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

[AngryAtheist8]

well check again, the post you quoted was not written by ubenedictus. You are really making me say what i didnt say just to make your arguement. It isnt fair.
You quoted faithbuild and she/he didnt justify slavery as you claim, just gave opinion on a verse. She/he clearly said that it wasnt right.
Ubenedictus

Sorry, I got you confused with FaithBuild18, who actually did support slavery (or at least say that we shouldn’t fight it) in the post below:

FaithBuild18
Junior Member Join Date: July 27, 2010
Location: America
Posts: 232
Religion: Catholic

Re: Are women still considered in a “state of subjection?”

---

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

Yeah actually I think we should, if slavery still existed that is. At least this particular line you’ve quoted, certainly rings in harmony with Matthew 5:39-42.

“39 But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take your [am]shirt, let him have your [an]coat also. 41 Whoever [ao]forces you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.”

This of course is not saying slavery is a great thing anymore than it’s saying theft is a great thing anymore than it’s saying spousal abuse is a great thing. Of course the exploitation of slavery is morally deplorable, as is the exploitation of any power, be it in the household or in political office. It’s simply saying that this is what you do if you want to be like Christ. God will not punish you for some other guy making you suffer. Redemption and mercy are found when we suffer in such ways, and if we don’t succumb to the temptation of retaliation, God will give us grace.

Submitting to your husbands, as the bible commands, will always bring you grace. The Lord does not grant women grace only when submitting to their husbands or to the Lord is convenient for the woman. Similarly he does not give man grace only when submitting to the Lord is convenient. God gives us grace when we obey him at ALL TIMES, regardless of how hard it strikes us, how close to death it brings us, or how little money we get in return. It’s those difficult times, not the easy times, when our submission to God grants us the redemption necessary for eternal life.

Remember there is much more at stake here beyond our own earthly material/emotional satisfactions.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

well check again, the post you quoted was not written by ubenedictus. You are really making me say what i didnt say just to make your arguement. It isnt fair.
You quoted faithbuild and she/he didnt justify slavery as you claim, just gave opinion on a verse. She/he clearly said that it wasnt right.
Ubenedictus

Actually, FaithBuild18 clearly said that we should respect the authority of slavemasters (as Saint Paul said)

 

[AngryAtheist8]

he possibly was talking about slavery from his jewish backgroung. And the torah talk about slave a bit more humane than the colonial guys. Maybe the best way to see paul and slaves is through the eyes of onesimus in pauls letter to philemon.
Ubenedictus

The ancient Jews had sex slaves too.
That’s why they kept taking virgin girls from the people that they conquered/wiped out.

 

[Armyvet007]

The ancient Jews had sex slaves too.
That’s why they kept taking virgin girls from the people that they conquered/wiped out.

Um, you’re going to have to add some more support for that argument then what you’ve presented above.

 

[St_Francis]

Sorry, I got you confused with FaithBuild18, who actually did support slavery (or at least say that we shouldn’t fight it) in the post below:

**This of course is not saying slavery is a great thing anymore than it’s saying theft is a great thing anymore than it’s saying spousal abuse is a great thing. **

 

[severus68]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
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.

Yes, what’s your point?
Do you approve of rich men keeping mistresses?

There are so very many things wrong with this post.

For one thing, many (if not most) women don’t want or need their husband to be a father figure for them.

Because making the husband a wife’s new parent (i.e. Daddy) basically reduces her to the status of a child. Then there are the incestuous overtones that frankly creep me out.

Me too - on the creeping out. I agree with the rest of your post too.

 

[severus68]

defining love in his terms simply means he is no longer follow the xtain system. And im not in an arguement for those who are not following the christain system, so i dont really see the need to respond to your post above. Im argueing for the xtain position and that position doesnt include a redefinition of love. One who follows a system where love has been redefined is on his own i really dont see d need to participate in that arguement.
He is in charge does not mean he can do whatever he want. Maybe you have heard this saying ‘love God and do whatever you want’, well as easy as that sounds your love for God wont allow you do whatever you want. It so in a marriage your love for your wife wont allow you disrespect her.
Ubenedictus

Saying your wife is subject to you is the greatest disrespect. Why does a man, secure in himself, need his wife to submit to him?

Choosing parts of Scripture to suit your views does not make your views doctrine.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Sure that works if you ignore the fact that the husband-
-has a responsibility as a parent for his children
-has a responsibility as a husband to his wife
-has a responsibility as the subordinate party to the “in charge” party in helping the “in charge” party fullfill their responsibility

Any other examples of “all men are jerks and labels only serve to subjecate women [who of course are just victims]” you would like clarification on? I ask because that seems to be the underlying trend of your posts.

You’re missing the point I am successfully proving. Nothing to do with men being “jerks”.

