S/O regarding submissive wives for non-Christians.

[Peek a Boo]

What if that were not true? How far does a wife follow her irresponsible, selfish dh? Right off the cliff?

 

I know many men who are NOT priests, providers, or protectors, and yet their wives are made to feel that if they were just submissive enough he would be those things. ... No one is honored by allowing a man to be irresponsible, selfish, and sinful - not the man, not God, and not the wife and children. And a man with those tendencies can get absolutely out of control in these areas when the wife allows him (through some idea of submission) to be this way totally unchecked.

 

I totally agree [w/ LizzyBee too], and think i spelled that out pretty clearly in a previous post.

:)

In fact, LizzyBee pointed out the "woman must be ready to step up" principle: remember that the greek word for "submit" is mostly referring to structure [as in the military] -- if the commanding officer is unable to lead, the next highest officer MUST step up and LEAD.

 

 

Respect and negotiation. Submission would never happen here. My husband and I expect there to be give and take in our marriage, not domination. We work with each other.

 

um, isn't the "give" what would be construed as a voluntary form of submission for that particular issue?

------------------------------

 

GretaLynne --excellent point about proper use of scripture. The other problem is that there are many Titus 2 women who do use those verses [they ARE told to teach women to love their husbands -- i think they absolutely have a role in pointing out those verses] yet neglect other scriptural counsel about the woman's role as KEEPER of the home, as a HELPmeet [not just prayer warrior] for her dh, as a mother that must protect her children, and as a fellow Christian who is called to correct via scriptural accountability her husband as a brother in Christ.

 

 

I hadn't thought about her not wanting to work with them. Hmmm.

 

So, your dh doesn't clean the kichen your way. How painful-you know-tongue and all.:D I use to like to control how everything got done in the house.

I know I'm prone to the control freak thing, so I've been reallllly careful since i was about 20 to make sure i wasn't micro-managing stuff. Thank You Ellie for giving me the "set your face like flint and walk away" that i found in a different thread ;) I do try to keep focusing on the end result and effort, NOT the process, lol.

 

 

--------------------------

I do agree that there are as many perceived negatives of feminism as there are submission, and you have controlling freaks in both camps that perpetuate --and actually live-- those whacked versions of those two terms.

 

i mean, why BURN a bra when you could have given it to some gal that would really appreciate it??

[5kidsforME]

I have a friend that is struggling greatly with a very bad situation that has at one time or another put her and her children in a bad place. Submission in the sense discussed on a message board would be TERRIBLE for her and her children. It would end up in abuse in a heartbeat.

 

It sounds like it is terrible already.

[Renee in NC]

It sounds like it is terrible already.

 

It is. And I am so sad for her, but the alternative seems worse in her eyes.

[StartingOver]

I am not a Christian. Am am Apatheist. I do try to live a good life, helping anyone I can along the way. Treading light on this earth.

 

But I am in NO WAY SUBMISSIVE !

 

My husband and I have a 50 / 50 marriage. The only difference is that I work in the home, and he works outside. We both tend to children, home and family.

 

I dont' think I know anyone that is submissive, whether Christian of not. But maybe that is just how we are in Texas ;-).

[KidsHappen]

(I've never seen a jerk husband who hadn't always been a jerk, but I guess it could happen,)

 

Abusive men are almost never abusive before the wedding.

[ereks mom]

I know how it works for Christians.....I asked that because this thread was asking NON Christians....and someone who I 'thought' was non Christian (since that was what the OP asked for) said the man has the final decision. So I asked her why..... She cleared it up in a follow up post.

 

:)

[kalanamak]

Abusive men are almost never abusive before the wedding.

 

I used to hear the sob stories (literally) of newly married women. What I learned is that the "unbelievably great guy" is the one to mistrust first. I remember the woman whose loving fiancee/husband turned cold as ice as soon as she was attached to his kids. She had to work full time, do all the housework, watch his 3 kids, EVerything, while he did his forty hours and then went out with the boys. She wept and wept because she couldn't walk away from the kids, and said the celibacy was killing her. She was particularly struck by how "nice" and "thrilled" his sisters were until wedding. Then she felt like his whole family had conspired to get a good step mom to take care of EVerything.

 

Or the guy who proposed on bended knee at the woman's father's death bed and swore with tears in his eyes he would always care for the dying man's daughter. Once dad died, he asked for all the woman's money to "start a business", and left town with everything leaving her with NO house, NO car, nothing. She spent 2 weeks having a nervous breakdown (I know that isn't a medical term, but it sure described the situation), and her friends and friends of friends pitched in, got her a car and a deposit for an apartment and convinced her boss she was worth keeping. This, BTW, was a religious woman who believed in "submission".

 

Or the lady who was over 65 and the man turned into a monster once the wedding had taken place, and she had known this guy for years in the church.

 

I could go on, but it is too depressing. No wonder people would like the bad guys to marked with something on the forehead, or a color of skin, or a particular culture. Sure would make life easier.

