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.
Yes, of course. But WHY? Do you think God just whimsically decided to create Adam first and then create Eve dead last in his build queue? Or do you think God did things in that order for a specific reason?
One would think that God, in his supposedly infinite wisdom, would have foreseen the problems in store for women that would result from God's decision to create Eve after creating Adam and all of the plants and animals. If God put the woman at the end of the line, she must have not been all that important ... and yada yada.
I'm not arguing that the Bible actually meant to say that Eve was "lesser than" Adam or that women were "lesser than" men. BUT ... because of the way the verses were written, women HAVE been regarded as 2nd class citizens for at least 3,000 years. It is only within the 20th Century when we finally managed to crawl out from under the patriarchal thumb.
God should have seen that coming and taken steps to prevent it. Instead, well ... we all know what happened after that.
You should ask God why he chose to create Adam first. But instead, you're blaming him for the sin of man for mistreating women.
Quote:
Ah ... and NOW perhaps you'll understand more clearly the paragraph in my previous post - the part that you responded to with: "What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?"
Yes, regarding women as a gift from God can be a somewhat romantic notion and could be considered very complementary ... but that's not how it turned out.
The result of women being a gift to men has been the concept that women must be "kept" like something precious. Obviously if you value something, you protect it. This concept has been taken to the extreme in the sense that women were not allowed to do much of anything except raise kids and look pretty. In fact, beauty is still considered a woman's defining trait - not intelligence or any other more useful attribute.
Ergo women were virtual shut-ins for hundreds of years, unable to participate in the world happening around them. Powerless, helpless, incapable of changing anything, of helping to shape the world in which they lived. "Gifts" don't do that. They sit demurely and quietly at the husband's side.
I'm not at all saying that's what YOU think ... but the way in which the Bible was written, even portraying Eve as the one who brought sin into the world, has damaged or destroyed the potential of countless millions of women throughout the last two millennia. Who can really say what our world might be like today if women had had an equal role in the world during all of those centuries of passivity and submission.
She was a helpmate and companion. Not a possession. I'm sorry if men have treated women otherwise. The Bible doesn't tell us to do so.
Quote:
Nothing I write is ostensibly "divinely inspired" nor can I claim my words to be inerrant. My words as weapons have an extremely limited power and range. The Bible, on the other hand, is both divinely inspired AND presumably inerrant. Thus if people misinterpret what the Bible says about women, we pay the price. However wrong their interpretation might be, it is still regarded as both divine and inerrant.
Therein lies the BIG difference between misinterpreting my words and those of the Bible. As I said, God should have foreseen the immense power the Bible would have and "divinely inspire" the authors to choose their words more carefully.
Yet...it's still the fault of the person misinterpreting...not the author. You're blaming God for the failings of man. That's not really fair. Or honest.
Quote:
Yes, this is the problem. The man is automatically given Divine and Biblical authority to be head honcho of the home. In essence, it's the same concept as the Divine Right of Kings. But exactly what does being the head of the household grant the husband?
No. He isn't. The man is not Lord over a woman. He does not control every aspect of her life and give her orders on how to live in every area. The Bible doesn't suggest that he can do that.
Quote:
I always think of these nightmare scenarios: The woman, with several doctorates and holds a high level position making a seven figure income, has to concede to her husband's wishes - even if he failed out of college, is unemployed, and wants to spend all of their money on booze and season tickets in the sky box for all of his favorite sports.
Simply not true. That's not a Biblical concept. He is the spiritual leader, but he is not her lord in life.
Having said that, perhaps she ought not to marry such a man if that is a concern.
Quote:
The problem with your beliefs is that the man gets to be the head honcho simply because he's the man and NOT because he's the best person in the family to take up a leadership role. That's why it is sexism. The man leads because he's the man - and women, no matter who they are, must sit in the back seat.
Because when there is not order than there is chaos. It doesn't mean one partner is better than the other it means there has to be a sense of stability in a household and that has to be one put in charge.
If the man gets to be "in charge" and the woman has to obey him, isn't that like a master/slave relationship? Is that what you think a marriage should be?
If the man gets to be "in charge" and the woman has to obey him, isn't that like a master/slave relationship? Is that what you think a marriage should be?
Who is suggesting women are slaves? In spiritual matters he is the head of the household. No one is suggesting that he is to come home, put his feet up and yell at her to make him dinner lest she get beaten.
I'm sorry..did I say possession? No. She is a gift from God as a partner/helper.
