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

[Ubenedictus]

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).

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

based on the new covenant.

 

[LucyLight]

No, the husband is the “head” [concerned/responsible for the stuff outside of the family] and the wife is the “heart” [concerned/responsible for the stuff inside of the family]. Each has a specific role in supporting/creating a healthy family. As to the final say [the “the decision maker” part], it depends on whose responsibility the decision falls under and the (name removed by moderator)ut from the other person in relation to the issue itself and also in relation to the impact the decision will have on the “not the final sayer’s” responsibilities. Add to this the fact that “final sayer” has to place his/her needs/wants below that of the family.

The decision making process would look kind of like this-

1. ID the problem
   Need a new car
2. Determine who’s responsibility it falls under
   for this example- “head”
3. Get initial (name removed by moderator)ut from non-responsible person
   “heart’s” (name removed by moderator)ut- needs to hold at least 5, has to be affordable
4. Formulate a plan of action
   get a sedan, SUV, or minivan
5. Get (name removed by moderator)ut from non-responsible person on plan of action
   sedan too small [family could grow in future]
6. Review plan of action in regards to needs/wants of kids, then non-responsible person, then responsible person [greatest to least in terms of priority]
   kids- want a race car, “heart”- likes minivans, doesn’t want it to be blue “head”- hates minivans, likes SUVs
7. Revise/finalize plan
   look for an affordable non-blue minivan or SUV
8. Execute
   Goes to car dealer, can get a good deal on a SUV, can get similar deal on a blue minivan [non-blue cost more]. Buys blue minivan.

Being the “the decision maker” or the “head”/“heart” has nothing to do with “I’m the boss” or “I’m not the boss”; it has everything to do with “I’m the one responsible for this.”

A wife that “submits” [cedes all authority] is shirking her responsibilities; and a husband that demands his wife “submit” [give him all authority] is placing himself above his wife [she can’t be responsible, so I have to be]. The flip side being that a couple reject that the idea of a “final sayer” and instead runs the family by council is shirking their responsiblities in the name of a false “equality”.

The “chain of command” for a family is- God “in command” with the husband being in charge of X and the wife being in charge of Y; and with the husband and wife acting as subordinates of each other in the others “in charge of” and with the other’s needs/wants. All of which is focused on the good of the “command” [the family].

This is probably the most reasonable explanation of the head/heart analogy that I’ve heard. I think that this is what naturally happens in healthy marriages. The spouses have different areas of responsiblity. It would be exhausting if we had to discuss everything. I trust him with certain things and vise versa.

btw, I love your chain of command example. I might have to quote you in future threads:thumbsup:.

 

[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).

and Jesus was born in that same culture yet he came with a ‘revolutionary’ idea. Reading eph5v22 with v21 and reading pauls idea of love in 1cor13 gives you the context he spoke, what he meant by his word. He wasnt pushing for the old culture, no he was bringing a new one in christ thru the holy spirit. His words in scripture is hardly according to d prevailing culture, his words is about a new xtain way.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

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.

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

you’ve got this idea that the office system is better than the marriage system i think it is a mistake because you seem to be alway forgeting the love aspect something that doesnt happen exactly in you office. The worst case scenerio presentation close your eyes to the possibilities possible if the christain idea is truly followed.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Wait…

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

Then what are you really trying to say?

something i would like you to figure out by reading the document in question.
Pls read it in the right context.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
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.

Even assuming that you’re right, a law that’s never enforced (as this one has not been) is in practice the same as having no law at all.

what is your definition of law? What do u mean by ‘never enforced’? You want a police following you around and telling you to love your wife or what? As a xtain i believe i have more than a personal police, my conscience and the Holy Spirit are the best of guide. The is no better enforcement. If you are writing this because you do not know anyone who practice this truth them try it and see.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

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?

no i dont. But it seems it is necessay for ladies to feel secure. In that case in some situation your husband may be a kind of new daddy.
I hope you wont get me wrong.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
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.