Everything to do with illistrating that saying that one is in charge of A and the other in charge of B is ridiculous as a marriage isn’t a business. As you have just admitted, their apparent responsibilities “cross over” so maybe, just maybe, its ok to admit that marriage in actuality is an equal partnership?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
The ancient Jews had sex slaves too.
That’s why they kept taking virgin girls from the people that they conquered/wiped out.

Um, you’re going to have to add some more support for that argument then what you’ve presented above.

All right, here’s one of the relevant Biblical passages:

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. “This is what you are to do,” they said. “Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin.” Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives.  But there were not enough women for all of them.  The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel.  So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead?  There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever.  But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."



Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem.  They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards.  When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife!  And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding.  Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'"  So the men of Benjamin did as they were told.  They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance.  Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them.  So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.

-Judges 21:10-24

 

[AngryAtheist8]

AngryAtheist8;9309421:

Sorry, I got you confused with FaithBuild18, who actually did support slavery (or at least say that we shouldn’t fight it) in the post below:

You really ought to read the posts before making claims about them.

Another thing to consider is that in Christianity, the condition of enslavment was meaningless: slaves and masters were equal under God. If both were Christians, then they were to regard each other as brothers.

The Christian slave of a pagan master was to show Christian witness to the master through his obedience, not just a reluctant assent but a caring obedience.

You, Angry Atheist, are in a difficult spot. You do not believe in God, so you cannot see what He says, and you cannot envision His vision for the world, of which these commands which seem so unreasonable to you are part.

But perhaps you can understand teaching through a loving gentleness rather than through fearsome threats. Maybe you can understand the non-violent resistence first promoted through Ghandi. Those are examples of what God is teaching us to do.

The Church does not teach that a wife has to stay with a husband who is putting her in danger through this teaching. But the Church is teaching something which we in the world do not like: submission. Wifely submission to one’s husband, husbandly submission to God, human submission to truth and God’s teachings, and possibly submission to a tyranical force which kills us and makes us martyrs, because we should always be ready to die for Christ, just as He died for us.

Oh I did.
I am perfectly aware of the fact that FaithBuild endorsed slavery (or at least the authority of slavemasters) and then backed away from it without explicitly rejecting it in the same post.

But I am not interested in rationalizations about mitigating circumstances when it comes to slavery.
If FaithBuild supports slavery (as his/her words imply) then FaithBuild should simply say that. If FaithBuild doesn’t, then Faith should just say that.

 

[Armyvet007]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
The ancient Jews had sex slaves too.
That’s why they kept taking virgin girls from the people that they conquered/wiped out.

All right, here’s one of the relevant Biblical passages:

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. “This is what you are to do,” they said. “Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin.” Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives.  But there were not enough women for all of them.  The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel.  So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead?  There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever.  But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."



Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem.  They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards.  When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife!  And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding.  Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'"  So the men of Benjamin did as they were told.  They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance.  Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them.  So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.

-Judges 21:10-24

1. A wife /=“sex slave”. Leaving the religous part out of it [since you apparently don’t believe in that part] there are great differences between a wife and “sex slave” in terms of legal and social/cultural rights/views.
2. Your citations from the Bible do not show that the practice of taking women captives in war by the ancient Israelis was for the primary/main purpose of gaining “sex slaves” or wives [see 1 for why I included both in 2].

Your example occured for rather specific reasons and could be argued to be the “exception to the rule.” You need to show that it was an example of the “rule” [policy/standard practice/etc].

Also, why did you not include Judges 21:25?

 

[Armyvet007]

You’re missing the point I am successfully proving. Nothing to do with men being “jerks”.

Everything to do with illistrating that saying that one is in charge of A and the other in charge of B is ridiculous as a marriage isn’t a business. As you have just admitted, their apparent responsibilities “cross over” so maybe, just maybe, its ok to admit that marriage in actuality is an equal partnership?

1. Please indicate where I’ve indicated that a husband and wife aren’t in an equal partnership within marriage or the family. Having different primary responsibilities and roles does not equate to them being unequal. The equality of men and women and husband and wife comes from God, not from “I have to be able to be everything you are and do everything you do in order to be equal.” The latter places the source of equality in Mankind and denies that that the true source is God.
2. I learned a rather valuable lesson in the military. Any group that contains more than 1 soldier has to have a leader and a follower(s). This isn’t some “oh the military and its love of rank and structure” thing. This is a “if you actually want to get something accomplished other then a bunch of bickering” thing. Someone has to have, and be recognized as having, the “final say” see prior posts for further . No leader or “everyone is the leader” only creates conflict and solves nothing. Civilians are most likely more familiar with this expressed as “Too many cooks spoil the soup.”
3. To paraphrase you- Maybe, just maybe it’s ok to admit that husbands and wives don’t have to be carbon copies of each other in regards to roles and responsibilities IOT be equals within a marriage.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

1. A wife /=“sex slave”. Leaving the religous part out of it [since you apparently don’t believe in that part] there are great differences between a wife and “sex slave” in terms of legal and social/cultural rights/views.
2. Your citations from the Bible do not show that the practice of taking women captives in war by the ancient Israelis was for the primary/main purpose of gaining “sex slaves” or wives [see 1 for why I included both in 2].

