Are women still considered in a "state of subjection?"

[Ubenedictus]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Most men are never actually called upon to do that (even if their faithful).
And I would rather die once than be servile for a lifetime.

Christians are supposed to be utterly obedient (even fearfully obedient) towards God.
Paul commands wives to obey their husbands the same way.
It is not that complicated:shrug:

i think you are pushing the modern idea of obedience which is closer to been forced on pauls idea of obedience. I think we should quote paul words in the right context, with the analogy he give and not turn his word to something else.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

I guess.
Its not something I actually think about that much.

FYI-I am a straight adult male.

Lol, i though you were a lady. i think there should be a space for gender on the information box.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

In fairness she was responding to personal attacks and insults. The person who needs to cool down is the poster who attacked her.

Calling the husband the head of the wife implies boss. The boss does not submit to his VP, employee (whatever lesser title you want to give the wife). The idea that the husband is the head and the wife in the heart sets up this whole hierarchy. These titles come from the belief that men are thinkers and women feel. This is offensive as we all know decisions are best made from thinking not feeling. So of course it would follow that men would lead the family so the family doesn’t fall astray by following the wife who is lead by her feelings.

Sure maybe some women may feel more but that does not mean that they think less or are less capable of making the right decision. It comes down to the couple and realisticly if there are roles they probably go back and forth between who is the head and the heart.

My husband is not the head of our family. We are partners. We are both mature capable adults. Setting up a hierarchy between the two of us would seem really silly. This is not something that we sat down and discussed. It’s just common sense and what comes naturally.

yeah i noticed what seem to be not very charitable post and decided to aviod commenting on it, but i also notice that she has been asking questions like ‘why should the man be called the head?’ that is what i talked about because she seem really unhappy about a title, i am not taking sides with anyone im responding to ideas that i dont agree with or will like to hear and think about.
And talking about ideas a disagree with one is your idea of a boss because the word head is mentioned. I really dont think that the heart is a bad title but thats is your take because you are really trying to find the bad idea. I will leave the others and answer them later.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

He’s not having a tough time. And I’m not an “iron lady”. I would never think to expect him to defer to me always and he would never expect that of me.

Marriage is called a partnership, not a business contract. And I think we compliment each other very well, so if we were to get married it would be absurd for one of us to suddenly become the “head” and one to be given the somewhat condensending title of “heart”. As LucyLight said, we’re mature adults, and we can sort out our own strengths and weaknesses between us.

that is because you find fault with a title, maybe there should be a change since heart really makes you angry and you seems to miss the whole idea. Ok maybe the title blood gives a better picture, yes?
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

No, but his authority on me is limited in many ways.
Moreover, it is only in effect when I have that particular job.
If I leave, get promoted, etc. his authority over me disappears.

The traditional authority that a husband has over a wife in a Christian society isn’t like that.

it isnt like that because it is better than that.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

Wait…

Are you saying that you agree that wives shouldn’t be able to leave the house without permission?

i think the wives shouldnt ‘‘leave’’ the HOME without a discussion. U didnt put the quotation marks.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shin
Duties Of A Husband

It is the duty of the husband to treat his wife generously and honourably. It should not be forgotten that Eve was called by Adam his companion. The woman, he says, whom thou gavest me as a companion. Hence it was, according to the opinion of some of the holy Fathers, that she was formed not from the feet but from the side of man; as, on the other hand, she was not formed from his head, in order to give her to understand that it was not hers to command but to obey her husband.

The husband should also be constantly occupied in some honest pursuit with a view to provide necessaries for the support of his family and to avoid idleness, the root of almost every vice.

He is also to keep all his family in order, to correct their morals, and see that they faithfully discharge their duties.

Duties Of A Wife

On the other hand, the duties of a wife are thus summed up by the Prince of the Apostles: Let wives be subject to their husbands. that if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word by the conversation of the wives, considering your chaste conversation with fear. Let not their adorning be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: but the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and meek spirit, which is rich in the sight of God. For after this manner heretofore the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.

To train their children in the practice of virtue and to pay particular attention to their domestic concerns should also be especial objects of their attention. The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to leave home without her husband’s consent.

Again, and in this the conjugal union chiefly consists, let wives never forget that next to God they are to love their husbands, to esteem them above all others, yielding to them in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, a willing and ready obedience.

• Catechism of the Council of Trent

'In like manner also let wives be subject to their husbands: that if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word, by the conversation of the wives. Considering your chaste conversation with fear. Whose adorning let it not be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: But the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and a meek spirit, which is rich in the sight of God. For after this manner heretofore the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands:

As Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters you are, doing well, and not fearing any disturbance. Ye husbands, likewise dwelling with them according to knowledge, giving honour to the female as to the weaker vessel, and as to the co-heirs of the grace of life: that your prayers be not hindered. ’

1 Peter 3:1-7

Well if some one is turned of by the truth then i guess she/he doesnt understant that truth.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

That’s because obedience is easy to define but ‘love’ is more ambiguous.

For instance, let’s say a man says that he loves his wife and kids and actually believes that. But after work he gets drunk at the bar every night and then goes home and beats those same people.

Now does he really love them or not?
Does it matter?

