How so WG? I admire and respect you and your views. Have I offended you? I question, I search, I try to better understand a loving God and sometimes that is at odds with what I am taught biblicaly. Because I have seen scriptures used to bully and manipulate...maybe I am hyper sensitive to allowing myself or my beautiful intelligent daughters to be placed into servitude because of their gender? Is it me? Am I using my experience to unfairly judge all christian marriages?
I don`t know, I have seen good and I have seen bad...the ones that are good never seem to employ the I am the ultimate authority because I am the man.
Is my resentment coloring my perception of a Christian marriage? I guess that I feel I don`t fully understand the whole concept or there wouldn`t be the bitterness and resentment of having to live up to and by anothers expectations.
Again, as I said before,, Rascal, both of the people in a marriage have entered into a covenant, and a covenant is supposed to have well being on both sides. The man is not the master just because he has an extra piece of flesh up front. Sometime if you ever have the time, next time you're in a doctors office or check it out online.... look at a depiction of the female reproductive organs and really look. You will see how close they are to the man's. I kid you not. I was at the doctor's office and there was a poster up on the wall and I thought it was just phenomenal when I looked at it and saw the similarities. Indeed, when the Scriptures say that the woman was to be the mate that was complete for the man, God indeed meant it. We were made completely suitable. And no one say, Duh, please. It was too cool.
I guess I question the whole biblical concept of women and children...I mean it`s like we are disposable. Our value relies directly on how what we bring to our husband. Old Job was the subject of a bet between God n Satan...he lost his wife and children....he passed the test and got another wife and kids along with the rest of his cattle and riches....
Too bad so sad for the first wife and kids...but hey that was ok Job was blessed...the family was as disposable as the cattle and lands....See what I mean?
I just don`t see God as viewing me personally and my children as an asset that can be replaced. That our value solely relating to the husband that we are married to.
It seems grossly unfair to someone whom has tried to be a Godly person her entire life. Yet all of that means nothing if the man I married 20 plus years ago blows it in some area or another.
I just question how a loving God could be so unfair ...so instead of becoming disolusioned with a God who designed and created me to be inferior, forever to have to submit to anothers will...I will instead challenge my understanding and the validity of particular scriptures.
I hope that is ok without being offensive.
Job didn't lose his wife, she suffered right along with him at the loss of their children and home and all of their wealth. Plus, God doesn't view you as inferior, man in his fallen state began viewing women as inferior because he couldn't own up to the fact that he was right there and could have stopped his wife and he didn't. So to avoid having to deal with it, he lowered Eve almost to animal status, who was only good enough to have sex with and bear his children, etc. etc.
The church unfortunately has propagated false doctrine by separating Eph 5:21-22 and they continue it because quite honestly, too many men like the idea that somehow they are in charge, so they continue to the falsehood.
Me too, Ex! The Lord Jesus is the only one I truly submit to, and if there are any others, the Lord will show them to me.
Garden, thanks...I am not looking for any answers at this point from anybody. It will be God that gets through to him if at all..... I agree, therapy would be beneficial, however that takes money and a willing participant .... you cannot make someone see your value, someone who cared enough about their wife and marriage to make the effort. I am a firm believer that my kiddos need both of us, and that we had just better suck it up and act like reasonable adults until we get them raised. Until then, I will try to remember to see him with God`s eyes, to focus on what is good and positive.
Maybe it is unfair to judge Christian marriages by mine, and a few others where I have seen the husbands using the scriptures to dominate and subjugate....not that this is the case with me since leaving twi.... I can`t stand to see another woman required to submit because she believes God requires this of her no matter how selfish a bozo her *man* is...I don`t ever want to see that for my daughters....isn`t there something wrong when unbelievers treat their wives and daughters better than many of the christians?
Yes, there is. I hope you're blessed this Sunday Easter day, Rascal!
Speaking of *blessed* Easter..lol my son had brought home a little hen a couple of days ago sitting on a nest. He found 11 newly hatched chicks easter morning. It was such a fun suprise...tiny golf ball sized fluff ... now mind, there have been numerous tornados, death of a mother and her infant....and all sorts of heart breaking difficulties in the last couple of days around us......but in the midst of all of the chaos a subtle reminder yesterday that we were celebrating life, newness a fresh start...it was good to remember not to treat yesterday like every other day...to give pause as to what is important to us. :)
I don`t know, it just seemed like a special personal gift...the eggs weren`t supposed to hatch for weeks.
