Religious Controversies: Man/Woman Equality

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

…But… Push… I just dont hold with a lot of what you do in regards to what is a woman’s place in the world.

the good thing is, I know you can see what I mean and see this all new stuff.

[/quote]C, I have no idea what you’re talking about…“a woman’s place in the world.” Seriously.
[/quote]

well I am not of the mind that I should be subordinate to a man. I do not believe that by benefit of having a dick that a man can make better decisions than me, but by YOUR posts, you encourage a woman to submit man, a man whatever man because he has a dick.

143

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

…But… Push… I just dont hold with a lot of what you do in regards to what is a woman’s place in the world.

the good thing is, I know you can see what I mean and see this all new stuff.

[/quote]C, I have no idea what you’re talking about…“a woman’s place in the world.” Seriously.
[/quote]

well I am not of the mind that I should be subordinate to a man. I do not believe that by benefit of having a dick that a man can make better decisions than me, but by YOUR posts, you encourage a woman to submit man, a man whatever man because he has a dick.

[/quote]You didn’t pull that from any of my posts. You have confused me with someone else.

However, I do think you need a little lesson on what “submit” actually means. I think there are several guys on this thread who can teach it. I think Tirib and I.S. could do a good job.[/quote]

Push… do you ever see it that you want to trade places with this role that you see the Bible handing out to women?

I am going to so guess no. Because the Bible, written by men, want women to just offer up food and offerings to men.

145

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Although the Bible may say in various ways that women are somehow below men, one should not think of the Bible as an entity in and of itself. The Bible simply contains the words of men from a far gone age saying these things about women. Given that, if the Bible were to be written today with contemporary morals in mind, women would most certainly be given an equal status amongst men. The words may even be written by women, some of which may try to imply or outright claim that it is MEN who are inferior in some way. Who knows? The point is that it is imperative to keep in mind who wrote the Bible and in what times it was written before applying the lessons contained within it to life in the 21st century. We must interpret the Bible through contemporary set of lenses.[/quote]

What? You should stop reading into the Bible in such strange demeanor. Anyone that reads the Bible and thinks humans as inferior needs to do a little more reading. We are the fucking bosses of this shit, except for the Lord of course. We are made perfectly, with free will, how better does it get? And no, if the Bible was written today it would not be written by women.[/quote]

I agree with DB.

Why wouldn’t the Bible be written by women?
[/quote]

Because not much becomes official doctrine of the Church that women write. So it is highly unlikely that something as the Bible would all of a sudden have documents written by women, if God wanted it though, I do not see why not. I just do not see many women Theologians and historians.

[quote]
â??[That little man in black says] woman can’t have as much rights as man because Christ wasn’t a woman. Where did your Christ come from? . . . From God and a woman. Man has nothing to do with him.â??

Sojourner Truth[/quote]

I do not follow this part.

146

[quote]drewh wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]drewh wrote:
There is also shit about rape, beating your servant, sacrificing your son etc…[/quote]

wow - a passing knowledge of the content of the Bible . . . now you need to understand two things called context and intent.

The Bible is very open and plain about the failings of man - including men who were supposed to be spiritual leaders. Might be a shock to you, but for the rest of us it is all part and parcel of an inspired text.[/quote]
So you believe in a flawed book what are you trying to say.[/quote]

Okay you made a conclusion, now give your premises.

147

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
well I am not of the mind that I should be subordinate to a man. I do not believe that by benefit of having a dick that a man can make better decisions than me, but by YOUR posts, you encourage a woman to submit man, a man whatever man because he has a dick.
[/quote]

Where has this come from? Submission, as was being discussed, was only within a family unit. So nobody in this thread has suggested that a woman should submit to ‘whatever man because he has a dick’.

Secondly, submission does not imply of lessor worth. Irish explains this quite well in the first couple of pages of this thread.

Thirdly, submission is how harmonious relationships are built. I’m not limiting this to sexual relationships. When you are out with a group of your friends and the rest of the group decide they want to eat Chinese, and you don’t particularly want Chinese, will you ditch them and go and get Vietnamese on your own? Or will you submit to the group and go get Chinese?

