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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nothumbleenough
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Armyvet007 said:
  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.
Click to expand...
Okay, at what point did God say that while the husband was the head of the family, it actually included things outside of the home and the wife was the “head” of things inside the home? I don’t think that distinction is made. Just said that the husband is the head.
  1. 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.”
Click to expand...
Maybe if there’s more than 3 people, but I’ve never had a relationship so bad that we couldn’t come to a mutual decision. Sounds like people who have to resort to this have a pretty bad and unequal relationship. “I appreciate your opinion honey but I know best due to my maleness.”
  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.
Click to expand...
Exactly. 😃

So, not all husbands are “heads” and not all wifes are “hearts”. And in fact, some are neither and are a mixture.
[/quote]
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
It is when he tells slaves and wives to obey their masters:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
actually i thought the prevailing culture was that of disobedience and hate, he was teaching love, obedience and respect. He actually taught me that the xtain message could be practice in d worst of condition.
Ubenedictus
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Yes there is actually.
Any system that has tangible consequences if you break its rules.
Click to expand...
surprise, surprise! You dont think a pricking conscience is a good consequence for sin, well im sure many guys in this forum would have a long list of d consequence of sin. The physical Prisons are not alway effective now our days, are they?
Ubenedictus
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
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.
Click to expand...
i just remember i told u not to get me wrong, i also remember the use of the word ‘at times’ and i thint it talk about circumstances. The new daddy i meant was simply a source of security in troubling time. I’ll leave the point if you can assure me that all your married female friends have never thought of their husban as a source of security.
Ubenedictus
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
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).
Click to expand...
well if they are on the christain system then how d bible defines love is important.
i think this is the problem with this discussion, you argue against any system where we have a man as first in heirarchy, im argueing for a christain system. When you argue against any heirarchy please get the full picture.
I hope i wont go around in a circle again.
Ubenedictus
 
severus68 said:
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.
Click to expand...
well you have won an award, the guy who totally misunderstood me. You find fault when i say d wife should submit to her husband but im a bit surprised that you didnt find fault when i said the guy should submit to d lady. It seems you didnt find my post that talked about a mutual submission of love or did you just ignore it and say whatever you like about me.
Ubenedictus
 
severus68 said:
Me too - on the creeping out. I agree with the rest of your post too.
Click to expand...
Yes! A Daddy daughter relationship is the picture I see as well. In fact the father daughter relationship is a perfect fit for what many posters keep explaining a marriage should be. A wife should obey her husband and he should sacrifice himself for her out of love. Now replace wife with daughter and husband with father.

A *daughter *should obey her *father *and he should sacrifice himself for her out of love.

This is what parents do they sacrifice themselves for their children and their children obey them. Just because a husband sacrifices himself for his wife does not mean that he respects her as an adult.
 
LemonAndLime said:
Now I know the Bible says that the man is the head of the family, so this is why people are arguing it should still happen.

So… what about the following? I can pick and choose Bible verses too.
Click to expand...
The above [anti-Christian propoganda picture omitted from quote] plus your need to hinge your counter points on a one dimensional caricature of a disrespectful and unloving husband [the “honey” comments] indicate to me that you wish to win an argument rather then have a discussion. At this point I’ll depart from what I mistakenly assumed was a discussion. You win, good job and good day.
 
LucyLight said:
Yes! A Daddy daughter relationship is the picture I see as well. In fact the father daughter relationship is a perfect fit for what many posters keep explaining a marriage should be. A wife should obey her husband and he should sacrifice himself for her out of love. Now replace wife with daughter and husband with father.

A *daughter *should obey her *father *and he should sacrifice himself for her out of love.

This is what parents do they sacrifice themselves for their children and their children obey them. Just because a husband sacrifices himself for his wife does not mean that he respects her as an adult.
Click to expand...
do you mind sacasm? I think the is a very ‘good’ way of interpreting my post.
Ubenedictus
 
Ubenedictus said:
sorry but i have a favour to ask the opera mini on my phone cant get the picture. Can someone tell me about it?
Ubenedictus
Click to expand...
It is a list of marriage arrangements which are considered ok in the Bible but would not be by today’s standards. Such as - if a man rapes a virgin he has to marry her, a man has to marry his brother’s widow, Moses ordering that everyone is killed apart from women who are spoils of war, as well as polygamy. There’s a few slavery-related ones too.
 
LucyLight said:
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:.
Click to expand...
ArmyVet007,

I should clarify something here. I am in agreement that the the spouses tend to naturally take on different roles(eg. the husband takes care of the lawn, the wife takes care of the finances). Its more of a dividing up of the tasks. I don’t however believe that the husband is always responsible for things outside of the home and the wife is always responsible for things within the home (correct me if that’s not what you’re saying). This might naturally happen in a lot of marriages but I don’t see why this would serve any purpose to have this as a hard rule. When generalizing the sexes we can see that men tend to gravitate towards certain tasks and women tend to gravitate towards certain tasks. This doesn’t mean that there needs to be a rule about it though. I still like your chain of command example:).
 
Ubenedictus said:
do you mind sacasm? I think the is a very ‘good’ way of interpreting my post.
Ubenedictus
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you mean here. I didn’t think I was responding to something you said. The poster I had in mind in this thread was Nillabean(i think that’s her name)
 
Ubenedictus said:
actually i thought the prevailing culture was that of disobedience and hate, he was teaching love, obedience and respect. He actually taught me that the xtain message could be practice in d worst of condition.
Ubenedictus
Click to expand...
Based on what?
 
Originally Posted by 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?

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.
Ubenedictus said:
i just remember i told u not to get me wrong, i also remember the use of the word ‘at times’ and i thint it talk about circumstances. The new daddy i meant was simply a source of security in troubling time.** I’ll leave the point if you can assure me that all your married female friends have never thought of their husban as a source of security.**Ubenedictus
Click to expand...
But that is not what you said.
You specifically said that a husband is like a* Daddy*.
 
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
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).
Ubenedictus said:
well if they are on the christain system then how d bible defines love is important.
i think this is the problem with this discussion, you argue against any system where we have a man as first in heirarchy, im argueing for a christain system. When you argue against any heirarchy please get the full picture.
I hope i wont go around in a circle again.
Ubenedictus
Click to expand...
That implies movement.
You have simply been re-stating the same basic point over and over again.
 
Armyvet007 said:
The above [anti-Christian propoganda picture omitted from quote] plus your need to hinge your counter points on a one dimensional caricature of a disrespectful and unloving husband [the “honey” comments] indicate to me that you wish to win an argument rather then have a discussion. At this point I’ll depart from what I mistakenly assumed was a discussion. You win, good job and good day.
Click to expand...
Calling it propaganda implies that its not true.
But those are in fact traditional forms of *Biblical *marriage.
 
The OP would have to define “subjection” better.
  1. If he means “a duty to obedience” then yes, wives are just as subject to their husbands in 2012 as they were in 200 or the days of St. Thomas Aquinas. I’d recommend reading Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Connubbii for a very insightful commentary on what this means.
  2. If he means “oppression” then the main thing oppressing modern women in the western world in 2012, is marxist feminism and the culture of death. The two greatests missions a woman can have in this life are to be a virgin and to be a mother. Our Lady Mary is, by the grace of God, the only woman to have been both. Through the evil of contraception which is at the heart of “women’s liberation” mankind seeks to intentionally make women neither virgins nor mothers.
Pax Christi
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top