This one is a DOOZY (CC)

[Soph the vet]

Here is a good article about the Lilith myth if anyone is interested.

 

Very interesting....and I thought she was just that awful woman on Cheers!:lol::lol:

[OnTheBrink]

Very interesting....and I thought she was just that awful woman on Cheers!:lol::lol:

 

Awful? She was my favorite! :lol:

[Lovedtodeath]

I don't believe in enlightenment about the bible, the words haven't changed.

:iagree:

This is not the straightforward reading of these passages and it is not a "different version" from one chapter to the next. Genesis 1 gives the whole chronology of the creation of the world day by day and Genesis 2 fleshes out the specific details on the creation of man and woman because it then goes into the fall of the man and woman. There is no contradiction between Gen. 1 and 2 in any manner because man and woman were created on the same day - the sixth day.

:iagree:

 

Slavery that was mentioned in the Bible was completely different than American Slavery.

 

What did the men have to say Heather?

Edited February 18, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Spy Car]

This is not the straightforward reading of these passages and it is not a "different version" from one chapter to the next. Genesis 1 gives the whole chronology of the creation of the world day by day and Genesis 2 fleshes out the specific details on the creation of man and woman because it then goes into the fall of the man and woman. There is no contradiction between Gen. 1 and 2 in any manner because man and woman were created on the same day - the sixth day.

 

And which day did God make the animals?

 

In one version (Genesis 1) the animals were created before man and woman (who seem to have been created at the same time and in God's image) and in the other (Genesis 2) Adam was created, then the animals were created, then Eve was created from Adam.

 

Bill

Edited February 18, 2009 by Spy Car

[Lovedtodeath]

On the sixth day. The fifth day ended before land animals were created. There was no great division to indicate that he was finished with the animals before moving on to man. He made man and went back to adding animals.

 

 

And God went on to say: "Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens." 21 And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good. 22 With that God blessed them, saying: "Be fruitful and become many and fill the waters in the sea basins, and let the flying creatures become many in the earth." 23 And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a fifth day.

24 And God went on to say: "Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind." And it came to be so. 25 And God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good. 26 And God went on to say: "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth." 27 And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.

31 After that God saw everything he had made and, look! [it was] very good. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day.

 

 

 

 

That a day can be longer than 24 hours is indicated by Genesis 2:4, which speaks of all the creative periods as one "day."

Also, more than 4,000 years after the seventh day, or God’s rest day, commenced, Paul indicated that it was still in progress. At Hebrews 4:1-11 he referred to the earlier words of David (Ps 95:7, 8, 11) and to Genesis 2:2

 

 

 

Insight on the Scriptures:

 

 

Concluding the review of accomplishments on each of the six days of creative activity is the statement, "And there came to be evening and there came to be morning," a first, second, third day, and so forth. (Ge 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31) Since the length of each creative day exceeded 24 hours (as will be discussed later), this expression does not apply to literal night and day but is figurative. During the evening period things would be indistinct; but in the morning they would become clearly discernible. During the "evening," or beginning, of each creative period, or "day," God’s purpose for that day, though fully known to him, would be indistinct to any angelic observers. However, when the "morning" arrived there would be full light as to what God had purposed for that day, it having been accomplished by that time.—Compare Pr 4:18.

 

 

Edited February 18, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Kate CA]

And which day did God make the animals?

 

In one version (Genesis 1) the animals were created before man and woman (who seem to have been created at the same time and in God's image) and in the other (Genesis 2) Adam was created, the Eve was created from Adam, then the animals were created.

 

Bill

 

This article addresses this question much better than I could. These links address some of the concerns some people raise regarding Genesis 1 and 2. I would disagree with Lovedtodeath on the meaning of "day" for creation (unless I misunderstood her :001_smile:). Here is an article that specifically addresses this. HTH!

[Spy Car]

This article addresses this question much better than I could. These links address some of the concerns some people raise regarding Genesis 1 and 2. I would disagree with Lovedtodeath on the meaning of "day" for creation (unless I misunderstood her :001_smile:). Here is an article that specifically addresses this. HTH!

 

 

This article doesn't make a very convincing argument to me.