So what?
If he’s in charge he can do what he wants.
Including defining love in those terms (remember, as the head the man is considered leader of the domestic church).

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

 

[Ubenedictus]

But that’s not what you said yesterday.
You justified slavery in the post below:

Yesterday, 7:04 pm
FaithBuild18
Junior Member Join Date: July 27, 2010
Location: America
Posts: 228
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.

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

 

[Ubenedictus]

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?

If Saint Paul didn’t account for sex slaves and slaves that were abused like Southern blacks in the 19th century then he was not nearly as smart as people usually give him credit for being.

Female slaves have always been raped by their masters, and its usually been taken for granted.
How do you think that the African-American population (except for those that actually came from Africa in the last couple generations) got so light-skinned?
Its certainly not because of the American nation’s proud history of interracial marriage

Moreover, Roman slaves were being killed for sport (such as the gladiators) in Saint Paul’s era, so he would have no excuse for not knowing that slaves were often treated inhumanely and with malice.

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

 

[Ubenedictus]

No, the husband is the “head” [concerned/responsible for the stuff outside of the family] and the wife is the “heart” [concerned/responsible for the stuff inside of the family]. Each has a specific role in supporting/creating a healthy family. As to the final say [the “the decision maker” part], it depends on whose responsibility the decision falls under and the (name removed by moderator)ut from the other person in relation to the issue itself and also in relation to the impact the decision will have on the “not the final sayer’s” responsibilities. Add to this the fact that “final sayer” has to place his/her needs/wants below that of the family.

The decision making process would look kind of like this-

1. ID the problem
   Need a new car
2. Determine who’s responsibility it falls under
   for this example- “head”
3. Get initial (name removed by moderator)ut from non-responsible person
   “heart’s” (name removed by moderator)ut- needs to hold at least 5, has to be affordable
4. Formulate a plan of action
   get a sedan, SUV, or minivan
5. Get (name removed by moderator)ut from non-responsible person on plan of action
   sedan too small [family could grow in future]
6. Review plan of action in regards to needs/wants of kids, then non-responsible person, then responsible person [greatest to least in terms of priority]
   kids- want a race car, “heart”- likes minivans, doesn’t want it to be blue “head”- hates minivans, likes SUVs
7. Revise/finalize plan
   look for an affordable non-blue minivan or SUV
8. Execute
   Goes to car dealer, can get a good deal on a SUV, can get similar deal on a blue minivan [non-blue cost more]. Buys blue minivan.

Being the “the decision maker” or the “head”/“heart” has nothing to do with “I’m the boss” or “I’m not the boss”; it has everything to do with “I’m the one responsible for this.”

A wife that “submits” [cedes all authority] is shirking her responsibilities; and a husband that demands his wife “submit” [give him all authority] is placing himself above his wife [she can’t be responsible, so I have to be]. The flip side being that a couple reject that the idea of a “final sayer” and instead runs the family by council is shirking their responsiblities in the name of a false “equality”.

The “chain of command” for a family is- God “in command” with the husband being in charge of X and the wife being in charge of Y; and with the husband and wife acting as subordinates of each other in the others “in charge of” and with the other’s needs/wants. All of which is focused on the good of the “command” [the family].

wow your example really sounded like a programmer writing a computer program. It was beautiful, i see much sense in it .
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

I clearly see Satan’s hand in promoting feminism. We cannot say times have changed and hence we can disregard even Scriptures. God does not change with time, values don’t change with time. Women in the last sixty years haven’t grown manly suddenly in the six thousand years of history of mankind neither have colored people suddenly become white. It is Satan’s mischief and nothing else. I am not afraid of Satan and hence I say openly. Feminism and anti racism is nonsense. It is clearly written by God in his scriptures that women should not open their mouths in the church and so many people are arguing against it. I see how afraid you guys are of Satan. That is all.

it seem i dont understand you post. Are you in support of racism?
Ubenedictus

 

[LemonAndLime]

No, the husband is the “head” [concerned/responsible for the stuff outside of the family] and the wife is the “heart” [concerned/responsible for the stuff inside of the family]. Each has a specific role in supporting/creating a healthy family. As to the final say [the “the decision maker” part], it depends on whose responsibility the decision falls under and the (name removed by moderator)ut from the other person in relation to the issue itself and also in relation to the impact the decision will have on the “not the final sayer’s” responsibilities. Add to this the fact that “final sayer” has to place his/her needs/wants below that of the family.

