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.
The word of God is wisdom . I believe in the wisdom of God.
So do I.
Quote:
If a man has made God his leader, that man is the man who is the spiritual head of his family and with input from his helpmate, his wife , he will have the ultimate decision of the family.
If the man does not love his wife just as Christ loves his people and gave his life for them, it will not go well with that man.
I could answer your assertions, but that would take this thread way off topic. However, I will say two things:
1) The Hebrew word translated "helpmate" in Genesis, 'ezer, does not imply subservience. The same word is used of God several times throughout the Old Testament.
2) The "head" role mentioned in Scripture does not imply leadership or authority, but rather a "source." I would explain this more fully, but it would be off-topic.
If you're interested, this website's article discusses more fully the views I have on Christian egalitarian marriage and women's rights:
I'll probably start a thread in the "Religion and Philosophy" forum to discuss the role of women in Scripture more fully. I don't want to drag this discussion off topic.
That is EXACTLY what Bachmann said in her own words...wives are to be submissive to their husbands.
Submissive IS subservient....
It's rather pathetic that some posters are so indoctrinated, steeped in, and live with sexism that they can't see it.
Submit means to give. The commandment of God is also on the man. He must love his wife as Christ loves his church. It is the ultimate love that God requires from every husband for his wife. The bible is clear and without the full understanding of the word of God it is offensive to those who do not understand the spiritual man and the full word of God.
God's word is plain. It is even and if one wants to argue with what God said , it is their right to do so. God gives us all a free will to believe as we choose.
As I said, I respect your opinion, and I really do see your point. But your contention that this is just as attempt to depict her as "someone not to be trusted to make decisions on her own", I think is false. SHE volunteered the information that she submitted her judgment to her husband because of religion. SHE offered up the information about her husband's input into her career choices. SHE opened the door to this line of inquiry. And it's a legitimate question to ask a Presidential candidate about their decision-making process. It's not painting someone into a corner. It's not even an attack. SHE said something that caused some people to wonder about how she makes decisions. SHE was questioned about it. SHE didn't offer a definitive answer, but she wasn't being evasive. And she is being evasive on other issues.
Thank you for seeing my point--up to the point where you have seen it. Really, I am not trying to defend Michelle Bachmann's point of view--I am trying to understand it and to present it to those following this thread as something that does not need to be feared i.e. that her husband would be making executive decisions for her. There is absolutely no evidence that has surfaced to indicate that, in her professional life, she has ever voted against her own wishes and conscience. Nor is there evidence that she pursued post-doctoral studies against her own will. It seems to me that after her husband suggested it and she gave it some serious thought, she realized the idea had merit. So, she "submitted". I fault her only for presenting it to the public in the way that she did. As I posted earlier, her public life and public appearances, if viewed objectively, show a woman who is confident and self-assured.
However, I cannot see this thread that has gone on for as long as it has--and is filled with hostile posts about Michelle Bachmann's decision to "submit" to her husband in the matter of her post-doctoral studies--as anything except casting both doubt and aspersion upon her because of her very conservative Christian faith and her outspoken views on subjects that are close to the heart of the liberal left. Her interpretation of "submission" as "respect" is obviously something that most people cannot wrap their heads around. (I had trouble with it, too, until I thought deeply about it.) She clearly made a distinction between "submission" and "subservience". After I gave it a fair hearing in my own mind, I could find nothing to fear as regards her ability to make her own decisions in her role as an elected public official.
Even though I don't think there is any chance she will get the nomination, I don't discount that she might be chosen as a running mate. And no, I don't want to see that happen as I don't think she would be a good choice.
I could answer your assertions, but that would take this thread way off topic. However, I will say two things:
1) The Hebrew word translated "helpmate" in Genesis, 'ezer, does not imply subservience. The same word is used of God several times throughout the Old Testament.
2) The "head" role mentioned in Scripture does not imply leadership or authority, but rather a "source." I would explain this more fully, but it would be off-topic.
If you're interested, this article discusses more fully my views on Christian egalitarian marriage and women's rights:
I'll probably start a thread in the "Religion and Philosophy" forum to discuss the role of women in Scripture more fully. I don't want to drag this discussion off topic.
I do not believe the word subservient is relevant to the word submissive. When you submit your reply to this forum, do you not click on the submit reply button. It is not subservient to anyone.
So it is with a married couple who both choose to follow the word of God. It is blessed and true to God's wisdom.
Argue with God and debate with God. He is who made us and knows us. If we do not follow or believe God , we believe in humanist ideas which makes man God and follows their own spirit.
Submit means to give. The commandment of God is also on the man. He must love his wife as Christ loves his church. It is the ultimate love that God requires from every husband for his wife. The bible is clear and without the full understanding of the word of God it is offensive to those who do not understand the spiritual man and the full word of God.
God's word is plain. It is even and if one wants to argue with what God said , it is their right to do so. God gives us all a free will to believe as we choose.
I don't give a rat's patoot what some make believe character said...it isn't running for office , Michelle Bachmann is. And SHE said wives should submit to their husbands and meant they should do as their husbands tell them because she mentioned Marcus TOLD her what career to take and she OBEYED and took it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by renault
This thread is still going?
Wow, it's crazy how C-D libs tend to focus so much of their energy on small, inane details while ignoring the bigger picture.
It is NOT a small inane detail, it says that a potential President thinks women are inferior to men.