 

Between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve, the KJV/AV Bible says (Genesis 2:19) ‘out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air’. On the surface, this seems to say that the land beasts and birds were created between Adam and Eve. However, Jewish scholars apparently did not recognize any such conflict with the account in chapter 1, where Adam and Eve were both created after the beasts and birds (Genesis 1:23–25). Why is this? Because in Hebrew the precise tense of a verb is determined by the context. It is clear from chapter 1 that the beasts and birds were created before Adam, so Jewish scholars would have understood the verb ‘formed’ in Genesis 2:19 to mean ‘had formed’ or ‘having formed’. If we translate verse 19 as follows (as one widely used translation1 does), ‘Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field …’, the apparent disagreement with Genesis 1 disappears completely.

 

First, I understand many Jewish scholars do have a problem with passages they find contradictory, and I assume they know Hebrew.

 

Second the tense "confusion" hypothesis does not seem to hold up if you look at the context of Genesis 2:18-23 (JPS Tanakh):

 

And the LORD God said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.' And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them; and whatsoever the man would call every living creature, that was to be the name thereof.

 

And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the place with flesh instead thereof. And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man.

 

And the man said: 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called a Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

 

The context here is clear. Animals were created in Genesis 2 as potential help-mates for Adam, when this failed God created Eve. This contradicts Genesis 1.

 

It would make no sense what-so-ever to replace the explanation offered by Creation Magazine into the text, but for sake of argument lets give it a try. Edited section in "Green".

 

And the LORD God said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will have already made him a help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God having formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them; and whatsoever the man would call every living creature, that was to be the name thereof.

 

Is this they way you understand this passage? It doesn't seem quite right to me.

 

But I'm a secularist whose Biblical expositions may not be taken seriously, and who isn't an expert and isn't interested in changing anyones mind (but my own) :D

 

Bill

Edited February 18, 2009 by Spy Car

[Michelle in AL]

Hi Bill, here's something I was told once regarding Genesis 1 & 2. Genesis 1 is the story of God's relationship with man, more technical in basis in regards to how it was done. Genesis 2 is the story of Man's relationship with God, told from man's point of view. More like man's version of the story that was handed down in those days from generation to generation. The author of Genesis included both versions.

 

Just something to chew on.

[Janna]

The context here is clear. Animals were created in Genesis 2 as potential help-mates for Adam, when this failed God created Eve. This contradicts Genesis 1.

 

 

 

I need genuine help understanding how anything here is contradicted.

 

If the simple sentence is "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Gen 1:27

 

How does that contradict anything in Ch. 2? I mean, so Ch. 2 says that God created woman from Adam's rib after a suitable help-mate for him wasn't found in the animals. How does that contradict Gen 1:27? It's simply stating that God created man in His image, male and female he created them. In ch. 2, did he not create female? No where in vs. 1:27 does it give a time line or even *infer* a time line for the creation of them. It's a simply stated fact. He created them in his image. Done. Got that. Ch. 2 further explains *how* he created them. It doesn't say that the female was created in a way other than by God. *He* formed her out of Adam's rib. Therefore, he created female.

 

Please, truly, explain to me how this is contradictory.

[Lovedtodeath]

And the LORD God said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.' And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them; and whatsoever the man would call every living creature, that was to be the name thereof.

 

And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the place with flesh instead thereof. And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man.

 

The way I always understood this passage is that God knew that Adam needed a helpmeet before Adam knew it. So he went about showing him all of the animals and then Adam realized "hey, they all have mates, why don't I?" Now that Adam is aware of this need, God goes about fulfilling it. There are other instances in which God waits until humans realize what they need before he acts. If the tense is dependant on context, it could very easily say this:

 

And the LORD God said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God having formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them; and whatsoever the man would call every living creature, that was to be the name thereof.

 

But I'm a secularist whose Biblical expositions may not be taken seriously,

 

I'll agree to that. I wondered how you could possibly say that considering your fascination with joining in Biblical discussions.

Edited February 18, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Lovedtodeath]

Suppose I write you a letter: We went to the Children's Museum one Saturday. We had our picture taken with Curious George. We slid down the big slide on potato sacks. We ate lunch. We visited the museum library before we had to go home.

 

Emily loved our trip to the museum. Her favorite part was the library. She met a new friend there named Anna. She and Anna slid down the slide together before we left.

