Marylou Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Saw this on NLD's FB page today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 I have always understood it. Every word. I just disagree. If someone has final say based on gender, it is NOT equal. By definition, there is a hierarchy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share Posted July 5, 2012 Authority is not the right to rule—it’s the responsibility to serve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clear Creek Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 I have always understood it. Every word. I just disagree. If someone has final say based on gender, it is NOT equal. By definition, there is a hierarchy. That is patriarchy, and what the author is trying to speak out against. The Bible does not say *anywhere* that man is to require obedience from his wife or that he gets to claim the final say on anything because he is the husband. The Bible says that wives are to *choose* to allow their husband to follow his wishes (instead of, say, selfishly demanding that their own wishes be followed). Men aren't to - and can't - demand it from them. Men are never told anywhere in the Bible to claim any sort of authority over women. God knew that men and women are both selfish by nature, and in order for a marriage to work, wives are instructed to let the husband have his way, and then men are promptly told that every decision they make had darn well better be for the benefit of their wife, even to the point of sacrifice on their own part. Mutual submission - the most ignored verse in the entire Bible (Ephesians 5:21). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 That is patriarchy, and what the author is trying to speak out against. The Bible does not say *anywhere* that man is to require obedience from his wife or that he gets to claim the final say on anything because he is the husband. The Bible says that wives are to *choose* to allow their husband to follow his wishes (instead of, say, selfishly demanding that their own wishes be followed). Men aren't to - and can't - demand it from them. Men are never told anywhere in the Bible to claim any sort of authority over women. God knew that men and women are both selfish by nature, and in order for a marriage to work, wives are instructed to let the husband have his way, and then men are promptly told that every decision they make had darn well better be for the benefit of their wife, even to the point of sacrifice on their own part. Mutual submission - the most ignored verse in the entire Bible (Ephesians 5:21). I am completely, totally, and utterly familiar with "mutual submission" and all of the verses and rhetoric around this issue. Your first paragraph is unsettling to me from every angle: marriage dynamic, theology, etc. Again, I *understand* how people who use the word complementarian think. I just disagree on the most fundamental level. I don't misunderstand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share Posted July 5, 2012 I have always understood it. Every word. I just disagree. If someone has final say based on gender, it is NOT equal. By definition, there is a hierarchy. Yes, I know you disagree. The majority of people in the world disagree as well. I know there are people here in the past who have had sincere questions about it. I did not see anything at all about "final say" in the link I posted. I don't know why God made two genders instead of one, but I think He knew/knows what He's doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share Posted July 5, 2012 And for an opposing viewpoint: http://rachelheldevans.com/complementarians-patriarchy "Whenever I speak or write on this topic, I hear from men and women who say that they went into their marriages expecting to impose upon them the hierarchal structure advocated by the complementarian movement, but who found that, practically speaking, a relationship between two equal partners just worked better than a relationship between a boss and a subordinate." boss and subordinate? Did you read the article?:confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer3141 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 And for an opposing viewpoint: http://rachelheldevans.com/complementarians-patriarchy "Whenever I speak or write on this topic, I hear from men and women who say that they went into their marriages expecting to impose upon them the hierarchal structure advocated by the complementarian movement, but who found that, practically speaking, a relationship between two equal partners just worked better than a relationship between a boss and a subordinate." :iagree::iagree: It does for us! If I mentioned "mutual submission" to my DH, he would explode in laughter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share Posted July 5, 2012 :iagree::iagree: It does for us! If I mentioned "mutual submission" to my DH, he would explode in laughter. I can understand that. Christianity is based on submission--Philippians 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Yes, I know you disagree. The majority of people in the world disagree as well. I know there are people here in the past who have had sincere questions about it. I did not see anything at all about "final say" in the link I posted. I don't know why God made two genders instead of one, but I think He knew/knows what He's doing. Red herring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer3141 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 I can understand that. Christianity is based on submission--Philippians 2. I know tons of Christians who would disagree with you. Thankfully. The Christians I allow around our family believe Christianity is about LOVE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 "Equal" does not mean "identical", and that's the biggest mistake that most feminists make. Women and men are equal in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of God. No woman should be made to feel inferior by virtue of her gender. My DH is not my boss (that would be God). His role is more akin to the QB on a football team. The QB is not the boss of the other players but it is his job to lead the team. A team where every player tried to act like the QB