[lionfamily1999]

Well, honestly, it's not like we are in arranged marriages. If your (not yours) husband is a jerk, odds are he was when you chose to marry him. ;) If a Christian woman decides to marry a jerk, she does so knowing she will have to respect him. Now, if she becomes a Christian later (as I did,) or he becomes a jerk later (I've never seen a jerk husband who hadn't always been a jerk, but I guess it could happen,) it's a bit trickier. But, yes, I believe you still have to respect him. Just as he still has to love his wife when she is not very lovely.

 

I've found, though, that if you treat a man like he is smart, capable, and respectable, he will generally rise up to it. Just like when dh treats me like I am a great wife, even if I'm not, I strive to be one.

The thread Nakia posted (with the article linked), makes me wonder how responsible we are for the changes we see in our spouses. What he said about a woman looking beautiful after 40,or ugly, bitter, resentful and worn, being due to her husband's treatment of her resounded for me. I know men and women that changed, radically and (imo) horribly, because of bad marraiges, where neither person was willing to put the other, or their relationship/marraige, first.

I can't stand to watch dh clean the kitchen: the guy does a marvelous job and it looks wonderful when it's done, but he sloshes water everywhere [and wipes it all up afterwards], doesn't rinse or sort or stack the dishes properly, and does it all wrong! it drives me nuts, but I can't really complain cuz he Gets it Done. I just have to remove my bitten-off tongue from the room.....:tongue_smilie:

 

eta: all of the above rant typed knowing there's really no "wrong" way to get a room CLEAN! ;)

I disagree with your eta. There's also a wrong way to load the dishwasher, a wrong way to fold towels and a wrong way to make beds. My way is the right way and that is why I leap infront of dh to do those things first.

I think both commands are equally hard. They are IMO directed at the weaknesses of men and women. Women like to be in control...what we need for maturity is to learn how to give up some of that control. Men can be very unaware of how to live in relationship...don't have an understanding of how to love and often live by their "fleshly" desires. Here they are commanded to practice sacrificial love...the giving up of their selves for the other. Really, both husband and wife are asked to give up themselves for the other. I think it's a mature love that can do that.

Food for thought. They DO seem to address our weaknesses.

I do agree that there are as many perceived negatives of feminism as there are submission, and you have controlling freaks in both camps that perpetuate --and actually live-- those whacked versions of those two terms.

 

i mean, why BURN a bra when you could have given it to some gal that would really appreciate it??

:iagree: In every group it is the most vocal (and often irrational) that get heard. Feminism is not evil, learning that women are not helpless victims is not going to destroy the planet. Being a doormat is not being a good mother or a good wife. The fringes of any group can be scary.

[melissel]

i mean, why BURN a bra when you could have given it to some gal that would really appreciate it??

 

As an aside, the bra-burning thing is a myth:

 

The term “bra-burners,†a derogatory term that continues to be applied to feminists today, was coined in reporting on the pageant protest. Never mind that no bras were burned by those picketing the Miss America pageant, nor were bras singled out in any way as the main focus in a symbolic gesture in which women were asked to bring items they considered “instruments of torture†that were part of society’s expectations for girls and women. A large trash can, the “Freedom can,†was supplied for depositing what various women brought. Among the items tossed into the trash can were high heels, girdles, magazines (especially Playboy with its image of women), mops, cooking pots, and yes, bras — whatever individual women considered a symbol of oppression in their lives as women.

 

But no one labeled the women magazine-burners, or shoe-burners, or mop-burners. They became known as bra-burners. (I’ve wondered sometimes, if men had tossed neckties into a trash can as part of a protest against men’s fashions, would they be mocked and ridiculed as tie-burners? Or would other men have rushed to join them?)

[OnTheBrink]

Abusive men are almost never abusive before the wedding.

 

That's so very very true. And, until it happened to me, I'd never have believed it. Fact is, people can be very deceptive to get what they want.

 

I know one woman who married an abusive man, knowing he was abusive and an addict, and felt she could change him. Well the previous 3 wives couldn't do it, so I'm not sure why she thought she could. Anyway, most situations I've known of where the man was controlling or abusive started out with the man being a prince of a fellow and the second the "I do" was said, the monster was let out.

[Lovedtodeath]

I know one woman who married an abusive man, knowing he was abusive and an addict, and felt she could change him. Well the previous 3 wives couldn't do it, so I'm not sure why she thought she could. Anyway, most situations I've known of where the man was controlling or abusive started out with the man being a prince of a fellow and the second the "I do" was said, the monster was let out.

Some men start once their wife or girlfriend is pregnant, or has a child.

[MOM24WONDERS]

I also noticed she has about cut hubby out of her picture (avi). Maybe a subliminal thing?

 

My dh is NOT cut from my photo. It's art - it's a professional photo taken only to show parts of us. In the truest sense we wanted to show that we aren't whole without the other. May be corny to some, but then those some obviously don't have my man! lol

 

Honestly, nothing that could be said or done is going to bring me down from my Cloud 9 - I have my rock and I'm hanging on.