And to answer your question, I'm a pastor. I have a Master's Degree--including some counseling classes. I am not a licensed therapist, and I don't claim to be. If needed, I would refer someone to a licensed therapist. But I do some pastoral counseling, including couples that I marry.
Telling a man that the woman is a 'gift' for him, is setting up a power imbalance in the relationship right from the start. As would be saying that the man is the head of the household. Not something any competent/ethical counsellor would do, let alone a couple therapist. I'm glad that you would at least refer a couple to a licensed therapist.... to try to undo the damage.
Telling a man that the woman is a 'gift' for him, is setting up a power imbalance in the relationship right from the start. Not something any competent/ethical counsellor would do, let alone a couple therapist.
Actually...it's telling the man that he needs to be aware of her feelings and treat her with respect. Instead of going to the bar every day after work, he needs to realize he has a wife that wants to spend time with him.
I realize you may disagree with me...that's ok.
Last edited by Vizio; 09-27-2014 at 09:53 AM..
Reason: typo
Did everybody forget that this thread is about a couple splitting up over church attendance. There has been almost no mention of the fact that this church uses the term "discipling partner," making me wonder which denomination is involved, and the husband wants to start his own church. He's not moving from the Lutheran church down the street to the Methodist one around the corner.
I wondered about the denomination too. Apparently his wife can't be his discipling partner. And his wife needs a second partner as well. One for the marriage...... one for the discipling.
So much for having two people get married and live their lives as a couple. Someone decided it was a good idea to insert someone else into their lives. (Under the guise of religion. I guess they thought that made it OK.) Doesn't seem to be working out very well. Especially for the two year old. A lot of people seem to turn off their brains when religion is involved.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 09-27-2014 at 09:55 AM..
First they need to get into spiritual mode, and NOT in fleshly. Because it's the flesh that leads us astray. Sometimes we have to watch ourselves ,(Matt. 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak). Though she doesn't agree, she is to follow her husband, (in this case), because Jehovah made husbands head of his family ,(1Cor.11:3).
She has to remember what Jehovah views as a good wife ,(Pro.31:10-31). If she really follows Jesus, she has to listen to his words ,(Ephe. 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord). They have to be as one flesh ,(Ehe.5:31), this means let NOTHING pull them apart. Christians shouldn't divorce just because they can't deal with each others down falls.
Also this can cause one or both to become adulterers ,(Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery). Regardless of the MANY who divorced just because. In Jehovah and Jesus eyes, they are STILL married, but now adulterers!
At least your friends husband is a christian, My child who's trying hard to become one, has to go up against her husband who ISN'T! This makes it even harder, still, she has to obey him. Just as long as it's not hurting her or making her go against Jehovah and Jesus. So Trust!, he'll have someone higher than him, in which he'll have to answer to. It doesn't make her a weak woman if she's following Jehovah and Jesus, it could save her life. peace
Who is suggesting women are slaves? In spiritual matters he is the head of the household. No one is suggesting that he is to come home, put his feet up and yell at her to make him dinner lest she get beaten.
Manager/subordinate then.
Yet that's what that sense of entitlement for males as "head of the household", "wives submit to your husbands" etc ....often leads to.
One of the creepiest things I ever heard a religious man say was "I only had to beat my wife once when we first got married for her to learn her place. In the 20 years since then, I just have to give her "the look""
And he said it with a smug look on his face. His wife was terrified of him.
I'll go with Perry's response. When you have more than 1 person calling the shots, things tend to not get done, or they go in different directions.
I was at a high school football game last night. I noticed there was only 1 guy calling offensive plays for our team. Not 3....not 2......just 1. Imagine if there had been 2...one calling a pass play, one calling a run play. Think they'd have done very well?
We're talking about 2 people who are married. Not a whole team of football players hyped up on testosterone.
'
Basically you are admitting that you don't know how to communicate/cope if you don't get your own way or get to be 'in charge' or 'calling the shots' in a relationship.
Sounds emotionally/socially immature and selfish to me.
Yet that's what that sense of entitlement for males as "head of the household", "wives submit to your husbands" etc ....often leads to.
One of the creepiest things I ever heard a religious man say was "I only had to beat my wife once when we first got married for her to learn her place. In the 20 years since then, I just have to give her "the look""
And he said it with a smug look on his face. His wife was terrified of him.
That man was wrong. I hereby condemn him for the behavior. The Bible does NOT condone such a behavior.
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.