Now, maybe other Presidents have thought this way...but had the brains to not voice it KNOWING it was a stupid thing to say.
Bachmann is too stupid to keep it quiet....she is too stupid to know it's wrong.
I do NOT want a President who thinks females are inferior to males.
Sexual equality was hard enough to obtain and women still struggle for equality....I don't want a President who sets us back 100 years!
AND it is DISHONEST for Michelle to run when Marcus would be the actual President....he just hasn't got the looks necessary to get on camera like Michelle does..
I do not believe the word subservient is relevant to the word submissive. When you submit your reply to this forum, do you not click on the submit reply button. It is not subservient to anyone.
So it is with a married couple who both choose to follow the word of God. It is blessed and true to God's wisdom.
Argue with God and debate with God. He is who made us and knows us. If we do not follow or believe God , we believe in humanist ideas which makes man God and follows their own spirit.
I submit that those who restrict their definition of "submit" to being brow beaten until they have no fight left are incorrect.
I also submit that this thread has gone on long enough.
Does that mean Marcus Bachmann dis-respects Michelle, by not submitting to her?
I think Bachmann is being evasive here. She could have said:
"Look, Marcus and I are Fundamentalist Christians. To us, the relationship of a wife to her husband is one of obedience and subordination. To us, this is a matter of faith and scripiture. If I'm elected president, I will consult with Marcus on every major decision. If we disagree on a point of contention (i.e., whether or not to launch a nuclear strike against Iran), Marcus will have the final say. I'll be duty bound to obey him. If that's okay with you, vote for me. If not, I'm not your candidate".
Wonder why she didn''t give an honest answer?
I'm giving Bachmann a pass on this. I'm not a big fan of
her right wing evangelical views, but I think she answered
the question with honesty and grace. After she gave her
response, I said to myself, "Good for You".
Thank you for seeing my point--up to the point where you have seen it. Really, I am not trying to defend Michelle Bachmann's point of view--I am trying to understand it and to present it to those following this thread as something that does not need to be feared i.e. that her husband would be making executive decisions for her. There is absolutely no evidence that has surfaced to indicate that, in her professional life, she has ever voted against her own wishes and conscience. Nor is there evidence that she pursued post-doctoral studies against her own will. It seems to me that after her husband suggested it and she gave it some serious thought, she realized the idea had merit. So, she "submitted". I fault her only for presenting it to the public in the way that she did. As I posted earlier, her public life and public appearances, if viewed objectively, show a woman who is confident and self-assured.
However, I cannot see this thread that has gone on for as long as it has--and is filled with hostile posts about Michelle Bachmann's decision to "submit" to her husband in the matter of her post-doctoral studies--as anything except casting both doubt and aspersion upon her because of her very conservative Christian faith and her outspoken views on subjects that are close to the heart of the liberal left. Her interpretation of "submission" as "respect" is obviously something that most people cannot wrap their heads around. (I had trouble with it, too, until I thought deeply about it.) She clearly made a distinction between "submission" and "subservience". After I gave it a fair hearing in my own mind, I could find nothing to fear as regards her ability to make her own decisions in her role as an elected public official.
Even though I don't think there is any chance she will get the nomination, I don't discount that she might be chosen as a running mate. And no, I don't want to see that happen as I don't think she would be a good choice.
I appreciate that you are trying to understand Mrs Bachmann's point of view. As am I. But neither of us is in a position to state what that point of view is. Only Mrs Bachmann can tell us her point of view, and so asking her what her point of view, in order to get the answer, is appropriate.
I agree that there have been some mean-spirited comments about Mrs Bachmann, but her interpretation of "submission" as "respect" begs for elaboration. If most people have trouble wrapping their heads around an interpretation, it's a breakdown in communication. And that breakdown should be addressed by Mrs Bachmann, not by the people receiving the message.
I don't think that an examination of her public record would tell us how much input her husband had on her judgment or her views on policy. There is no public record that tells us how any public servant forms their judgments and positions. So we are forced to rely on her to tell us. And that is what the question was about. To learn more about Michelle Bachmann.
""""In 2006, Bachmann said her husband had told her to get a post-doctorate degree in tax law. "Tax law? I hate taxes," she continued. "Why should I go into something like that? But the lord says, be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.'" """
Why can't you sexists see that out of Bachmann's over-glossed mouth came those words....NOBODY made up what she said , SHE said it.....why can't you understand that????
Notice: she didn't say wives and husbands should be submissive to one another....giving equal respect to each other...NO , she said women are so inferior that men must control them, make decisions for them.
I don't want a President who hasn't the courage, intelligence, independence, initiative to stand on their own.
But some obviously like that "helpless little woman " scenario...
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.
Really, I am not trying to defend Michelle Bachmann's point of view--I am trying to understand it and to present it to those following this thread as something that does not need to be feared i.e. that her husband would be making executive decisions for her. There is absolutely no evidence that has surfaced to indicate that, in her professional life, she has ever voted against her own wishes and conscience. Nor is there evidence that she pursued post-doctoral studies against her own will. It seems to me that after her husband suggested it and she gave it some serious thought, she realized the idea had merit. So, she "submitted". I fault her only for presenting it to the public in the way that she did. As I posted earlier, her public life and public appearances, if viewed objectively, show a woman who is confident and self-assured. 