 

Honestly, I think submission is about maturity - it's about getting to that place in life when you finally realize that it's NOT all about me. It never has been and it never will be. It's about learning to get over oneself already.

 

Someone suggested that I get out more - I don't need to go any further into this world than I'm already shoved to see the devastation and destruction going on all around me. I'm not some simple-minded twit of a housewife who knows nothing more than her ogre husband comes home to share with her. Some of our best discussions are when HE asks ME about current events. Knowledge is good, but wisdom holds the keys to the Kingdom. Without it, all the knowledge in the world is simply rubbish.

 

Somewhere along the way, people got this idea that if you didn't agree with the liberal, left-wing, feminist mindset that you were backwoods and ignorant. What about all the people who've LIVED that lifestyle and turned from it? What about all the people who have studied their agenda and ran? There are smart, intelligent people who choose NOT to believe the garbage they hear on TV, radio, and internet. Maybe those people should get out a little more and see what's really going on in our world - we're in a pretty sad state.

[angela in ohio]

Abusive men are almost never abusive before the wedding.

 

While I'm sure that's true, that's not what we were talking about. The post I ws responding to said, "Just to clarify I don't mean if he was being abusive or having an affair, just not a pleasant person."

[swimmermom3]

My dh is NOT cut from my photo. It's art - it's a professional photo taken only to show parts of us. In the truest sense we wanted to show that we aren't whole without the other. May be corny to some, but then those some obviously don't have my man! lol

 

Honestly, nothing that could be said or done is going to bring me down from my Cloud 9 - I have my rock and I'm hanging on.

 

Honestly, I think submission is about maturity - it's about getting to that place in life when you finally realize that it's NOT all about me. It never has been and it never will be. It's about learning to get over oneself already.

 

Someone suggested that I get out more - I don't need to go any further into this world than I'm already shoved to see the devastation and destruction going on all around me. I'm not some simple-minded twit of a housewife who knows nothing more than her ogre husband comes home to share with her. Some of our best discussions are when HE asks ME about current events. Knowledge is good, but wisdom holds the keys to the Kingdom. Without it, all the knowledge in the world is simply rubbish.

 

Somewhere along the way, people got this idea that if you didn't agree with the liberal, left-wing, feminist mindset that you were backwoods and ignorant. What about all the people who've LIVED that lifestyle and turned from it? What about all the people who have studied their agenda and ran? There are smart, intelligent people who choose NOT to believe the garbage they hear on TV, radio, and internet. Maybe those people should get out a little more and see what's really going on in our world - we're in a pretty sad state.

 

I have to ask this question:

 

If you are a Christian, why are you here on this thread addressed to non-Christians? There are two other threads for Christians on this topic. Are you here to answer questions politely and respectfully or to ask questions politely and respectfully? Are you here to save souls by showing another way? I am asking this seriously. Or are you trolling?

Edited July 13, 2009 by swimmermom3
Too blunt and rather disrespectful.

[kiana]

My dh is NOT cut from my photo. It's art - it's a professional photo taken only to show parts of us. In the truest sense we wanted to show that we aren't whole without the other. May be corny to some, but then those some obviously don't have my man! lol

 

Honestly, nothing that could be said or done is going to bring me down from my Cloud 9 - I have my rock and I'm hanging on.

 

Honestly, I think submission is about maturity - it's about getting to that place in life when you finally realize that it's NOT all about me. It never has been and it never will be. It's about learning to get over oneself already.

 

Someone suggested that I get out more - I don't need to go any further into this world than I'm already shoved to see the devastation and destruction going on all around me. I'm not some simple-minded twit of a housewife who knows nothing more than her ogre husband comes home to share with her. Some of our best discussions are when HE asks ME about current events. Knowledge is good, but wisdom holds the keys to the Kingdom. Without it, all the knowledge in the world is simply rubbish.

 

Somewhere along the way, people got this idea that if you didn't agree with the liberal, left-wing, feminist mindset that you were backwoods and ignorant. What about all the people who've LIVED that lifestyle and turned from it? What about all the people who have studied their agenda and ran? There are smart, intelligent people who choose NOT to believe the garbage they hear on TV, radio, and internet. Maybe those people should get out a little more and see what's really going on in our world - we're in a pretty sad state.

 

What do you think a "feminist" thinks, anyway?

 

There's a huge difference between "I'm a feminist, and therefore I think that a woman has the right to hold a job, and not be fired because she might become pregnant, and has the right to not be raped by her husband (both of these passed in in the late 70s), and has the right to own her own property, attend university if she so chooses, and make her own legal decisions", and "I'm a feminist, and therefore I think we need to abolish marriage, and any woman who chooses not to have a high-powered career is a Bad Woman and a weak-minded brainwashed fool."