That was my thought WG. It reads so mundane when you try to put into words that special little message of life and hope...you know it is something special, something personal a gift.....but to anybody else...it`s no big thing.
I think some of the current teaching on submission of women, whatever theological hole it crawled out of, concerns the teaching that when it says in Genesis that the woman's desire will be to her husband and he shall rule over her (Gen. 3:16) that means the woman's desire shall be to rule over her husband and he shall instead rule over her. I am providing a link to an article I found on the internet that discusses this matter, and at the bottom of the article, says this "desire shall be to thy husband" is a term for ruling over him for usurping his authority. He goes on to say the woman represents the soul, and his definition is definitely carnal. The masculine represents the spirit. So the Spirit (God) MUST rule over the soul (emotion, carnal desires, lusts, which are all feminine).
This is, at least in its discussion of women, submission, superiority and lordship of the male over the female, just about the biggest load of organic fertilizer this side of New Knoxville. I can't find any Bible in the house that translates that verse to mean this.
It is confusing and disheartening, and utterly demeaning to women. Yet this, to my mind, is pretty much what the New Calvinists are teaching; I heard the planting pastor of Mars Hill refer to this in a teaching on marriage.
Oh, yeah, I'm just busting to usurp Mr. Garden's authority. Maybe that's why I consult with him, defer to him and absolutely adore him.
Next thing you know, all these evangelicals, New Calvinists, and other fundys will be wanting women to wear burkas and stay in the house with the doors locked and windows shuttered from the outside.
WG
EDITED TO ADD: I am in NO way advocating this doctrine, merely pointing out some of the false teachings out there that are encouraging wrong practice in man-woman relationships.
This is, at least in its discussion of women, submission, superiority and lordship of the male over the female, just about the biggest load of organic fertilizer this side of New Knoxville. I can't find any Bible in the house that translates that verse to mean this.
And even if there verse(s) in the Bible that meant that, ... what real difference should that make?
Honestly, Garth I do personally believe the Bible is Holy Scripture, but I've noticed over the past few years, with the previous church plant and now this one, that Mr. Garden and I get along just fine when religious teachings on marriage don't try to weasel their slimy way in between us!
I think some of the current teaching on submission of women, whatever theological hole it crawled out of, concerns the teaching that when it says in Genesis that the woman's desire will be to her husband and he shall rule over her (Gen. 3:16) that means the woman's desire shall be to rule over her husband and he shall instead rule over her.
I think that oversimplifies things. There are plenty of other cultures / religions that are just as oppressive, if not more so, to women than the Abrahamic religions (loosely Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Historically you have a long and semi-omnipresent history of men brutally oppressing and suppressing women...followed by women, fighting for their survival, finding new ways to escape the oppression, followed by more psycho men figuring it is a rebellion which leads to harder oppression - and the cycle continues to grow. This ain't no bible thing - it happens ALL over the world - and has for thousands of years before paul wrote some of his percoset ramblings in the so called NT.
Religion just made this oppression and suppression "OK." God now says it's ok, or Vishnu, or whomever is your god of the moment. Genesis and other scripture "so-called" simply codifies the suppression as a "godly" thing, an "OK" thing, the "will of the lord" - as hence must be followed to guarantee salvation. You will find similar thoughts in the Bhagavad Gita which predates both Christianity and Islam.
I think it is a waste to give "credit" to the Abrahamic religions as the inventors of female suppression. They were simply cheap copy cats who wrote their own version of the comic book called the bible wherein they copied or stole from half of the other religions already in existence.
oh...with the exception of VPW because god (or was that Stan Lee) made it snow for him....LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL - darned I need a hit.
I agree; it's obvious that other religions teach this. Look at the young couple who were executed by the righteous men of Allah for eloping. That's pretty oppressive, for both of them.
But I'm talking about Christianity here because it's what I know a bit more about.
Doesn't make it right. Any oppression of any believer is IMO ungodly no matter what your religion of choice.
It sounded like you were saying that the "false doctrine" has been propagated because of men.
No, not BECAUSE of men, but BY men. If you can fix the odds in your favor....if you know what I mean by that....then say that it is the will of God that you OBEY these rules....