 

Now, would it be important to you to pick my stories apart and claim that we must not have gone to the museum after all? Or would you understand that Emily slid on the slide with her family, and then later slid one time with her new friend, and the stories differ because they are emphasizing different aspects of our trip?

[Parrothead]

There are a lot of Bible scholars that agree that the the 2 stories are separate.

 

I'm not going to argue the point here. I'm one that is a firm believer in not being able to change a persons mind via an internet chat board.

 

But if you want to look into it yourself, do a search for "two stories of creation in Genesis." You will get lots of pro and con hits. Ask your pastor or religious education leader. I'm sure you know lots of ways to get information if you want it.

 

I'll leave it up to you to research and decide for yourself.

[Michelle in AL]

Here is an article that discusses the difference in creation stories and man's relationship with his wife as an equal partner: http://www.hccentral.com/magazine/gen2.html

[Miss Marple]

I think there would need to be a consensus on what "submission" means in order to come to any agreement. My definition might be totally different from another and, IMO, we could be talking about very different things. Did the professor give a definition of submission to use?

[Heather in Neverland]

I think there would need to be a consensus on what "submission" means in order to come to any agreement. My definition might be totally different from another and, IMO, we could be talking about very different things. Did the professor give a definition of submission to use?

 

No he didn't. What I typed in the first post was the actual question.

 

As far as what the MEN in the class had to say...well, there are one or two who are of the "we are to submit to each other" camp and the rest were very much "man is the head of the household, women were created to help him, they are to submit to his authority, end of story".

 

I am in a tough spot on this. I look at submission as willingly deferring to another especially if that other person is more likely to make the best decision in the situation. Let me see if I can explain that better...

 

My dh is a whiz at computers and all things mechanical. If something goes beserk with our computer I immediately go to him because he is more of an expert in that area. I am really good with finances, dh is not. So I handle all the bill-paying, etc.

 

Should I give him the bill-paying duties even though he will not do a very good job with it, and admits that, just because he is the man? Should he make all financial decisions even though this is not his strong point just because he is the man?

 

So we "submit" to each other in our areas of weakness. Now what do we do if there is a decision to be made and we can't agree? We talk it out. We wait if possible. We pray. Eventually we compromise. Sometimes one of us gives up our choice for the other because we LOVE each other not because one of us is inferior...sometimes it is me and sometimes it is him...it all depends on the topic at hand and which one of us feels more strongly about it.

 

From my reading on the life of Christ, this is a more loving way to handle a relationship than my dh being the "boss" and I am his "servant".

[HRAAB]

My dh is a whiz at computers and all things mechanical. If something goes beserk with our computer I immediately go to him because he is more of an expert in that area. I am really good with finances, dh is not. So I handle all the bill-paying, etc.

 

Should I give him the bill-paying duties even though he will not do a very good job with it, and admits that, just because he is the man? Should he make all financial decisions even though this is not his strong point just because he is the man?

 

This fall under 'common sense' to me. I spent 18 years in property/casualty insurance as both an underwriter and adjuster. What sense would it make for my dh to manage all our insurance needs and decisions when I'm the one with the knowledge? If he insisted he handle our insurance because he is the man, I would call that pride or arrogance. In the same way it would be prideful of me to want to direct our investments, since he has much, much more experience in that area. This, to me, has nothing to do with submission, but everything to do with using the talents and gifts that each person brings to the marriage.

 

Janet

[lionfamily1999]

Isn't this hand in hand with scripture that tells man to make sure his wife's needs are all met and she is given no reason for resentment?

 

Sort of like, obey your mother and father; parents do not provoke your children to anger...

 

There is give and take. Yes, if the wife submits then the marraige will be easier, but ONLY when the husband fulfills his end of the bargain.

 

While I do think some churches will start to say 'submitting' is antiquated, etc; that will not make them right. Oh, and it says 'servants' not slaves. All the same, the idea is to be the best at whatever you do and to do it with kindness. Isn't that the basic Christian ideal anyway? Turn the other cheek, pray for those that do evil to you, etc.

[Miss Marple]

I have to agree with you. That's how I view submission also. If dh and I are at an impasse with a decision, we usually just wait until we get more information, or sometimes just the passage of time will lead one to see the other's viewpoint.