[Rosie_0801]

I just don't understand why sometimes it can't be the woman who's the head of the household. (Though I actually do-- I think-- understand: the answer is because it's what the Bible says.)

 

I have limited experience, having only one dh and only one father, but my father thought Mum was the head of the house (not exactly how she or us perceived things, but that's beside the point) and it made him passive aggressive and bitter. When circumstances put me into the head of the household position I become a nag and start feeling like his mother, and he starts acting like a complete doofus who can't decide whether or not a punnet of strawberries is fresh enough to buy.

 

I still struggle with the idea of the husband having a sort of paternal role over his wife. .

Ew, no. It sure doesn't have to be like that!

 

Rosie

[Renee in NC]

Honestly, I think submission is about maturity - it's about getting to that place in life when you finally realize that it's NOT all about me. It never has been and it never will be. It's about learning to get over oneself already.

 

Well, I know it isn't all about me and don't want it to be all about me. However, there is no way I would just let my dh do whatever he wanted when the decisions made involved the whole family. He doesn't want that either - he knows his weaknesses and says that he needs me to keep him in check in those areas. It works the other way, too - he balances me!

 

Just remember that it isn't all about the husband either. Being kind, catering to his preferences when possible, taking care of things for him, etc. can all show respect and appreciation.

[Tami]

Gee, thank you.

 

You know though, I've got a good man. It makes it easy for me. But I have a question...

 

Now if I believed the Bible was the word of God and felt I was instructed by God to submit (honor/respect) to my dh's authority, I would need to do that whether he was the great guy I've got or whether he was demanding, overbearing, unreasonable or whatever. I mean, God's commands are His commands, even in our imperfect world? Right? Just because my dh was a jerk a lot of time wouldn't let me off the hook? Or could I refuse to follow his lead (I'm not speaking of anything immoral or sinful) because he was being a jerk? Just to clarify I don't mean if he was being abusive or having an affair, just not a pleasant person.

 

Janet

 

Of course two wrongs don't make a right, so if you have an unpleasant husband, tecnichally it doesn't justify YOU being unpleasant. In real life, you would not be expected to handle this on your own. The husband would be typically confronted and the husband's response would guide further action. Many times, the wife and kids will be offered a place to stay, if that is what she wishes, until safety and repentance from the husband's end can be established. Treating a wife poorly is considered a serious sin - it is a violation of the marriage covenant and a violation of the chief and highest law our Savior left us - the Law of Love. Christian principles, such as submission, can become perverted in the absense of love. A wife would not be left to deal with such a thing alone, at least not in our community.

[Melinda in VT]

Honestly, I think submission is about maturity - it's about getting to that place in life when you finally realize that it's NOT all about me. It never has been and it never will be. It's about learning to get over oneself already.

 

I agree that an important part of maturity is getting to the place where you realize it's not all about you.

 

However, disagreeing with the idea that wives should submit to their husbands does not mean that someone thinks it is all about her. It doesn't mean that one never serves one's husband or gives up what one wants for him. It doesn't mean that one is shrew or isn't focused on her family.

 

It simply means that the sex of the person does not determine how decisions are made in the marriage.

[Jenny in Atl]

 

Someone suggested that I get out more - I don't need to go any further into this world than I'm already shoved to see the devastation and destruction going on all around me. I'm not some simple-minded twit of a housewife who knows nothing more than her ogre husband comes home to share with her. Some of our best discussions are when HE asks ME about current events. Knowledge is good, but wisdom holds the keys to the Kingdom. Without it, all the knowledge in the world is simply rubbish.

 

Somewhere along the way, people got this idea that if you didn't agree with the liberal, left-wing, feminist mindset that you were backwoods and ignorant. What about all the people who've LIVED that lifestyle and turned from it? What about all the people who have studied their agenda and ran? There are smart, intelligent people who choose NOT to believe the garbage they hear on TV, radio, and internet. Maybe those people should get out a little more and see what's really going on in our world - we're in a pretty sad state.

 

 

I would really love some examples of all this death and destruction caused by so-called left wing feminists. I have actually travel, and so has my father to places that one could call the garbage dumps of the world. Where disease, war, poverty, and utter despair is overwhelming; feminism was nowhere to be found. Not saying that feminism (at least my understanding of it, not yours) would be the cure, but in many of these areas, it sure would help.

 

I think some of us, whether of a particular faith or not, see marriage as a partnership. Where each partner embraces the strengths of the other. There are times I let my dh take the lead, and other times he is more than happy to let me do the driving. All major decisions we make together.

 

I do believe you are sheltered, and like those who have bought the so-called left-wing propaganda, you have chosen to do the same with the right-wing talking points, but I would not even say that, since I know a number of "feminist" right-wingers...Sarah Palin for example.

 

I guess, I'm also curious as to why you're so bothered by others (not of the Christian faith) sharing how they feel about the subject. Are you afraid we will make you or your husband feminist, or worse one of your kids?

[Peek a Boo]

What do you think a "feminist" thinks, anyway?