Then keep people (especially the underlings) ignorant of the original languages that the English texts were translated from..well....OMG!
Snowball keeps getting bigger and bigger.....when will it end?
I think some of the current teaching on submission of women, whatever theological hole it crawled out of, concerns the teaching that when it says in Genesis that the woman's desire will be to her husband and he shall rule over her (Gen. 3:16) that means the woman's desire shall be to rule over her husband and he shall instead rule over her. I am providing a link to an article I found on the internet that discusses this matter, and at the bottom of the article, says this "desire shall be to thy husband" is a term for ruling over him for usurping his authority. He goes on to say the woman represents the soul, and his definition is definitely carnal. The masculine represents the spirit. So the Spirit (God) MUST rule over the soul (emotion, carnal desires, lusts, which are all feminine).
This is, at least in its discussion of women, submission, superiority and lordship of the male over the female, just about the biggest load of organic fertilizer this side of New Knoxville. I can't find any Bible in the house that translates that verse to mean this.
It is confusing and disheartening, and utterly demeaning to women. Yet this, to my mind, is pretty much what the New Calvinists are teaching; I heard the planting pastor of Mars Hill refer to this in a teaching on marriage.
Oh, yeah, I'm just busting to usurp Mr. Garden's authority. Maybe that's why I consult with him, defer to him and absolutely adore him.
Next thing you know, all these evangelicals, New Calvinists, and other fundys will be wanting women to wear burkas and stay in the house with the doors locked and windows shuttered from the outside.
WG
EDITED TO ADD: I am in NO way advocating this doctrine, merely pointing out some of the false teachings out there that are encouraging wrong practice in man-woman relationships.
Funny, you should bring up those verses WG...when I was in seminary, the professor was pontificating upon those very verses, but then ignored the very fundamental teachings that the seminary was promoting...LOL, i.e. "stay to context"
I unfortunately do not have my Bible with me at the moment, but I do believe I have my notes in the margin and it definitely doesn't mean that.
I don't particularly wish to barf right now, so I won't go the link that you offered based upon your description of the article :blink:
When I GENTLY reminded the professor about the context and offered the meaning.....he just looked at me and I got a "B" on my paper today...do you think there was a cause and effect with that grade??????
I sure hope our little church plant never starts something like that or I will be making a VERY DRAMATIC exit!
If you happen to run across those notes on context, etc, please post them.
The whole thing is just nauseating; that's not what it says! I looked in every Bible I could find without going downstairs (my office is upstairs) and I don't see this thing about the woman's desires shall be to "rule over) her husband.
Sometimes I wonder if the teachings of the Taliban are infiltrating Christianity.
No, not BECAUSE of men, but BY men. If you can fix the odds in your favor....if you know what I mean by that....then say that it is the will of God that you OBEY these rules....
Then keep people (especially the underlings) ignorant of the original languages that the English texts were translated from..well....OMG!
Snowball keeps getting bigger and bigger.....when will it end?
This sounds like a conspiracy theory. BY a few men or all men in general?
I'm gonna put in my two cents' worth and say IMO only the men who controlled the church before, during, and after the reformation. I watched a smidgen of a PBS program on the English reformation, which came after the German reformation chronologically. It dealt with men like Tyndale and someone else who founded the Lollards whose name escapes me, John somebody I think. I know Tyndale translated the Bible into English and Luther into probably German (?) and so they would have to had been the ones who said "Oh, by golly, I think I'll just make sure everyone understands women are inferior and men are superior.
Just my opinion. I think a lot of men admire and respect women, but of course it's the ones who don't that get in a lot of trouble.
I wonder if these are the same jerks who decided we need to "honor father and mother". It's all about control.
For every controlling man I've met, I've met a just as controlling and deceptive woman. Perhaps marriage just sets up barriers for the other party to escape.
I sure hope our little church plant never starts something like that or I will be making a VERY DRAMATIC exit!
If you happen to run across those notes on context, etc, please post them.
The whole thing is just nauseating; that's not what it says! I looked in every Bible I could find without going downstairs (my office is upstairs) and I don't see this thing about the woman's desires shall be to "rule over) her husband.
Sometimes I wonder if the teachings of the Taliban are infiltrating Christianity.
WG
I do believe, although I am not 100% :) that Abraham predates the Tali-banned!!!!
