June is saying is that the designated "roles" are not as concretized as they were at the time that the NT was written. We don't live in that same era.
The message, however, when interpretted accurately, should have some element of "timelessness" but one must extract the true message independent of who they are, and in what era they live in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
Girls, you've danced around with cute questions like, "Are your women allowed to vote" but that's just a smokescreen to avoid addressing the larger truth that a wife's relationship to her husband should be a perfect mirror to a Christian's relationship to Christ. True or false?
So does this mean that a MAN'S relationship to his WIFE should not also be a "perfect mirror" to a Christian male's relationship with Christ? Of course not. Even the little "just June" heathen can somehow extract from that the true content and meaning behind what she reads. --And why does an atheist say this?
--Because your Gospels have to be "living gospels" independent of time and culture. Otherwise you are denouncing the validity of God (and more specifically, Jesus) and the relevance they would/should have for all mankind. Something tells June you don't wish to do that. But again, by the same token, male Christians can't "have their cake and eat it too."
June would love (oh, so LOVE) to see a thread started asking what the male's role and obligation to a Christian marriage is....Because she is sensing that there is much conventient 'one-sidedness' in the OP, in general. That isn't what June has read and understood of the NT...But then, what does June know?
--Other than the fact that she does not feel that the women members who have responded to this OP have "tapped danced" around the issue. She has the very real sense that some very Christian women have responded with not only a good will effort to respond to the OP, but have done so in a way that most Christian men would perhaps otherwise not be comfortable with.
(sigh) I must not be asking the question in a comprehensive form. Let's try once more:
Please explain to me what Paul is saying in that verse. What is he advising? Can anyone answer just that question in 25 words or less?
Quite convenient for someone who likes to control women.
You never answered my question.....do you allow her to vote, and if so, do you tell her who to vote for?
Incorrect!! It means the moral compass of current people have declined compared to those in the 60s....
Huh!? What!?
~As someone who all too well remembers the 60's, June just couldn't pass this one up as regards the "moral compass" part! Dear Lord! If EVER there was a time when the "moral compasses" of Americans (if not the world at large!) were challenged and re-defined, it had to be the 60's! As such, trust June (who was there) when she says that the "moral compasses" have not declined since then!
God never said that abuse is grounds for divorce. We cannot add to the bible things which God never said. Unfortunately people try to add things to the Bible to give themselves justification to divorce their husband or wife. But now this... if you divorce if no adultery has been committed then you will live in willful sin. I realise this truth upsets a lot of people, but that is what God said and if God said it, then it is so!
Only for unfaithfulness is it legal, in God's eyes, to divorce.
If someone is abusing their wife or husband, then they are to separate but never be divorced and will remain legally married in God's eyes. But if the husband or wife later commits adultery, then in God's eyes they are no longer legally married. But should a person willfully sin to get a divorce? Or should they remain faithful to the marriage vows and God? That is something a Christian need to ask themselves.
I know this topic upsets and angers a lot of people, but that is what God taught.
We cannot and we should not start adding things to the Bible which aren't there. We cannot and should not add, or take way, what God taught about marriage.
That is why people really need to pray a lot and consider carefully BEFORE they marry, because marriage is for better of worse, till DEATH do you part. ONLY if ADULTERY and UNFAITHFULNESS occurs are a husband and wife legally divorced in God's eyes. If anyone divorces for any other reason then they are still legally married in God's eyes and commits willful sinning against God if they then marry someone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herefornow
I'm going to go ahead and sigh, here.
*sigh*
::SIGH:: This is the pathetic nonsense that the religious leaders have inflicted upon their congregations by retaining the ignorant 1st century primitive interpretations of scripture as if they were appropriate for a more knowledgeable and educated society. Trying to impose 1st century mores and cultural patterns on 21st century society and relationships is ludicrous . . and given this absurd viewpoint particularly DANGEROUS.
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.
Uot