In the majority of cases I would say you should submit. I know I would. And it isn’t a male-female issue. It is a role based issue. In my experience life doesn’t function well when everyone is a boss. Hence why even though my boss is half as smart as I am I have no problem submitting to him. Because we have different roles.

Our whole society is built upon submission. For instance I will submit to police officers even when they are incorrect, provided that there is no physical danger. And I am far smarter than the average police officer. It is not about worth.

Fourthly, why would you marry a man who would not take your advice and feelings into consideration?

The matter of fact is that in a relationship there are times when one partner must be submissive. And the ambitious aggressive goal setting man won’t be the submissive one. Not to say that everything should be the mans way or the highway. That is medieval and barbaric.

If you have a husband who will take your advice and feelings into consideration then there is no drama in being more submissive. If you have a husband who won’t take your advice and feelings into consideration then you will be forced to be more submissive or your marriage will be a nightmare.

Women do not like submissive men. Probably because socially these men are outperformed.

148

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Push… do you ever see it that you want to trade places with this role that you see the Bible handing out to women?

I am going to so guess no. Because the Bible, written by men, want women to just offer up food and offerings to men.[/quote]

Well I’ve always wanted to be able to stay at home and look after my children. I also love cooking and don’t mind cleaning.

Submissive to my wife? Well she is amazing and while I don’t agree with some of her stances I know she wants what is best for my family. So I could do it. I would rather be the submissive one than have both of us continually fight for dominance.

Now lucky for me women are naturally more submissive and men naturally more dominant. And I feel it is women, rather than men, who keep this status quo. Would you date a man with little ambition who was happy to follow you around like a puppy? Most women wouldn’t.

149

“When you get to heaven someday you need to straighten Paul out. Tell him he should’ve penned the words, “Let all men be the husband of one wife.” After all you know exactly what he meant to write but accidentally didn’t.”

“DD, you’re married, right? If so, did you eye your wife the first few times you saw her? Did you continue to eye her til your wedding day? If so, you’re marriage is rooted in sin. The foundation of your marriage is built on sin. Is this the way to build a biblical relationship? By grounding it in a despicable sin?”

Youâ??re flip floppin on my push. In that first quote you’re saying we have to read exactly what is the in the most technical way possible and that you canâ??t take reasonable inference from context.

Then in the next quote, it isn’t about what is literally said, you have to read into the context and infer what was really meant. That isnâ??t what was written, he said “But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Period. It doesnâ??t say she has to be someone elses’ wife. It doesnâ??t say you have to actually be planning to physically fulfill the desire. It simply isn’t in the text. You want a literal interpretation or not? This flip flop stuff is beneath you.

150

[quote]pushharder wrote:

When Jacob had sex with and married Rachel did it cause his marriage with Rebekkah to end? No.
[/quote]

I will say the marriage did end. They might have been lawfully married, but Rebekkah hated her sister Rachel. Jacob loved Rachel, and Rebekkah became a maid servant and a baby house for a lack of a better term. Rebekkah did not have the heart of her husband.

Solomon had everything under the sun including women. In Ecclesiates he basically states that all these things are crap. The only thing that matters is God.

Are you married Push? If you are, and your wife says to you, “Honey I really do not like having all these women around. I would prefer it to be just you and me. I do not like being with the other men. I only want to be with you.” Would you be willing to respect that decision and become monogomous.

I personally love my wife more than anything. Friday we got a call that she might have cancer. We are in our early 30’s. We worried all weekend about it. Found out it was nothing yesterday. She is alright. I am trying to say that my wife and I are one in flesh, spirit, and everything else. I felt the pain she was going through. She saw how I reacted to the news. We are one in flesh. I would never ask her to go swinging or have a threesome. That would rip that oneness apart. I would not be able to put all my emotions into our marriage. Another woman would have part of me.

The crap that David went through at the end of his life all came about because of multiple woman. David loved Bathsheeba the mother of Solomon. Solomon was not the first born, but David gave him the throne. David had to kill another son so that Solomon’s throne would be solidified. All these strifes in the OT all came about because of Polygamy. It might not state it directly that it is bad, but the Bible clearly shows that it causes a lot of bad things to happen between people. Greatest commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength, and equally as great is love your neighbor as yourself. Human Relationships are on par with our Relationship with God.