Your example occured for rather specific reasons and could be argued to be the “exception to the rule.” You need to show that it was an example of the “rule” [policy/standard practice/etc].

Also, why did you not include Judges 21:25?

The differences are largely semantic if the wives were taken and married by force.

As for other examples, what about the rule for how Jewish men may properly sell their daughters into slavery?

 

[Armyvet007]

The differences are largely semantic if the wives were taken and married by force.

As for other examples, what about the rule for how Jewish men may properly sell their daughters into slavery?

Largely semantic doesn’t anwer my point concerning legal and social/cultural differences between the two.

 

[Portrait]

Saying your wife is subject to you is the greatest disrespect. Why does a man, secure in himself, need his wife to submit to him?

Choosing parts of Scripture to suit your views does not make your views doctrine.

Dear severus68,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

If, dear sister, by saying a wife is subject to her husband is the “greatest disrespect”, then St. Paul was guilty of encouraging the faithful at Ephesus to the greatest disrespect, for he said quite plainly: “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church, his body, and is himself its Saviour. As the Church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands” (Ephesians 5: 22-24). Now the teaching that “the husband is the head of the wife” is as equally valid as the next part of his sentence, namely that “Christ is the head of the Church” (v. 23). That is a very close knit argument and both parts must be true for the analogy to be valid and make any sense. Moreover, one cannot selectively take what one deems acceptable in Sacred Scripture, as the avant garde are wont to do, whilst ignoring or rationalizing those parts which displease us or which perhaps conflict with radical femenist pre-conceived notions on the role of women today. That is to embrace a sort ‘a la carte’ Catholicism and shows that we allowing godless and warped ideology to take precedence over Sacred Scripture and Church teaching, which has never disavowed its belief in St. Paul’s teaching.

Whilst it is perfectly true that St. Paul shows (Galatians 3: 28) that women now enjoy an equal status with men as regards redemption, he also teaches that our union in the Gospel does obliterate the natural distinction between the sexes, which was established by the priority given to man in creation (see I Tim. 2: 13). Moreover, the immutable principle of male headship does make the man the ruling spouse in the marriage relationship - an arrangement not only established by creation but also endorsed in redemption. Hence, a Catholic wife must understand that equality in the sphere of grace (Gal. 3: 28; I Pet. 3: 7) does not abrogate the God-given order for marriage. Now of course, dear sister, there is a common sense limit to the obedience that a wife is expected to render to her husband. Needless to say, wives are only subject to their husbands in what pertains to their legitimate authority as husband or, if you please, everthything that is not contrary to God or our most holy religion.

Goodbye and may you have a jolly pleasant weekend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[LightBound]

Oh I do say, jolly good chap, that I have come to the conclusion that there are plenty of men here on CAF that take a right good time in posting how men are the superior sex and women should bow down and worship them! I for one am freaking sick of it! If it’s not this bogus British stereotype that jumps on every last thread about women, modesty, and submission, it’s the “Sincerely” person that loves to revel in it! It’s about as disordered and warped as the person on here who wants her husband to be her new daddy!

Geez…and I thought the homosexual agenda was sick…who would’ve thought such “good Catholics” had just as many creepy fetishes they want played out!!

 

[AngryAtheist8]

1. Please indicate where I’ve indicated that a husband and wife aren’t in an equal partnership within marriage or the family. Having different primary responsibilities and roles does not equate to them being unequal. The equality of men and women and husband and wife comes from God, not from “I have to be able to be everything you are and do everything you do in order to be equal.” The latter places the source of equality in Mankind and denies that that the true source is God.

2. I learned a rather valuable lesson in the military. Any group that contains more than 1 soldier has to have a leader and a follower(s). This isn’t some “oh the military and its love of rank and structure” thing. This is a “if you actually want to get something accomplished other then a bunch of bickering” thing. Someone has to have, and be recognized as having, the “final say” [see prior posts for further . No leader or “everyone is the leader” only creates conflict and solves nothing. Civilians are most likely more familiar with this expressed as "Too many cooks spoil the soup."

1. To paraphrase you- Maybe, just maybe it’s ok to admit that husbands and wives don’t have to be carbon copies of each other in regards to roles and responsibilities IOT be equals within a marriage.**

The thing is, the military decision-making process has to be relatively efficient otherwise the enemy might slaughter you while you are making up your mind.