 

I believe scripture passages are in agreement. So what we might read in the New Testament will not conflict with Old Testament passages. And when it appears to do so, there is usually some misunderstanding over word usage, societal differences, etc. All this to say that if "submission" in the NT is meant to be "subservience", then the Proverbs 31 woman shouldn't exist, nor should she be praised. So...if the Proverbs 31

woman is held up as praisworthy in the OT, she must be praisworthy in NT times too.

 

The way she lived and worked is typically the way dh and I relate. I make purchases without dh's knowledge when necessary (to get that bargain), but I also keep him in the loop as much as possible. I make decisions on the boys' education and he thinks that's great because he doesn't have time to do it and he knows that I know the boys' abilities best.

 

I do know many women who seem to have childlike relationships with their spouses. One even had to call her dh at work in order to ask him if she could call the midwife because she had gone into labor with her 5th child. He took the vital information from the wife, and in turn called the midwife. One of these ladies told me that she liked the arrangement because if anything goes wrong, it's her husband's fault. She bears no responsibility. I think that's sad.

[Heather in Neverland]

I do know many women who seem to have childlike relationships with their spouses. One even had to call her dh at work in order to ask him if she could call the midwife because she had gone into labor with her 5th child. He took the vital information from the wife, and in turn called the midwife. One of these ladies told me that she liked the arrangement because if anything goes wrong, it's her husband's fault. She bears no responsibility. I think that's sad.

 

Wow, that is sad and I do NOT think that is the sentiment behind the NT verses at all. If that's the case then my life will be one big vacation from responsibility! Dh can make all the decisions and I will just sit around watching tv until he tells me to do something. :D

[LaxMom]

Far be it for me to claim scholarship in this area, or to support wifely submission (outside the "we submit to each other" camp), but...

 

I do not see an explicit mention of slavery there. I see the charge of servants to serve wholly and willingly, but that does not imply slavery unless your culture interprets it as such.

 

Aren't all Christians charged to have a servant's heart? And, in that context, aren't you to willingly give of yourself?

 

I don't see these two passages as conflicting, in the context provided.

[Lovedtodeath]

"likewise, also, the husband does not exercise authority over his own body, but his wife does." —1 Cor. 7

[Colleen in NS]

Now what do we do if there is a decision to be made and we can't agree? We talk it out. We wait if possible. We pray. Eventually we compromise. Sometimes one of us gives up our choice for the other because we LOVE each other not because one of us is inferior...sometimes it is me and sometimes it is him...it all depends on the topic at hand and which one of us feels more strongly about it.

 

From my reading on the life of Christ, this is a more loving way to handle a relationship than my dh being the "boss" and I am his "servant".

 

If dh and I are at an impasse with a decision, we usually just wait until we get more information, or sometimes just the passage of time will lead one to see the other's viewpoint.

 

:iagree:

 

Relationship. I think God created us for relationship with Him and with each other, and that He demonstrates general principles which would enhance those relationships (treating others with love, being kind, helping others, etc.). Therefore, I think the marriage relationship has greater potential to be strengthened during those impasses where we work things out together, than it would if I were to "submit to" dh as the leader of everything in our marriage, no matter how much decision making power he might "give" me.

[katemary63]

The NT passages on slavery in the epistles (Paul's commands to slaves and masters) talk about how one should behave while one is in that situation, and don't address the rightness or wrongness of the situation itself.

 

:iagree:

 

IF you are a slave, submit to your *master*. IF you are a wife, submit to your husband's authority. We have evolved socially to understand that slavery is morally wrong. But if under a government where it were legal, would God not want the slave still to submit to their legal authority? I don't know - just ask'in. But I definately don't translate the change in our thinking on slavery, to that of marriage. No one is going so far as to say that Marriage is morally wrong. And within the husband/ wife relationship, God clearly calls for the man to have the leadership role, in that verse and several others.

[Spy Car]

There are a lot of Bible scholars that agree that the the 2 stories are separate.

 

I'm not going to argue the point here. I'm one that is a firm believer in not being able to change a persons mind via an internet chat board.