I think God wants us to have pleasurable sex. I will never argue otherwise. I just think God wants us to have it in the confines of marriage. Sex is a blessing, please do not pervert that blessing.

153

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“When you get to heaven someday you need to straighten Paul out. Tell him he should’ve penned the words, “Let all men be the husband of one wife.” After all you know exactly what he meant to write but accidentally didn’t.”

“DD, you’re married, right? If so, did you eye your wife the first few times you saw her? Did you continue to eye her til your wedding day? If so, you’re marriage is rooted in sin. The foundation of your marriage is built on sin. Is this the way to build a biblical relationship? By grounding it in a despicable sin?”

YouÃ?¢??re flip floppin on my push. In that first quote you’re saying we have to read exactly what is the in the most technical way possible and that you canÃ?¢??t take reasonable inference from context.

Then in the next quote, it isn’t about what is literally said, you have to read into the context and infer what was really meant. That isnÃ?¢??t what was written, he said “But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Period. It doesnÃ?¢??t say she has to be someone elses’ wife. It doesnÃ?¢??t say you have to actually be planning to physically fulfill the desire. It simply isn’t in the text. You want a literal interpretation or not? This flip flop stuff is beneath you.
[/quote]

Sorry, but lust isn’t “eying”. It’s that simple. Lust is desiring something that doesn’t belong to you. It’s the planning of the theft of property.[/quote]

Okay, so you disagree with Paul. that’s fair.

155

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“When you get to heaven someday you need to straighten Paul out. Tell him he should’ve penned the words, “Let all men be the husband of one wife.” After all you know exactly what he meant to write but accidentally didn’t.”

“DD, you’re married, right? If so, did you eye your wife the first few times you saw her? Did you continue to eye her til your wedding day? If so, you’re marriage is rooted in sin. The foundation of your marriage is built on sin. Is this the way to build a biblical relationship? By grounding it in a despicable sin?”

YouÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??re flip floppin on my push. In that first quote you’re saying we have to read exactly what is the in the most technical way possible and that you canÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??t take reasonable inference from context.

Then in the next quote, it isn’t about what is literally said, you have to read into the context and infer what was really meant. That isnÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??t what was written, he said “But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Period. It doesnÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??t say she has to be someone elses’ wife. It doesnÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??t say you have to actually be planning to physically fulfill the desire. It simply isn’t in the text. You want a literal interpretation or not? This flip flop stuff is beneath you.
[/quote]

Sorry, but lust isn’t “eying”. It’s that simple. Lust is desiring something that doesn’t belong to you. It’s the planning of the theft of property.[/quote]

Okay, so you disagree with Paul. that’s fair.[/quote]

Apparently you’ve been skipping many of my posts. That’s unfair.[/quote]

“But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

It says eye. It is nothing more than a look. It doesn’t say with intent. It doesn’t say in a mental process of planning. Mental planning to steal is not a requirement for lust.

159

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

When Jacob had sex with and married Rachel did it cause his marriage with Rebekkah to end? No.
[/quote]

I will say the marriage did end. They might have been lawfully married, but Rebekkah hated her sister Rachel. Jacob loved Rachel, and Rebekkah became a maid servant and a baby house for a lack of a better term. Rebekkah did not have the heart of her husband.[/quote]

I think you are slightly distorting the story to make your point but the bottom line is the sex that Jacob had with multiple women was not wrong. It was not immoral. It was not sin. It’s not me saying this, it’s the Bible saying it.[quote]

Solomon had everything under the sun including women. In Ecclesiates he basically states that all these things are crap. The only thing that matters is God.[/quote]

Yes, but none of that designates sexual sin.[quote]

Are you married Push? If you are, and your wife says to you, “Honey I really do not like having all these women around. I would prefer it to be just you and me. I do not like being with the other men. I only want to be with you.” Would you be willing to respect that decision and become monogomous.[/quote]

Yes.[quote]