 

There's a huge difference between "I'm a feminist, and therefore I think that a woman has the right to hold a job, and not be fired because she might become pregnant, and has the right to not be raped by her husband (both of these passed in in the late 70s), and has the right to own her own property, attend university if she so chooses, and make her own legal decisions", and "I'm a feminist, and therefore I think we need to abolish marriage, and any woman who chooses not to have a high-powered career is a Bad Woman and a weak-minded brainwashed fool."

 

I would characterize the first example as basic Human Rights for ALL humans [even the female variety] and the second as the extreme feminism that has developed out of wanting to see basic civil rights applied. I think where feminism goes wrong is that it divides people [men and women] by its very name.

 

Gloria Steinem is to the feminist movement what the Pearls are to the Christian movement. Both have done amazing, constructive things for their respective associations, but both are remembered --and marked- by their extreme statements and positions.

[Peek a Boo]

I would really love some examples of all this death and destruction caused by so-called left wing feminists.

legal abortion has killed hundreds of millions of humans. If that's not death and destruction, i don't know what is.

 

Gloria Steinem, founder of Choice USA, is only a "so-called left wing feminist" because she describes herself that way.

[Jenny in Atl]

legal abortion has killed hundreds of millions of humans. If that's not death and destruction, i don't know what is.

 

Gloria Steinem, founder of Choice USA, is only a "so-called left wing feminist" because she describes herself that way.

 

Of course!

[Firefly]

I have limited experience, having only one dh and only one father, but my father thought Mum was the head of the house (not exactly how she or us perceived things, but that's beside the point) and it made him passive aggressive and bitter. When circumstances put me into the head of the household position I become a nag and start feeling like his mother, and he starts acting like a complete doofus who can't decide whether or not a punnet of strawberries is fresh enough to buy.

 

Sure, it can be like that. Just like a man who takes the head-of-household thing too seriously can become overbearing and demanding-- it works both ways. I don't think that means the wife is ALWAYS doomed to become a nag. My mom ruled the roost growing up, and Dad happily gave her that role. To this day she does the finances and makes most of the decisions. I actually sought out more equality of decision making in my own marriage, but what they had worked for them. They absolutely adore each other, even after almost 50 years of marriage!

 

I'm not saying a woman should always be the head of household, only that there is no reason she shouldn't be. (And ideally, IMO, the head of household role is shared by both). I hope that made sense! :001_unsure:

[Peek a Boo]

I thought I'd never actually write this..SNORT!!!

 

why not? when I'm right, I'm right. :D

 

it's nice to get statements like the one Jenny made clarified, since she did ask for examples of death and destruction caused by radical left wing feminists. her use of "so-called" seemed like she was questioning the other poster.

 

eta: Jenny didn't include "radical" -- i included it because that's how Gloria Steinem describes herself.

[KingM]

Some of you might have noticed that I was recently shouted down and called names on a thread run by the more conservative elements, and I don't want to see this happen in the other direction, either. So long as someone presents their thoughts calmly and without anger, I am all for the sharing of ideas.

 

I'm not the OP, of course, but I have no problem with conservative members posting to this thread.

[Peek a Boo]

Some of you might have noticed that I was recently shouted down and called names on a thread run by the more conservative elements, and I don't want to see this happen in the other direction, either. So long as someone presents their thoughts calmly and without anger, I am all for the sharing of ideas.

 

I'm not the OP, of course, but I have no problem with conservative members posting to this thread.

 

actually, you were recently called to the carpet for making wildly inaccurate statements that were wrong as a matter of plain reading and literary comprehension, and didn't like being called ignorant and placing your opinion above God's. You mistake persistence for anger and assume that one is not "calm."

 

don't worry --we noticed. ;)

[Peek a Boo]

So true, but when you're wrong...

 

if I'm wrong, point it out.

Be specific.

I've been wrong before.

[Peek a Boo]

Oh, the snort was more for Jenny. Sorry, Peek

 

i thought that was already obvious. no apology necessary ;)

[Lovedtodeath]

I still struggle with the idea of the husband having a sort of paternal role over his wife.

I was going to reply to this earlier. I have seen relationships in which "submission" is carried out in this way. It is not healthy, IMO, but I am all for wifely submission in the Biblical (not conservative Christian movement) way. :D

 

Sure, it can be like that. Just like a man who takes the head-of-household thing too seriously can become overbearing and demanding-- it works both ways. I don't think that means the wife is ALWAYS doomed to become a nag. My mom ruled the roost growing up, and Dad happily gave her that role. To this day she does the finances and makes most of the decisions. I actually sought out more equality of decision making in my own marriage, but what they had worked for them. They absolutely adore each other, even after almost 50 years of marriage!