 

But if you want to look into it yourself, do a search for "two stories of creation in Genesis." You will get lots of pro and con hits. Ask your pastor or religious education leader. I'm sure you know lots of ways to get information if you want it.

 

I'll leave it up to you to research and decide for yourself.

 

This is my understanding as well. I'm also not looking to change anyone's mind (except perhaps my own).

 

From my understanding it quite common in modern "biblical criticism"* to view the 5 books of Moses as an a amalgamation of stories from different sources, the major ones have been labeled in short-hand "J, E, P and D".

 

And that what what appear to be contradictions are the result of an editor (or editors) trying to weave together accounts that were somewhat at odds into a unified narrative.

 

Bill

 

*the word criticism is used here in the academic sense to mean "textual analysis" and not "disparagement".

[katemary63]

I do know many women who seem to have childlike relationships with their spouses. One even had to call her dh at work in order to ask him if she could call the midwife because she had gone into labor with her 5th child. He took the vital information from the wife, and in turn called the midwife. One of these ladies told me that she liked the arrangement because if anything goes wrong, it's her husband's fault. She bears no responsibility. I think that's sad.

 

:iagree::iagree:

 

I have even taken a "class" at a church long ago, that "taught" this kind of thinking. IN THE CURRICULUM it stated that if you give ALL the decision making power to your husband, YOU will not be held accountable for what ever happens. It was "FREEING" to you and brought you "PEACE". When something went wrong it was all his fault. UGH! I quit the "class" and had a meeting with the pastor over it. We left that church!

 

I do believe in the husband as "leader" of the family as Christ is leader of the Church. What a WONDERFUL thing it is to be in partnership with a Godly husband who takes that role seriously. It is a role of Love and has nothing to do with being "the boss" or "making all the decisions". MY heart aches for those women who are like "children" in their own families. What foolish husbands they have.

[Spy Car]

I wondered how you could possibly say that considering your fascination with joining in Biblical discussions.

 

Carmen, this was just my light-hearted attempt to acknowledge that I'm no kind of authority on the Bible, and most certainly on its spiritual aspects.

 

I join the discussion because I've read this work, the world's all time best-seller, largely in isolation (although I have studied some of the works of the great Jewish rabbis) and I have all kinds of questions that people in my almost completely "secular" world never discuss.

 

And this forum is often like finding there is a "book-club" discussing some of the questions I've had for years. So I find it interesting. That's all.

 

Bill

[Colleen in NS]

I join the discussion because I've read this work, the world's all time best-seller, largely in isolation...and I have all kinds of questions that people in my almost completely "secular" world never discuss.

 

I'm enjoying reading your "secular" viewpoints. :D And it's discussions like this that get me thinking about stuff I've accepted as truth, because someone told me what to think or believe and I never learned how to think things through before.

[Parrothead]

Carmen, this was just my light-hearted attempt to acknowledge that I'm no kind of authority on the Bible, and most certainly on its spiritual aspects.

 

I join the discussion because I've read this work, the world's all time best-seller, largely in isolation (although I have studied some of the works of the great Jewish rabbis) and I have all kinds of questions that people in my almost completely "secular" world never discuss.

 

And this forum is often like finding there is a "book-club" discussing some of the questions I've had for years. So I find it interesting. That's all.

 

Bill

Keep joining the discussions. I learn a lot from what you say.

I'm enjoying reading your "secular" viewpoints. :D And it's discussions like this that get me thinking about stuff I've accepted as truth, because someone told me what to think or believe and I never learned how to think things through before.

I'd give you a little green square if I could.

[Lovedtodeath]

Carmen, this was just my light-hearted attempt to acknowledge that I'm no kind of authority on the Bible, and most certainly on its spiritual aspects.

 

I join the discussion because I've read this work, the world's all time best-seller, largely in isolation (although I have studied some of the works of the great Jewish rabbis) and I have all kinds of questions that people in my almost completely "secular" world never discuss.

 

And this forum is often like finding there is a "book-club" discussing some of the questions I've had for years. So I find it interesting. That's all.

 

Bill

Thank you for the gracious explanation.

 

And it's discussions like this that get me thinking about stuff I've accepted as truth, because someone told me what to think or believe and I never learned how to think things through before.

Very well said.

[Janna]

Keep joining the discussions. I learn a lot from what you say.

