[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:
There is a strong theme in the bible, starting with the creation story and going all the way to Revelation where there is the analogy of the great, evil prostitute tempting the kings of the earth, of women holding power over men with their bodies, and thus needing to hide their bodies and submit to men’s will.
The marrige laws in the bible say that the man is to be the head of the woman and the woman is to listen to what her husband has to say, and do accordingly. The man, of course, is to do this out of love, but this is clearly not an equal relationship because otherwise it would state that the man should also listen to his wife and do what she tells him to. Many church congregations in the past 100 years didn’t allow women to be preachers and some still don’t.
“But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ,” (1 Cor. 11:3). One example. I have to go to work, but I’ll find more later.
Oh my . . . more psuedo-christianity . . . the fact is that Adam is blamed for the first sin, the serpent was a male, the great dragon of the Revelation is also male . . . and the great harlot that tempts man is false religion . . . the reason that the woman is seen as source of temptation is not because of her great beauty - but because of the adultery in men - the whole focus is to show the evil in men’s heart - not to denigrate the beauty and personality of the woman - Christ even likens his beloved the church to a woman - loving and caring for her enough to have died for her . . . there is no disgrace or denigration of women in that . . .
Chastity and purity are the reason for women to cover their beauty and to not prostitute what is so incredibly valuable and priceless . . .[/quote] Why is a woman so much more incrediably valuable and priceless than a man that she must cover herself in ways that he does not have to?
[quote]As for the man being the head of the woman - it is a position of responsibility for the man - he will receive all of the blame for that which is not right in his home - it is not a position of higher value, indeed, man is more the slave and servant of the home than the women - he is expected to sacrifice everything for the happiness and sanctity of his wife and home.[/quote] Would you prefer to live in a middle eastern country such as Pakistan or Iraq where this code of conduct is actually carried out to the letter? Why not?
[quote]The Proverbs 31 woman is liberated, owns property, manages workers, produces products, negotiate deals - and this is the elevated ideal of the wife . . .
the man and woman were each commanded to do the thing that typically is most difficult in the relationship - it was not an exclusive list, but a warning that these would be problem areas for sinful people - man should love his wife, and a wife should “submit” (VERY IMPORTANT - IT DOES NOT SAY OBEY) to the husband - neither negates the value or importance of the other person.[/quote]
Submit definition-
â??verb (used without object) 5. to yield oneself to the power or authority of another: to submit to a conqueror.
6. to allow oneself to be subjected to some kind of treatment: to submit to chemotherapy.
7. to defer to another’s judgment, opinion, decision, etc.: I submit to your superior judgment.
Obey definition (definition #4 on dictionary.com):4. to submit or conform in action to (some guiding principle, impulse, one’s conscience, etc.).
What was your point in pointing out that it doesn’t say obey?
Would it be biblical for a woman to go against something her husband has told her? Is it biblical for the husband to go against something the wife has told him to do? Why or why not to each?
[quote]4. to submit or conform in action to (some guiding principle, impulse, one’s conscience, etc.).
Now, follow this closely - by NOT stating that the wife should obey the husband, Paul actually reaffirmed that the patriarchal system of authority of the Roman empire was not biblical. . . in addition, the word “submit” is not in the actual verse and is actually substituted into the verse from the full context of the passage by English translators - the idea from the context of the rest of the passage is one of respect and humility - not a servile submission of will. The husband is to love the wife and the wife is to respect the husband - not so horrible a directive after all . . .[/quote] First off all, read the definitions above. Secondly, it took you a long time to explain how this was not, IYO, supporting patriarchy. How many times throughout history do you think those original passages have been used to support patriarchy, both in individual marriges and whole societies?
Which bible scholar would you recommend? How many other bible scholars did you not recommend because they had it wrong? (in other words, as I stated in my original post, I grew up with bible scholars who had served as missionaries in Africa for their entire childhood. You are in essense saying that they had it wrong).