would not be very successful. A good QB very much values the input of the other players and is not domineering or disrespectful. He does his job and the other players do their jobs and the team works well together. :001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer3141 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 "Equal" does not mean "identical", and that's the biggest mistake that most feminists make. Women and men are equal in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of God. No woman should be made to feel inferior by virtue of her gender. My DH is not my boss (that would be God). His role is more akin to the QB on a football team. The QB is not the boss of the other players but it is his job to lead the team. A team where every player tried to act like the QB would not be very successful. A good QB very much values the input of the other players and is not domineering or disrespectful. He does his job and the other players do their jobs and the team works well together. :001_smile: Well then, our team has two quarterbacks and two water kids. Although we're not a sports family so two astronauts and a couple of shooting stars would be more appropriate, I suppose. I don't get why I'd WANT to be led by anyone. And DH certainly doesn't want to lead ME. He leads people at work all day long. We lead our kids all day long. We have laughed at the idea of his needing to lead me too but maybe all egalitarian relationships aren't as synched as DH and I are the majority of the time. We disagree over stupid stuff all the time. We had a political fight yesterday because I hate Romney for one reason and he thinks his reason for hating Romney is more important. :glare: The last time DH and I had a "dealbreaker" disagreement was over circumsizing our son. 8 years later, DS is happily intact thankyouverymuch. So I guess I won our one and only serious disagreement. Although I'd see it as DS winning. :D It did take us a long time to recover from that fight and my DH never changed DS' diaper except for once in the hospital so he would say HE won. (I cloth diapered though and I hated the way DH would put on the diapers so I won that one too!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Well then, our team has two quarterbacks and two water kids. Although we're not a sports family so two astronauts and a couple of shooting stars would be more appropriate, I suppose. What space mission has two leaders? There is always one commander who is responsible for the overall mission success, a co-pilot who is 2nd in command, and then a bunch of specialists like engineers & scientists. Sounds like a complementarian arrangement to me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer3141 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 What space mission has two leaders? Well, if DH and I ever go to the moon, OURS would. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share Posted July 5, 2012 Well, if DH and I ever go to the moon, OURS would. :lol: :lol: To the moon, Alice! I don't think JG was a complementarian! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share Posted July 5, 2012 I know tons of Christians who would disagree with you. Thankfully. The Christians I allow around our family believe Christianity is about LOVE. If Philippians 2 isn't about submission and love, I don't know which passage could convey them together better. They are not mutually exclusive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer3141 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 If Philippians 2 isn't about submission and love, I don't know which passage could convey them together better. They are not mutually exclusive. But what you said on the previous page is that, "Christianity is based on submission." For you, it apparently is. For the Christians I know, their faith is based upon love. That means they love others and don't care/question their gender/sexuality like you do. My Christian friends are guided by the belief that Jesus simply would not care where anyone's naughty bits go, within reasonable boundaries. They think Jesus is busy doing other stuff. For you, it is apparently different. That's the marvelously confusing thing about Xtianity for us outsiders. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 To the OP, thanks for the link! From a male perspective, it is difficult to be complementarian. There is a lot of pressure on me to not screw up. I would much rather have my wife lead most of the time, honestly. But, I believe that I can't, theologically. So, I pull up my big boy pants and try to shepherd my family the best I can, by God's grace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share Posted July 5, 2012 Christianity is based on submission because if Jesus hadn't submitted himself to death on a cross, there would be no Christianity. That's what Phil. 2 is all about (and also the Gethsemane passages). Not his will, but God's. That's what I meant by it being based on submission. Submission is not separate from love; it's an expression of it. I realize that you disagree. (And FTR, I didn't say anything about anyone's gender or bits!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer3141 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Christianity is based on submission because if Jesus hadn't submitted himself to death on a cross, there would be no Christianity. That's what Phil. 2 is all about (and also the Gethsemane passages). Not his will, but God's. That's what I meant by it being based on submission. Submission is not separate from love; it's an expression of it. I realize that you disagree. (And FTR, I didn't say anything about anyone's gender or bits!) Actually, yes you did: "I don't know why God made two genders instead of one, but I think He knew/knows what He's doing." You are prone to forgetting that YOUR interpretation of the bible places importance on submission and that yes, you think your interpretation of god cares abour gender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted July 6, 2012 Author Share Posted July 6, 2012 Actually, yes you did: "I don't know why God made two genders instead of one, but I think He knew/knows what He's doing." You are prone to forgetting that YOUR interpretation of the bible places importance on submission and that yes, you think your interpretation of god cares abour gender. I should have said, "I don't know why God decided to use gender as the basis for complementarianism, but I think it is brilliant". You've probably also heard that marriage is a picture of the Christ/church relationship. I would love to hear how your Christian friends who emphasize LOVE only interpret Eph. 5--not just verse 2, but the entire chapter. Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. 2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. 3 But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. 4 Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. 5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous ( that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not become partners with them; 8 for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), 10 and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. 13 But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, 14 for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says, “Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.†15 Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, 19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, 20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.†32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghee Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 That is patriarchy, and what the author is trying to speak out against. The Bible does not say *anywhere* that man is to require obedience from his wife or that he gets to claim the final say on anything because he is the husband. The Bible says that wives are to *choose* to allow their husband to follow his wishes (instead of, say, selfishly demanding that their own wishes be followed). Men aren't to - and can't - demand it from them. Men are never told anywhere in the Bible to claim any sort of authority over women. God knew that men and women are both selfish by nature, and in order for a marriage to work, wives are instructed to let the husband have his way, and then men are promptly told that every decision they make had darn well better be for the benefit of their wife, even to the point of sacrifice on their own part. Mutual submission - the most ignored verse in the entire Bible (Ephesians 5:21). The boldest is a great thought, and if you have a good, kind, sensible husband it should work. The thing is most men haven't been raised to benefit anyone but themselves. It keeps getting worse. Men my age, 34, act mostly like bratty frat boys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 My Christian friends are guided by the belief that Jesus simply would not care where anyone's naughty bits go, within reasonable boundaries. They think Jesus is busy doing other stuff. If Jesus didn't care about s*xual morality, why did He tell the adulteress to "sin no more"? Liberals love to quote the first part of that story but they conveniently ignore Christ's admonition of the woman to refrain from further sin. The Bible is quite clear on s*xual morality, even if many of those who claim to be Christians want to pick & choose which parts to follow and which to ignore... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) If Jesus didn't care about s*xual morality, why did He tell the adulteress to "sin no more"? Liberals love to quote the first part of that story but they conveniently ignore Christ's admonition of the woman to refrain from further sin. The Bible is quite clear on s*xual morality, even if many of those who claim to be Christians want to pick & choose which parts to follow and which to ignore... Every single Christian does this. Every single freaking one. Not one Christian believes that they are to follow all the rules, commandments, suggestions, and laws in the Bible. It's simply a matter of Christian flavor/culture/denomination that dictates which verses are ignored and which are followed. Edited to add: The "claim to be Christian" moniker is not a productive, kind, or graceful tactic. Edited July 6, 2012 by Joanne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mamakven Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Thanks for posting this! i LOVE this elaboration of the concept of complementarianism, and i love the concept of complementarianism. I think its a beautiful imagery of the perfection of love and service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.Dup. Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Meh. This whole issue really gets my goat. I am in the process of leaving behind this extreme fundamentalist, patriarchal mindset (NEVER imposed on me by my husband but of course he loved it when I acted the part for awhile...it certainly didn't seem to help him or us though :glare: ). I tend to agree with the others who said the article tried to convince people that it wasn't about a hierarchy when of course, it is. The whole thing about Jesus' submission is that it was freely given. He came to this earth for that purpose. IMO, submission in marriage should never be demanded or even required. Ideally we would each lay down our desires and our self-wills in favor of one another (whether it be for our husbands, our kids, or the homeless person on the street corner) but I don't think submission should be something taken by someone else. That feels almost like some sort of rape to me. Spiritual rape or something. Blech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Meh. This whole issue really gets my goat. I am in the process of leaving behind this extreme fundamentalist, patriarchal mindset (NEVER imposed on me by my husband but of course he loved it when I acted the part for awhile...it certainly didn't seem to help him or us though :glare: ). I tend to agree with the others who said the article tried to convince people that it wasn't about a hierarchy when of course, it is. The whole thing about Jesus' submission is that it was freely given. He came to this earth for that purpose. IMO, submission in marriage should never be demanded or even required. Ideally we would each lay down our desires and our self-wills in favor of one another (whether it be for our husbands, our kids, or the homeless person on the street corner) but I don't think submission should be something taken by someone else. That feels almost like some sort of rape to me. Spiritual rape or something. Blech. That's pretty much exactly the point of complementarianism... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juniper Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 "Equal" does not mean "identical", and that's the biggest mistake that most feminists make. Women and men are equal in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of God. No woman should be made to feel inferior by virtue of her gender. My DH is not my boss (that would be God). His role is more akin to the QB on a football team. The QB is not the boss of the other players but it is his job to lead the team. A team where every player tried to act like the QB would not be very successful. A good QB very much values the input of the other players and is not domineering or disrespectful. He does his job and the other players do their jobs and the team works well together. :001_smile: I was discussing this with dh and he just glances over and says, "Well, most NFL teams carry 3 quarterbacks.....so...." ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer3141 Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 If Jesus didn't care about s*xual morality, why did He tell the adulteress to "sin no more"? Liberals love to quote the first part of that story but they conveniently ignore Christ's admonition of the woman to refrain from further sin. The Bible is quite clear on s*xual morality, even if many of those who claim to be Christians want to pick & choose which parts to follow and which to ignore... Since I think the entire thing is a load of crap, I have no idea how anyone else interpret's the bible. And I really don't care, as long as they are moral people I can safely have around my children. I do know that the bible has a lot of crazy "laws" that modern, ethical people simply do not follow. I'm going to have shrimp for lunch and if a rapist shows up at my door and my husband throws my daughter out to them, first I'm going to MURDER my DH and then I'm going to cut the %$#!% off the rapists. That's pretty much the plan for my day here. Oh, and we've got some library books to read. From an outside perspective, this entire argument makes me laugh because we're already at the point of arguing over whose interpretation of the bible is "correct" and so far, every Christian here believes something slightly different that is only important to you. Good thing I wasn't thinking of going back to Xtianity or I'd be confused as to which one to go to!!! :lol::lol::lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer3141 Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 I was discussing this with dh and he just glances over and says, "Well, most NFL teams carry 3 quarterbacks.....so...." ;) Woot! I'm going wife shopping this afternoon!! The next one had better LOVE mopping. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
********* Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 To the OP, thanks for the link! From a male perspective, it is difficult to be complementarian. There is a lot of pressure on me to not screw up. I would much rather have my wife lead most of the time, honestly. But, I believe that I can't, theologically. So, I pull up my big boy pants and try to shepherd my family the best I can, by God's grace. I've always thought it must be harder to 'love your wife as Christ loved the church' than to 'be subject to your husband in everything' (Ephesians 5). In other words, I think the Bible gives my dh harder instructions regarding marriage than it gives me. Submission is not separate from love; it's an expression of it. Amen. :001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted July 6, 2012 Author Share Posted July 6, 2012 Discussion about the topic in a grown-up way is always welcomed. Mocking is not necessary or appreciated. When non-Christians start threads about secular topics or world views, I don't see remarks from religious folks such as "freaking" "blech" "load of crap". Why is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted July 6, 2012 Author Share Posted July 6, 2012 Woot! I'm going wife shopping this afternoon!! The next one had better LOVE mopping. :D This just shows you didn't read the article. And if you did and you simply disagree, you are mocking those who do agree. Why not start your own thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellesmere Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Meh. This whole issue really gets my goat. I am in the process of leaving behind this extreme fundamentalist, patriarchal mindset (NEVER imposed on me by my husband but of course he loved it when I acted the part for awhile...it certainly didn't seem to help him or us though :glare: ). I tend to agree with the others who said the article tried to convince people that it wasn't about a hierarchy when of course, it is. The whole thing about Jesus' submission is that it was freely given. He came to this earth for that purpose. IMO, submission in marriage should never be demanded or even required. Ideally we would each lay down our desires and our self-wills in favor of one another (whether it be for our husbands, our kids, or the homeless person on the street corner) but I don't think submission should be something taken by someone else. That feels almost like some sort of rape to me. Spiritual rape or something. Blech. If you are leaving a fundamentalist, patriarchal mindset (and congratulations!), then I'd just leave it at "meh". "NLD", as far as I'm concerned, speaks to focused audience. Well, maybe, maybe not. It's hard, but I'd just move on out of her reach. :grouphug: Edited to add: The "claim to be Christian" moniker is not a productive, kind, or graceful tactic. :iagree: FWIW, (to the general thread) my understanding is that a Christian should love God and love their neighbor. If someone wants to think submission is an expression of love, well, there isn't much I can really do about that. But I'm not going to agree that "Christianity is based on submission". But, I am not a "Bible-alone" sort of person and at this point will shut up before I get myself into trouble. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellesmere Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 I was discussing this with dh and he just glances over and says, "Well, most NFL teams carry 3 quarterbacks.....so...." ;) :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) If Jesus didn't care about s*xual morality, why did He tell the adulteress to "sin no more"? Liberals love to quote the first part of that story but they conveniently ignore Christ's admonition of the woman to refrain from further sin. The Bible is quite clear on s*xual morality, even if many of those who claim to be Christians want to pick & choose which parts to follow and which to ignore... What does political labels have to do with anything? Do you eat shrimp? Wear blended fiber clothing? Cut your hair? Everyone picks and chooses. If people are trying to turn you against God or practicing a different religion you are to kill them. *hands you a rock* No picking and choosing! Edited July 6, 2012 by Sis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melinda in VT Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 What does political labels have to do with anything? I assumed she meant religious liberals. Some of us are both, but they don't necessarily go together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted July 6, 2012 Author Share Posted July 6, 2012 Now if 3 QB's were in the same game, that would be newsworthy and chaotic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 My husband and I are equals in our marriage. Either one of us may take the "leadership" position depending on our knowledge/research/interest/information and such regarding different issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melinda in VT Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Now if 3 QB's were in the same game, that would be newsworthy and chaotic. I've seen games with three QBs. Not chaotic at all. They just weren't on the field at the same time. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
********* Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 What does political labels have to do with anything? Do you eat shrimp? Wear blended fiber clothing? Cut your hair? Everyone picks and chooses. If people are trying to turn you against God or practicing a different religion you are to kill them. *hands you a rock* No picking and choosing! Sis, I ask this sincerely.. Do you know the difference between the old covenant and the new convenant in the bible? Because that might help you understand why it seems like 'everyone picks and chooses'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Sis, I ask this sincerely.. Do you know the difference between the old covenant and the new convenant in the bible? Because that might help you understand why it seems like 'everyone picks and chooses'. I am well aware of the Covenant. Did you read what I was responding to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
********* Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 I am well aware of the Covenant. Did you read what I was responding to? Yes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 I was discussing this with dh and he just glances over and says, "Well, most NFL teams carry 3 quarterbacks.....so...." ;) Do all 3 QB's take the field at the same time? Of course not. At any given moment, there is only 1 QB leading the team, even if there are reserve QB's warming the bench. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Sis, I ask this sincerely.. Do you know the difference between the old covenant and the new convenant in the bible? Because that might help you understand why it seems like 'everyone picks and chooses'. :iagree::iagree::iagree: The NT supercedes the OT when it comes to things like dietary laws and such. But the prohibitions against adultery, fornication, homosexuality, etc. are found in both the OT *and* the NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.Dup. Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 That's pretty much exactly the point of complementarianism... I understand that is the way that it should ideally work. But considering that there is so much constant talk about submission and the need to submit to our husbands (at least in fundamentalist circles) it is definitely something that is strongly encouraged/guilt tripped/shamed into. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) :iagree::iagree::iagree:The NT supercedes the OT when it comes to things like dietary laws and such. But the prohibitions against adultery, fornication, homosexuality, etc. are found in both the OT *and* the NT. And how do "Liberals" have the market cornered on this exactly? The person you responded to said "Jesus" who did not say anything about Homosexuality. Edited July 6, 2012 by Sis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 And how do "Liberals" have the market cornered on this exactly? The person you responded to said "Jesus" who did not say anything about Homosexuality. Jesus told the adulteress to "sin no more". He most certainly did NOT say, "go ahead, be intimate with whomever you feel like, I don't care what you do as long as it makes you feel good." The person I responded to said she believed Jesus wouldn't care what people do when it comes to s*xual intimacy. However, there is nothing in the Gospels to support such a ridiculous claim, and Scriptural evidence to support a belief that Jesus WANTS us to refrain from sin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Jesus told the adulteress to "sin no more". He most certainly did NOT say, "go ahead, be intimate with whomever you feel like, I don't care what you do as long as it makes you feel good." The person I responded to said she believed Jesus wouldn't care what people do when it comes to s*xual intimacy. However, there is nothing in the Gospels to support such a ridiculous claim, and Scriptural evidence to support a belief that Jesus WANTS us to refrain from sin. You said "Liberals" and I asked what Liberals have to do with anything. Jesus was a clear about divorce but it seems Conservatives have a high divorce rate. Don't you think you could also say the same about Conservatives? Why bring it up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.