 

 

 

I agree! I love reading your questions and your views, Bill! I don't always respond, but I almost always read them and smile. There is much value in these discussions - for all parties - when they are kept civil.

[momof165]

I DON'T submit to my husband and he DOES NOT WANT ME to submit to him. We are partners, and I think submission IS humiliating to women. That's just my humble opinion.

 

Sonja

______________________________________

Homeschooling JUST ONE - ds 9

[lionfamily1999]

"likewise, also, the husband does not exercise authority over his own body, but his wife does." —1 Cor. 7

 

Yes, give and take...

 

I wonder, though, how submission is being defined by some posters... it's not as though the wife is supposed to be in suspended animation until her husband comes home.

[Lovedtodeath]

We had a discussion about submission already, and quite recently. Ishki and Pamela H in Texas explained it quite well if I remember right. Not everyone is defining it correctly, but that is the whole problem, isn't it?

[lionfamily1999]

I think that (the definition) might be the biggest issue. I don't see submission as crawling on my knees and licking his feet clean every night. I also know that his responsibilities are equal to my own. I submit to my husband and he does all he can (with some nudges from me) to keep me happy and resentment free. Of course, I see submitting as a more spiritual issue than physical. IOW, I submit to my husband, I rely on him, I depend upon him.

 

I do see any philosophy that revolves around self to be very counter to submissive, or any Christian marraige philosophy. The idea is that there is no 'self' anymore, but a unit. The self is now two people working as one unit, does that make sense??? I don't put him before me, I put US before me. Sort of like putting the community ahead of the individual.

 

It makes sense to me anyway, lol.

[Lovedtodeath]

I don't put him before me, I put US before me. Sort of like putting the community ahead of the individual.

 

That's a great attitude, I think. Always putting your mate first can breed resentment.

[Colleen in NS]

I wonder, though, how submission is being defined by some posters

 

We had a discussion about submission already, and quite recently. Ishki and Pamela H in Texas explained it quite well if I remember right. Not everyone is defining it correctly, but that is the whole problem, isn't it?

 

About the definition - this is why I keep going back to my "historical context" and root words tools. It's one of those words that people see in English and get ideas in their minds about what it means and create philosophies around.

 

Also, this is another one of those topics that comes up regularly here. Kinda like politics and shoes on/shoes off in the house.

[Katrina]

Didn't read the other replies yet...

 

This is coming from a secular, feminist viewpoint: Here in the US, women can choose what sort of relationship, faith, and lifestyle they want to have. They can walk away if they feel too burdened. That said, if a woman chooses to be submissive to her husband, that choice should be respected. If she backs up her choices with scripture, that is equally valid.

 

I most certainly am not going to judge another woman's choices unless she is putting herself or her children in danger. I mean this in general terms. Of course there are some actions I may judge as "irresponsible"... but in general, I stay out of other people's relationship choices. The fact that we HAVE choices in this country is very, very important to me.

 

 

I would agree with you 100% if the submissive attitude stayed within the marriage, but it doesn't. It spills over into the workplace, marketplace, and politics all the time, and I'm getting tired if it. I get tired of my dh and I going to purchase a new car for ME and the salesmen at the dealership not even looking at me because obviously it's my dh who will make the decision. (ha, they were sure wrong.) OR right now, having huge headachs with our septic tank and even though my dh is working 10-12 hours a day getting ready to deploy to Iraq, the septic tank guy keeps wanting to talk to my dh and not me, because heaven forbid I have the authority to make decisions.

 

What was really funny, before I quit work to be a sahm, was watching some guys having to deal with a female boss. Some guys just really can't handle a woman being in charge, and I do think it stems from the "men are in charge" attitudes they see at home.

[Heather in Neverland]

I don't put him before me, I put US before me.

 

I like this idea a lot. It is a different take on submission than most of the men in my class had. ;)

[lionfamily1999]

I like this idea a lot. It is a different take on submission than most of the men in my class had. ;)

 

That's a great attitude, I think. Always putting your mate first can breed resentment.

That's what I think gets left out a lot. Marraige is supposed to be a union, from two, one. The whole 'self' ideal and even the dh/king of his kingdom, both ignore that. God didn't make us (women) to be servants to our husbands, he made us to be help-meets, partners, one of a set and the same goes for our husbands. We're supposed to work together and there's submission on both sides.