I personally love my wife more than anything. [/quote]

I personally love my wife more than anything. I have a solid 27 years of loving her under my belt. My marriage is older than the age of the average T-Nationeer. In fact it appears my marriage is almost as old as you. Yeah, I was loving my wife before you were fully potty trained. Don’t even begin to think you somehow have the high ground when it comes to loving your wife.[quote]

Friday we got a call that she might have cancer. We are in our early 30’s. We worried all weekend about it. Found out it was nothing yesterday. She is alright. I am trying to say that my wife and I are one in flesh, spirit, and everything else. I felt the pain she was going through. She saw how I reacted to the news. We are one in flesh. [/quote]

Same here. Glad she’s fine BTW.[quote]

I would never ask her to go swinging or have a threesome. That would rip that oneness apart. I would not be able to put all my emotions into our marriage. Another woman would have part of me.[/quote]

And I in no way am advocating that you do so. Am I? Don’t play the self-righteous card with me. This discussion isn’t about who should go swinging or not. It’s about the biblical definition and understanding of sexual sin.[quote]

The crap that David went through at the end of his life all came about because of multiple woman. David loved Bathsheeba the mother of Solomon. Solomon was not the first born, but David gave him the throne. David had to kill another son so that Solomon’s throne would be solidified. All these strifes in the OT all came about because of Polygamy. It might not state it directly that it is bad, but the Bible clearly shows that it causes a lot of bad things to happen between people. Greatest commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength, and equally as great is love your neighbor as yourself. Human Relationships are on par with our Relationship with God.[/quote]

If you knew your Bible well, and the story of David and Bathsheba, you would’ve remembered that when the prophet Nathan came to David and told him by God’s direct commandment the story of the sheep and caused David to fully understand what evil he had done with the Bathsheba affair, you wouldn’t have brought it up because it makes my argument and fractures yours.

"You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more."

GOD gave David the multiple women. GOD would have given him MORE women if David wanted them. Instead, David chose to lust (covet) after a married woman and then adulterate (steal) with her.

This story you mentioned of David and Bathsheba is classic for my argument. If you slink away muttering God didn’t really mean what He said in the verses I just quoted, that God didn’t give David the women, that God didn’t promise him more if the ones he had were too little in number then you sir, have given the middle finger to God’s Word in a manner of speaking. The verbiage is too plain, too simple and not open to some other interpretation.[quote]

I think God wants us to have pleasurable sex. I will never argue otherwise. I just think God wants us to have it in the confines of marriage. Sex is a blessing, please do not pervert that blessing.[/quote]

You are more than welcome to have that view. I understand it completely. I am not proselytizing here in this discussion. But your view of the alleged perversion you mentioned is a personal view and not a biblical one.

Back up your biblical views with the Bible. It is the final authority.[/quote]

I suck at putting the different quotes out there so I will just post at the bottom. My statement about David and Bathesheeba was at the end of David’s life. All the different family disfunctions that were going on. You do not understand that sex is not just physical. It changes lives forever. If you are thinking I am self righteous or saying I am better than you then you do not understand me. I am a brother in Christ. I am trying to lovingly direct you. If you do not want the direction then that is fine.

You think that it is Biblical to have multiple sexual partners, but not Biblical to be a homosexual?

160

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I find it mighty interesting that when it comes to creation/evolution debates the Tiribs and Maddox’s and DDs of this forum leave me alone in the Alamo, single-handedly fighting off Santa Ana’s army of atheists, agnostics and Genesis-is-a-myth Catholics but when the subject of sex in the Bible comes up the wagging tongues and pointing fingers have no problem suddenly appearing.

I’m in the mission outside of ol’ San Antone with two or three rifles and a dog and you guys are down in Galveston Bay tarpon fishing.

Very telling.

Sex in the Bible? “Let us draw our bows.”

“Genesis is a myth? The creation account is a joke?” [crickets chirping] “Ummmm…my name is Tirib/DD/DRMaddox and…well…I have to mow the lawn. Sorry, Push.”[/quote]

You are taking this way to personal. I can see why you think the way you do, but you are doing the same thing to us.