 

I'm not saying a woman should always be the head of household, only that there is no reason she shouldn't be. (And ideally, IMO, the head of household role is shared by both). I hope that made sense! :001_unsure:

I know of two marriages in which the wife was head of the household that are horribly disasterous. I know of one marriage where husband and wife are equal that ended in disaster. Based on these marriages, I was determined to not try to usurp my husband's position. On the other hand, my own marriage was disasterous when we applied wifely subjection in the wrong manner early on. You have a point that more factors would go into play than just who is ultimately "in charge." I think it also depends on what you mean by "head of the household" how/why do you perceive your mother to be in charge? My mother is in charge b/c my father is passive and afraid to challenge her. She bosses him around and won't let him get enough rest, even though he has post-polio sydrome and has had back surgery and is on disability. She also belittles him and nags him constantly. :( But, like I said, he contributes to it. In the majority of relationships where one partner abuses power, the other is contributing to it.

[swimmermom3]

Some of you might have noticed that I was recently shouted down and called names on a thread run by the more conservative elements, and I don't want to see this happen in the other direction, either. So long as someone presents their thoughts calmly and without anger, I am all for the sharing of ideas.

 

I'm not the OP, of course, but I have no problem with conservative members posting to this thread.

 

When I asked why people were here on this thread, I was actually thinking of the response to your posts on the other thread where you were all but banned for making a statement and or asking a question. Typically, your posts are far more polite than some I have seen on this thread. The response you received appeared to me to be an attempt to shut down all dialogue in opposition to submissive wives.

 

So here, we hopefully have a thread where all sides can have a dialogue and can learn. Dialogue is a two-way conversation. Questions and answers on both sides that help towards a level of understanding, if not agreement.

There have been several conservative posts here that are statements of beliefs that allow for no questions or understanding. So again my question, is the purpose of such a post "witnessing"? Inflamation? What?

 

On the flip side, there have been several posts that have increased my comprehension of what it means to be a "submissive" Christian wife. Those, I respect.

[Lovedtodeath]

There have been several conservative posts here that are statements of beliefs that allow for no questions or understanding. So again my question, is the purpose of such a post "witnessing"? Inflamation? What?

 

On the flip side, there have been several posts that have increased my comprehension of what it means to be a "submissive" Christian wife. Those, I respect.

I think that there is a very fine line that would define the two. Maybe some of us are not as good at communicating and "witnessing" or "inflammatory" motives are being assumed. (I am not defending myself, as I am assuming that you put me in the second group.) ;)

[Tammy]

Women have been getting abortions way before the feminist movement.

[swimmermom3]

I think that there is a very fine line that would define the two. Maybe some of us are not as good at communicating and "witnessing" or "inflammatory" motives are being assumed. (I am not defending myself, as I am assuming that you put me in the second group.) ;)

 

Classy lady, you are exactly one of the people I had in mind for the second group. We may have different beliefs, but when you post, I read. You state your beliefs articulately(way better than I can) and respectfully. You ask questions back-I don't see that often. Your questions have the purpose of expanding your understanding not for merely gaining wit points.

 

Actually, your questions usually expand my understanding. How do you manage that?;)

[Lovedtodeath]

Classy lady, you are exactly one of the people I had in mind for the second group. We may have different beliefs, but when you post, I read. You state your beliefs articulately(way better than I can) and respectfully. You ask questions back-I don't see that often. Your questions have the purpose of expanding your understanding not for merely gaining wit points.

 

Actually, your questions usually expand my understanding. How do you manage that?;)

Being able to accept and even compliment someone who disagrees with you, now that is classy!:cheers2: (I literally believe toasting is wrong, but you know, there are limited smileys.)

[KingM]

There have been several conservative posts here that are statements of beliefs that allow for no questions or understanding. So again my question, is the purpose of such a post "witnessing"? Inflamation? What?

 

 

If I can venture a guess, it seems that there are two types of religious/spiritual types: believers and knowers. Believers are more open to discussing things, letting their views be challenged, changing their opinions with new evidence and sharing their own beliefs in an open way. It's enjoyable to speak with believers, often challenging. Believers keep me on my toes.

 

Knowers know what they know and because they know the TRUTH, there must be something profoundly wrong with people who disagree with them. At best the other side is deluded, misguided by unscrupulous types or worldly knowledge. At worst those with opposing views are evil, even direct agents of Satan.

 

It seems like the knowers on that other thread grew very angry with me for daring to offer different possible interpretations of Biblical verses. Because they knew the one and only true interpretation, I was accused of being mentally challenged, of "proof texting," of putting myself above God, of being "deceptive," and playing games. When all I was doing was offering a different point of view.

 

To use an alternate example, it became clear that LovedtoDeath had a different worldview from my own, yet she was polite in explaining her views and not dismissive of mine simply because they were so very different. I respect that and it reflects well on both her and her faith.

[Tammy]

Yep....that is one of the things that has always bothered me about 'religion' discusions. Someone reads the Bible....makes their own interpretations.....and another person tells them how 'incorrect' their interpretation is.....NO ONE knows exactly how the Bible should be interpreted. What does it matter that someone 'sees' something different in those words..... I will say though....my limited knowledge of the Bible has come from reading this board....really! I will say....I just skip over those post who seem to be the 'knowers'.....they really turn me off, LOL!