[Joanne]

I think that (the definition) might be the biggest issue. I don't see submission as crawling on my knees and licking his feet clean every night. I also know that his responsibilities are equal to my own. I submit to my husband and he does all he can (with some nudges from me) to keep me happy and resentment free. Of course, I see submitting as a more spiritual issue than physical. IOW, I submit to my husband, I rely on him, I depend upon him.

 

I do see any philosophy that revolves around self to be very counter to submissive, or any Christian marraige philosophy. The idea is that there is no 'self' anymore, but a unit. The self is now two people working as one unit, does that make sense??? I don't put him before me, I put US before me. Sort of like putting the community ahead of the individual.

 

It makes sense to me anyway, lol.

 

I wonder, though, how submission is being defined by some posters... it's not as though the wife is supposed to be in suspended animation until her husband comes home.

__________________

 

I do know that there are wife-only submission marriages that function well, cooperatively, and joyfully. I do get that submissive, in the context of Christian marriage, is not meant (usually) to mean passive doormat.

 

However, I don't believe that objections to the idea (or disbelief that the commonly offered books and rhetoric around it are Biblical) mean I don't understand the word the same way. Nor does it meanI support a *self* centered marriage.

 

I simply don't believe in any marital partnership where the man gets ultimate say or leadership. Period. I believe the Godly design for marriage is *equal* and authority over/ultimate say is not equal.

 

Oddly, though, I do believe in gender roles to a large degree (by some standards). I don't believe that departure from them is unbiblical (such as the wife working outside the home and the husband working in the home).

[Lovedtodeath]

However, I don't believe that objections to the idea (or disbelief that the commonly offered books and rhetoric around it are Biblical) mean I don't understand the word the same way.

 

I was not thinking of you when I said that, so no need to convince me.

 

I do strongly agree with your bolded statement.

[Katrina]

I like this idea a lot. It is a different take on submission than most of the men in my class had. ;)

 

And you know...that's what scares me. We may have an nice liberal understanding of co-submission and whatnot, but do most men who believe in wifely submission believe in it the same way most of the women who believe in submission do? At least the ones on this forum?? (did that even make sense???)

[Kate CA]

I need genuine help understanding how anything here is contradicted.

 

If the simple sentence is "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Gen 1:27

 

How does that contradict anything in Ch. 2? I mean, so Ch. 2 says that God created woman from Adam's rib after a suitable help-mate for him wasn't found in the animals. How does that contradict Gen 1:27? It's simply stating that God created man in His image, male and female he created them. In ch. 2, did he not create female? No where in vs. 1:27 does it give a time line or even *infer* a time line for the creation of them. It's a simply stated fact. He created them in his image. Done. Got that. Ch. 2 further explains *how* he created them. It doesn't say that the female was created in a way other than by God. *He* formed her out of Adam's rib. Therefore, he created female.

 

Please, truly, explain to me how this is contradictory.

 

Thanks, Janna. This is what I would have said too. I don't understand why this is viewed as contradictory.

[Tami]

Some guys just really can't handle a woman being in charge, and I do think it stems from the "men are in charge" attitudes they see at home.

 

We all find that annoying to the EXTREME! Boys seem to act this way from a young age, excluding girls from their play. Perhaps it is brain damage from testosterone. :D Even when parents avoid gender stereotypes, the boys do this. I wonder if it is ALWAYS learned, or if it is something internal. Well, I call it "pride," anyway! I take a pass on doing business with those macho types.

[Tami]

I'm not convinced anymore that these types of NT instructions were meant to be applied to every Christian in every part of the world for the past 2000 years. This is why I'm using historical context as a filter for my thinking these days. *snip* I've got a long way to go in understanding the Bible and how it applies to me personally, even though I've been a Christian for a long time.

 

Of course, context is King when it comes to Biblical exposition. If we're not careful, we can go to the opposite extreme and use contextualization in a haphazard manner, explaining away anything you don't agree with, kwim? There is a danger of error with either extreme: assigning a wooden literal meaning to every passage, or over allegorizing the text, stripping it of its intended meaning, having "form of godliness, but denying it's power."