Moreover, the law and culture have often demanded that wives obey their husbands (giving husbands substantial legal and social power over their wives) but virtually no laws anywhere demand that a man love his wife.

i think you just found the law saying the man should love his wife, the biblical law. And you previous concern i think love is shown by actions. Maybe i way to understand what paul means when he say husband should love is by looking at the way he describes love 1cor 13. Look at that passage and tell me if love allows for a sceneria where another is oppressed. This is how i see it.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

I frankly see something a bit disturbing about the idea of a woman seeing her husband as her new Daddy.

PS-Sorry everyone, I just noticed Nilla Bean is Banned and therefore cannot reply.

have you heard about the phase ‘‘sugar daddy’’?
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

It does if the husband commands the wife to never question him.
If the husband is firmly in charge, then the relationship between husband and wife is not a partnership but more like master and slave or soldier and general.

read 1cor 13 again, an tell me if you think that a man who commands his wife to a doormat is truly a loving husband.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

The vital things that don’t require thinking:shrug:
Saying that I’m the head and your the heart is kind of like saying I’m the brain (and therefore do the thinking and make the decisions) but you do the grunt work.

hmmm, this is how you think about it that is why you are really against the idea, well i think and decide with my heart and my head, do you know of anyone who believes think with both? Since you are very scientific maybe you should consider head and blood, i hear that without enough blood the brain cant function well. I hope i didnt hear wrong.
Ubenedictus
Ubenedictus
Uben

 

[Ubenedictus]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
It also says ‘slaves obey your masters.’
Should we respect that teaching too

It does unfortunately.
Sex slavery is a growing problem in the modern world (which is related to the shortage of girls in places like China) and Africa never completely lost the institution.

So you support slavery then?

i doubt if this is what paul was talking about. We usually look at slavery through the eyes of sex slaves and black slaves, i dare to think that slavery wasnt alway that abusive. I donot justify it.
Ubenedictus

 

[LemonAndLime]

Well if “head”=makes decision I would have to guess “heart”= let’s “head” thinks it makes the decisions.

Frankly, the whole idea that one person is the decision maker and the idea that no one is the decision maker/both are always equally the decision maker are both faulty. Going with the head/heart thing, sometimes the head makes them, sometimes the heart makes them. Who does what depends on the situtation. The only time there isn’t a “the decision maker” is when there isn’t a decision to make. If the focus of a relationship is power [who gets to be the boss] then that relationship has bigger issues then who is or isn’t the boss.

So then, by your admission, the husband isn’t really the “head” of the family and it’s just all ‘token titles’?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I was being completely sarcastic:. Shin’s post is the kind that has the potential to make me question the Church. I don’t know if he gets that or cares. Btw, I don’t know why my quote didn’t appear with yours? Still figuring this quote stuff out.

Sorry, sarcasm is harder to detect in purely written form.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
The Bible contradicts itself.
That’s one of the reasons I have trouble taking ‘Biblical authority’ seriously:shrug:

hmmm you are making the worst of assumptions.
Ubenedictus

From your perspective, sure.
But* I* have no need to validate the Bible.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

i think the marriage style is different, one become proud, arrogant and ‘dominate-tive’ when self-giving love is absent. That is not the marriage idea a heirarchy of love calls for a difference, the lover gives all for the beloved as christ for the church, while there seems to be a heirarchy where the man is first, a different heirarchy exist in the mans minds in this heirarchy the man is last because he must put those he love first. It is more than human philosophy, it is spirituality, the spirituality of marriage, a spirituality like that of the priesthood but like all spiritual it is not alway seen or even practice by all profess it. But it true depth can only be fully appreciated by those who experience it.
Im sorry if a blab too much but it is true.
Ubenedictus

That’s okay:shrug:

I am glad you admit that it makes no sense from a philosophical (and presumably rationalist) point of view.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
It does if you interpret the text literally:

22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
-Ephesians 5

Now of course you don’t have to interpret the text literally, but if you leave yourself free to interpret Scripture at your own discretion then it could mean anything.

No, its because I am interpreting the text literally.
Its theoretically possible you could really expect wives to be utterly submissive AND expect husbands to be the self-sacrificing ones.
It just doesn’t work that way in real life most of the time.
In reality, those in charge seldom select themselves to be sacrificed (and say I seldom because I know it happens sometimes).

ok those for whom it happen are those who get the idea, one where authority is excercised and no sacrificial love is a carricature and it is not the christain message or idea.
Ubenedictus

Based on what?
The Old Testament describes women as chattel (i.e. property).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

i think you are pushing the modern idea of obedience which is closer to been forced on pauls idea of obedience. I think we should quote paul words in the right context, with the analogy he give and not turn his word to something else.
Ubenedictus

Saint Paul was speaking in the context of a society where women no rights, had to obey their husbands and fathers, and were considered by the culture to be of far less value than men.
If anything, people probably give him too much credit for having respect for women (generally speaking).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
No, but his authority on me is limited in many ways.
Moreover, it is only in effect when I have that particular job.
If I leave, get promoted, etc. his authority over me disappears.

The traditional authority that a husband has over a wife in a Christian society isn’t like that.

it isnt like that because it is better than that.
Ubenedictus

Bigger (by which I mean stronger and less restricted) does not automatically translate to better.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Wait…

Are you saying that you agree that wives shouldn’t be able to leave the house without permission?

i think the wives shouldnt ‘‘leave’’ the HOME without a discussion. U didnt put the quotation marks.
Ubenedictus

Then what are you really trying to say?