So the husband isn’t at all responsible for things within the home, and the wife isn’t responsible for things outside of the home?

That sounds pretty cool. So the husband isn’t at all responsible for making sure his children do well at school and the wife isn’t responsible for making sure the bills are paid. After all, those things would be outside of their spheres of influence.

Wait, that’s not how it works? So you mean they’re both responsible for things that go in inside/outside the home?

So… what’s the point of having someone called the head and the other the heart? “Oh I’m sorry hunny, I would be concerned about our child’s misbehaviour but that’s not my department.”

 

[Armyvet007]

“Oh I’m sorry hunny, I would be concerned about our child’s misbehaviour but that’s not my department.”

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.

 

[PJM]

=Nothumbleenough;9270974]My oldest son recently informed me he strongly believed The Church still actively promoted the idea that women are the “weaker sex” and he pointed to a couple of writings by Thomas Aquinas as proof.

The first quote is “women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church.”

The second quote reads “women are in a state of subjection.”

Does the Church still hold these Aquinas writings as complelely valid?

I listed this in the Social Justice catagory because my son believes this to be an outrage to all catholic women. He further believes not allowing women as priests is a discriminatory practice. I can easily defend the aspect of women not being able to receive the sacrament of holy orders due to their sex, but could use some help on the Church’s perspective concerning the nearly 800 year old writings of Aquinas.

Much Thanks

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

First the top quote of your is from St. Paul to the 1st. Cor.1:14.

Recent Popes have even placed women in positions within the Roman Curia.

Look at the number of women Saints and WHAT GREAT things they have accomplished within the RCC.

This is a very wrong notion

God bless you AND your son,
pat/PJM

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by Wretched one
I clearly see Satan’s hand in promoting feminism. We cannot say times have changed and hence we can disregard even Scriptures. God does not change with time, values don’t change with time. Women in the last sixty years haven’t grown manly suddenly in the six thousand years of history of mankind neither have colored people suddenly become white. It is Satan’s mischief and nothing else. I am not afraid of Satan and hence I say openly. Feminism and anti racism is nonsense. It is clearly written by God in his scriptures that women should not open their mouths in the church and so many people are arguing against it. I see how afraid you guys are of Satan. That is all.

Troll alert

I would not be surprised.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

and Jesus was born in that same culture yet he came with a ‘revolutionary’ idea. Reading eph5v22 with v21 and reading pauls idea of love in 1cor13 gives you the context he spoke, what he meant by his word. He wasnt pushing for the old culture, no he was bringing a new one in christ thru the holy spirit. His words in scripture is hardly according to d prevailing culture, his words is about a new xtain way.
Ubenedictus

It is when he tells slaves and wives to obey their masters

 

[AngryAtheist8]

what is your definition of law? What do u mean by ‘never enforced’? You want a police following you around and telling you to love your wife or what? As a xtain i believe i have more than a personal police, my conscience and the Holy Spirit are the best of guide. The is no better enforcement. If you are writing this because you do not know anyone who practice this truth them try it and see.
Ubenedictus

Yes there is actually.
Any system that has tangible consequences if you break its rules.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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?

no i dont. But it seems it is necessay for ladies to feel secure. In that case in some situation your husband may be a kind of new daddy.
I hope you wont get me wrong.
Ubenedictus

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.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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

If the man is in charge it doesn’t matter how the wife defines love (or if she’s following the Christian system) it only matters whether or not the husband chooses to be good (because he’s the decison-maker not her).