 

The Book is written for all times and all cultures, and yet cultural context must be taken into consideration. The trick is serious study, and knowing the Book as a whole. I have learned that the question is not "What do I FEEL it says," but "What does it SAY?" I believe that truth can be known, and that God is desiring to enlighten us, and manifest Himself to us, if we are just receptive. One book that God has really used in my life is "How to Study the Bible For Yourself" by Kay Arthur. Just wanted to throw out that recommendation, since it does a nice job of digging into the text, looking at context, studying some Greek, and doing it all without outside commentary.

[Katrina]

We all find that annoying to the EXTREME! Boys seem to act this way from a young age, excluding girls from their play. Perhaps it is brain damage from testosterone. :D Even when parents avoid gender stereotypes, the boys do this. I wonder if it is ALWAYS learned, or if it is something internal. Well, I call it "pride," anyway! I take a pass on doing business with those macho types.

 

You know, I don't know when it starts. I do think it starts at a young age though. I think the attitude that women are second class citizens is so ingrained into this society that it's hard at times to see it for what it is. How many times do kids need to hear phrases like "You throw like a girl" (said as an insult) before kids equate girls are less than boys? Or "That's women's work," meaning anything that women do is less or not equal to what men do?

Edited February 19, 2009 by Katrina

[Spy Car]

Perhaps it is brain damage from testosterone. :D

 

I think you're on to something here :D

 

Bill

[lionfamily1999]

I do know that there are wife-only submission marriages that function well, cooperatively, and joyfully. I do get that submissive, in the context of Christian marriage, is not meant (usually) to mean passive doormat.

 

However, I don't believe that objections to the idea (or disbelief that the commonly offered books and rhetoric around it are Biblical) mean I don't understand the word the same way. Nor does it meanI support a *self* centered marriage.

 

I simply don't believe in any marital partnership where the man gets ultimate say or leadership. Period. I believe the Godly design for marriage is *equal* and authority over/ultimate say is not equal.

 

Oddly, though, I do believe in gender roles to a large degree (by some standards). I don't believe that departure from them is unbiblical (such as the wife working outside the home and the husband working in the home).

I hadn't gone through and read all your posts, so I'm not sure what you said originally, but in regards to your response... I am not sure that everyone is defining submission the same way. IOW, it would seem, by some of the responses I've read, that some people view submission as the need to be a passive doormat. As for all the rest, I wasn't referring to you, so much as a general observation of what I've seen and read regarding views of a 'healthy' marraige. There's tons of articles and sound bites and programs, for spouses to learn how to cater to themselves more, ostenably to aid in a healthy marraige.

And you know...that's what scares me. We may have an nice liberal understanding of co-submission and whatnot, but do most men who believe in wifely submission believe in it the same way most of the women who believe in submission do? At least the ones on this forum?? (did that even make sense???)

I understood. Dh, an agnostic when it pleases him to be, has read the inverse of the submission scripture. He knows what is required of him to make my submission work. We had lengthy marraige prep with my uncle before we tied the knot and we both know how important it is that we carry our burdens equally. There's always going to be fools that are happy to point fingers and tell others, God said for you to do this, and those same fools rarely read the rules God set down for them. So, I'm sure there are men that are completely unaware that they have requirements too. In the same way there are parents that tout, 'obey your mother and father,' while ignoring 'do not provoke your children to anger.'

[Colleen in NS]

The trick is serious study, and knowing the Book as a whole.

 

I guess what I really meant was, "I've got a long way to go in re-studying the Bible and re-thinking how it applies to me personally."

[Parrothead]

We all find that annoying to the EXTREME! Boys seem to act this way from a young age, excluding girls from their play. Perhaps it is brain damage from testosterone. :D Even when parents avoid gender stereotypes, the boys do this. I wonder if it is ALWAYS learned, or if it is something internal. Well, I call it "pride," anyway! I take a pass on doing business with those macho types.

There was a show on Discovery, or maybe Nat Geo, a few years ago about what testosterone does to little boys' brains even before they are born. The same study that the show was about said how the testosterone from the fetus effects the mother until she gives birth.

 

They didn't actually come out and say testosterone causes brain damage, but it was close.