[Greta]

GretaLynne --excellent point about proper use of scripture. The other problem is that there are many Titus 2 women who do use those verses [they ARE told to teach women to love their husbands -- i think they absolutely have a role in pointing out those verses] yet neglect other scriptural counsel about the woman's role as KEEPER of the home, as a HELPmeet [not just prayer warrior] for her dh, as a mother that must protect her children, and as a fellow Christian who is called to correct via scriptural accountability her husband as a brother in Christ.

 

My knowledge of the Bible is patchy enough that, unfortunately, I am not sure I understand what you're saying here. But if you don't mind and have the time, I would like to try to understand. Would you care to point out some specific scriptures to me? Then I'll read them and we can continue this by pm if you like.

[Erica in PA]

If I can venture a guess, it seems that there are two types of religious/spiritual types: believers and knowers. Believers are more open to discussing things, letting their views be challenged, changing their opinions with new evidence and sharing their own beliefs in an open way. It's enjoyable to speak with believers, often challenging. Believers keep me on my toes.

 

Knowers know what they know and because they know the TRUTH, there must be something profoundly wrong with people who disagree with them. At best the other side is deluded, misguided by unscrupulous types or worldly knowledge. At worst those with opposing views are evil, even direct agents of Satan.

 

It seems like the knowers on that other thread grew very angry with me for daring to offer different possible interpretations of Biblical verses. Because they knew the one and only true interpretation, I was accused of being mentally challenged, of "proof texting," of putting myself above God, of being "deceptive," and playing games. When all I was doing was offering a different point of view.

 

To use an alternate example, it became clear that LovedtoDeath had a different worldview from my own, yet she was polite in explaining her views and not dismissive of mine simply because they were so very different. I respect that and it reflects well on both her and her faith.

 

Actually, what I don't like, and what makes me want to share my perspective more forcefully than I otherwise might, is having other people presume to express my thoughts and motives on my behalf. I think that one reason why Christians got involved with this thread, when it was addressed to non-Christians, was because posters were questioning the Christian point of view, and the motives behind them. If the conversation had been strictly a secular viewpoint, maybe so many Christians wouldn't have gotten involved in this conversation.

 

There are way more than two types of Christians, just as any other group of people, and just like any other group of people, Christians have flaws. Trying to boil it down to those you like and those you don't, doesn't seem very constructive to me.

 

I strongly disagree with your comments, KingM, about why your comments on the other thread were offensive to some. Imo, it had nothing to do with "daring to offer different possible interpretations of Biblical verses"-- if that is what you truly believe happened in that thread, I would suggest that you misunderstand much about Christians and why we say and do what we do.

 

Generally speaking, and this is not directly solely at any one person, it's especially offensive to me when a person who does not share my faith tries to instruct me on how someone of my faith ought to believe, speak, live, etc. It's disingenuous at best, to use the Bible to condemn Christians, while at the same time rejecting it as any source of authority. Perhaps you would see many fewer "defensive" Christians if this ongoing practice were to be ended.

[KidsHappen]

If I can venture a guess, it seems that there are two types of religious/spiritual types: believers and knowers. Believers are more open to discussing things, letting their views be challenged, changing their opinions with new evidence and sharing their own beliefs in an open way. It's enjoyable to speak with believers, often challenging. Believers keep me on my toes.

 

Knowers know what they know and because they know the TRUTH, there must be something profoundly wrong with people who disagree with them. At best the other side is deluded, misguided by unscrupulous types or worldly knowledge. At worst those with opposing views are evil, even direct agents of Satan.

 

It seems like the knowers on that other thread grew very angry with me for daring to offer different possible interpretations of Biblical verses. Because they knew the one and only true interpretation, I was accused of being mentally challenged, of "proof texting," of putting myself above God, of being "deceptive," and playing games. When all I was doing was offering a different point of view.

 

To use an alternate example, it became clear that LovedtoDeath had a different worldview from my own, yet she was polite in explaining her views and not dismissive of mine simply because they were so very different. I respect that and it reflects well on both her and her faith.

 

Aboslutely. I am always open to discussions with believers as I almost always learn something new or a different way of seeing something or at the very least some understanding of why it is that they believe whay do. It is even possible to have discussions with some knowers, like the above LovedtoDeath, due to her personal grace and ability to carry on a polite conversation. However, there are some knowers that I refuse to even attempt to converse with on certain matters. It serves no purpose and only manages to frustrate me. Now it is perfectly possible that I can have a conversation with them about some other matter just fine. There is currently no one on this board that I can not interact with in some way shape or form. It is just a matter of knowing who I can discuss what with.