But the U.S. government is not efficient, nor is it supposed to be.
The Founding Fathers deliberately made it harder to exercise authority based on the certainty that it would inevitably be abused. This was to ward off tyranny, and for the most part over the last 2 centuries it has been successful in that regard.
I think that is a better model for families (which are not designed to be efficient) than the military one.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear severus68,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

**If, dear sister, by saying a wife is subject to her husband is the “greatest disrespect”, then St. Paul was guilty of encouraging the faithful at Ephesus to the greatest disrespect, for he said quite plainly: “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church, his body, and is himself its Saviour. As the Church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands” (Ephesians 5: 22-24). **Now the teaching that “the husband is the head of the wife” is as equally valid as the next part of his sentence, namely that “Christ is the head of the Church” (v. 23). That is a very close knit argument and both parts must be true for the analogy to be valid and make any sense. Moreover, one cannot selectively take what one deems acceptable in Sacred Scripture, as the avant garde are wont to do, whilst ignoring or rationalizing those parts which displease us or which perhaps conflict with radical femenist pre-conceived notions on the role of women today. That is to embrace a sort ‘a la carte’ Catholicism and shows that we allowing godless and warped ideology to take precedence over Sacred Scripture and Church teaching, which has never disavowed its belief in St. Paul’s teaching.

Whilst it is perfectly true that St. Paul shows (Galatians 3: 28) that women now enjoy an equal status with men as regards redemption, he also teaches that our union in the Gospel does obliterate the natural distinction between the sexes, which was established by the priority given to man in creation (see I Tim. 2: 13). Moreover, the immutable principle of male headship does make the man the ruling spouse in the marriage relationship - an arrangement not only established by creation but also endorsed in redemption. Hence, a Catholic wife must understand that equality in the sphere of grace (Gal. 3: 28; I Pet. 3: 7) does not abrogate the God-given order for marriage. Now of course, dear sister, there is a common sense limit to the obedience that a wife is expected to render to her husband. Needless to say, wives are only subject to their husbands in what pertains to their legitimate authority as husband or, if you please, everthything that is not contrary to God or our most holy religion.

Goodbye and may you have a jolly pleasant weekend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

I agree, that was a rather disrespectful thing for Saint Paul to say.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear severus68,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

If, dear sister, by saying a wife is subject to her husband is the “greatest disrespect”, then St. Paul was guilty of encouraging the faithful at Ephesus to the greatest disrespect, for he said quite plainly: “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church, his body, and is himself its Saviour. As the Church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands” (Ephesians 5: 22-24). Now the teaching that “the husband is the head of the wife” is as equally valid as the next part of his sentence, namely that “Christ is the head of the Church” (v. 23). That is a very close knit argument and both parts must be true for the analogy to be valid and make any sense. Moreover, one cannot selectively take what one deems acceptable in Sacred Scripture, as the avant garde are wont to do, whilst ignoring or rationalizing those parts which displease us or which perhaps conflict with radical femenist pre-conceived notions on the role of women today. That is to embrace a sort ‘a la carte’ Catholicism and shows that we allowing godless and warped ideology to take precedence over Sacred Scripture and Church teaching, which has never disavowed its belief in St. Paul’s teaching.

Whilst it is perfectly true that St. Paul shows (Galatians 3: 28) that women now enjoy an equal status with men as regards redemption, he also teaches that our union in the Gospel does obliterate the natural distinction between the sexes, which was established by the priority given to man in creation (see I Tim. 2: 13). Moreover, the immutable principle of male headship does make the man the ruling spouse in the marriage relationship - an arrangement not only established by creation but also endorsed in redemption. Hence, a Catholic wife must understand that equality in the sphere of grace (Gal. 3: 28; I Pet. 3: 7) does not abrogate the God-given order for marriage. Now of course, dear sister, there is a common sense limit to the obedience that a wife is expected to render to her husband. Needless to say, wives are only subject to their husbands in what pertains to their legitimate authority as husband or, if you please, everthything that is not contrary to God or our most holy religion.

Goodbye and may you have a jolly pleasant weekend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

We have an appropriate term for this in the secular (i.e. non-religious) world.

Equal in Name Only.

 

[Armyvet007]

The thing is, the military decision-making process has to be relatively efficient otherwise the enemy might slaughter you while you are making up your mind.

But the U.S. government is not efficient, nor is it supposed to be.
The Founding Fathers deliberately made it harder to exercise authority based on the certainty that it would inevitably be abused. This was to ward off tyranny, and for the most part over the last 2 centuries it has been successful in that regard.
I think that is a better model for families (which are not designed to be efficient) than the military one.

The concept isn’t a new or an original military concept. “Too many cooks spoil the soup” didn’t originate in a mess hall. Also, you really think it is a good idea to model how a family operates on a system that at it heart is based on the idea that you can not trust anyone [the checks and balances incorporated into the American governmental system]? I don’t.