[Marylou]

I'm not saying a woman should always be the head of household, only that there is no reason she shouldn't be. (And ideally, IMO, the head of household role is shared by both). I hope that made sense! :001_unsure:

 

Okay, could you help me understand this? The part about the "head of the household role is shared by both"? I think you must be talking about chores and activities, not position? Maybe that's why there is so much confusion about this topic. The bottom line is we're not talking about something as simple as dividing up the chores or balancing a checkbook, although many people think that's what submission is. He said it, I do it.

 

Is there any other place in life where the head of anything shares his/her position with another? Do we have co-CEO's or Co-presidents? or Co-principals at school? I know we have co-pilots on planes, and I imagine the co-pilots have just as much knowledge about the plane as the pilots do, but someone has to be ultimately responsible for the flight. A highschool kid may be putting your meal together at a fancy restaurant, but the head chef is the person ultimately resposible for answering to the restaurant owner. Each person is in a position of submission to someone else.

 

The OP wrote:

 

I am not a Christian and this is a completely foreign concept to me.

 

And I guesss I don't understand that statement because we see hundreds of examples of people submitting to others each and every day. And we know that the person submitting is not inferior or unworthy, etc. etc. I'm just curious what the "foreign" part is to so many? TIA

[KingM]

Generally speaking, and this is not directly solely at any one person, it's especially offensive to me when a person who does not share my faith tries to instruct me on how someone of my faith ought to believe, speak, live, etc. It's disingenuous at best, to use the Bible to condemn Christians, while at the same time rejecting it as any source of authority. Perhaps you would see many fewer "defensive" Christians if this ongoing practice were to be ended.

 

 

I stated more than once in the thread that I saw mine as one possible way to read the Bible, not the only way. As the Bible doesn't belong to any one person or religion, I think that's valid. People are free to agree or disagree, of course.

 

But in any event, Erica, I appreciate the polite way that you laid out your position just now. If everyone had disagreed with me just as you did right now I don't believe the moderators would have locked the thread.

 

(I don't mean this to be a thread hijack, so if the conversation is to continue, it should probably be a spin off.)

[Lovedtodeath]

 

It is even possible to have discussions with some knowers, like the above LovedtoDeath,

Thanks! I would definitely classify myself as a "knower". :D

[Lovedtodeath]

Actually, what I don't like, and what makes me want to share my perspective more forcefully than I otherwise might, is having other people presume to express my thoughts and motives on my behalf.

 

I strongly disagree with your comments, KingM, about why your comments on the other thread were offensive to some.

I agree with it all, but especially the above.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

My knowledge of the Bible is patchy enough that, unfortunately, I am not sure I understand what you're saying here. But if you don't mind and have the time, I would like to try to understand. Would you care to point out some specific scriptures to me? Then I'll read them and we can continue this by pm if you like.

GretaLynne, I feel compelled to point out that you are one who shows a great deal of grace in your communications. :thumbup1:

[KingM]

Is there any other place in life where the head of anything shares his/her position with another?

 

Partners in a law firm. A pair of lumberjacks operating a two man saw. A quarterback and a receiver. A writer and her editor. The head coach and the point guard. In each of these cases, the decision maker will vary according to the situation.

 

And nature is full of examples of things working together in synergy without one dominating the other. In the cardiovascular system, what is the boss, the lungs or the heart?

[Firefly]

Okay, could you help me understand this? The part about the "head of the household role is shared by both"? I think you must be talking about chores and activities, not position? Maybe that's why there is so much confusion about this topic. The bottom line is we're not talking about something as simple as dividing up the chores or balancing a checkbook, although many people think that's what submission is. He said it, I do it.

 

Is there any other place in life where the head of anything shares his/her position with another? Do we have co-CEO's or Co-presidents? or Co-principals at school? I know we have co-pilots on planes, and I imagine the co-pilots have just as much knowledge about the plane as the pilots do, but someone has to be ultimately responsible for the flight. A highschool kid may be putting your meal together at a fancy restaurant, but the head chef is the person ultimately resposible for answering to the restaurant owner. Each person is in a position of submission to someone else.

 

 

I was specifically talking about shared decision making, not chores; coming to an agreement, and not always letting the same person have the final say. And sure, there are businesses and such where one person has to be in charge, but IMO it's not the same thing as a marital relationship. But, if I was going to use the business analogy, I'd say I didn't marry DH with the idea he was going to be my boss. Rather that we were going to be business partners.

[Greta]

Exactly. Your friend would probably agree with this article/sermon:

http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Sermons/Husbands-Who-Love-Like-Christ-and-the-Wives-Who-Submit-to-Them

 

Thanks, I'll check it out and pass it along. :001_smile:

[Lovedtodeath]

A quarterback and a receiver. A writer and her editor. The head coach and the point guard. In each of these cases, the decision maker will vary according to the situation.

Great examples, and I very much think that they would apply to marriage. :)

 

Oh, in the cardiovascular system, the brain is the boss!;)

[KingM]

Oh, in the cardiovascular system, the brain is the boss!;)

 

Good point. So maybe the heart and the lungs are more like my squabbling children. :)