I will, although I have to go to Panera to do my net thing and so often as it is would be, I do not have my Biblos with me at the same time.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
11
36
24
26
Popular Days
Apr 11
16
Apr 7
14
May 5
10
Apr 6
9
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 11 posts
Watered Garden 36 posts
Bolshevik 24 posts
brideofjc 26 posts
Popular Days
Apr 11 2009
16 posts
Apr 7 2009
14 posts
May 5 2009
10 posts
Apr 6 2009
9 posts
brideofjc
Again, as I said before,, Rascal, both of the people in a marriage have entered into a covenant, and a covenant is supposed to have well being on both sides. The man is not the master just because he has an extra piece of flesh up front. Sometime if you ever have the time, next time you're in a doctors office or check it out online.... look at a depiction of the female reproductive organs and really look. You will see how close they are to the man's. I kid you not. I was at the doctor's office and there was a poster up on the wall and I thought it was just phenomenal when I looked at it and saw the similarities. Indeed, when the Scriptures say that the woman was to be the mate that was complete for the man, God indeed meant it. We were made completely suitable. And no one say, Duh, please. It was too cool.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Job didn't lose his wife, she suffered right along with him at the loss of their children and home and all of their wealth. Plus, God doesn't view you as inferior, man in his fallen state began viewing women as inferior because he couldn't own up to the fact that he was right there and could have stopped his wife and he didn't. So to avoid having to deal with it, he lowered Eve almost to animal status, who was only good enough to have sex with and bear his children, etc. etc.
The church unfortunately has propagated false doctrine by separating Eph 5:21-22 and they continue it because quite honestly, too many men like the idea that somehow they are in charge, so they continue to the falsehood.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Me too, Ex! The Lord Jesus is the only one I truly submit to, and if there are any others, the Lord will show them to me.
Yes, there is. I hope you're blessed this Sunday Easter day, Rascal!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
uh, oh . . .what are you saying? Who's responsible?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
I think both are responsible. If I screw up, why should I be responsible for his behaviors? Should he be responsible for mine?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
It sounded like you were saying that the "false doctrine" has been propagated because of men.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Thanks Bride, well said :)
Speaking of *blessed* Easter..lol my son had brought home a little hen a couple of days ago sitting on a nest. He found 11 newly hatched chicks easter morning. It was such a fun suprise...tiny golf ball sized fluff ... now mind, there have been numerous tornados, death of a mother and her infant....and all sorts of heart breaking difficulties in the last couple of days around us......but in the midst of all of the chaos a subtle reminder yesterday that we were celebrating life, newness a fresh start...it was good to remember not to treat yesterday like every other day...to give pause as to what is important to us. :)
I don`t know, it just seemed like a special personal gift...the eggs weren`t supposed to hatch for weeks.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
Sometimes God gives us little gifts to remind us of His greatest Gift.
How lovely for all of you that those little fluffballs appeared!
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
That was my thought WG. It reads so mundane when you try to put into words that special little message of life and hope...you know it is something special, something personal a gift.....but to anybody else...it`s no big thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
Kiddo, if it's big to you, it's big to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
I think some of the current teaching on submission of women, whatever theological hole it crawled out of, concerns the teaching that when it says in Genesis that the woman's desire will be to her husband and he shall rule over her (Gen. 3:16) that means the woman's desire shall be to rule over her husband and he shall instead rule over her. I am providing a link to an article I found on the internet that discusses this matter, and at the bottom of the article, says this "desire shall be to thy husband" is a term for ruling over him for usurping his authority. He goes on to say the woman represents the soul, and his definition is definitely carnal. The masculine represents the spirit. So the Spirit (God) MUST rule over the soul (emotion, carnal desires, lusts, which are all feminine).
http://pages.prodigy.net/tlbrown/volume3issue2.htm
This is, at least in its discussion of women, submission, superiority and lordship of the male over the female, just about the biggest load of organic fertilizer this side of New Knoxville. I can't find any Bible in the house that translates that verse to mean this.
It is confusing and disheartening, and utterly demeaning to women. Yet this, to my mind, is pretty much what the New Calvinists are teaching; I heard the planting pastor of Mars Hill refer to this in a teaching on marriage.
Oh, yeah, I'm just busting to usurp Mr. Garden's authority. Maybe that's why I consult with him, defer to him and absolutely adore him.
Next thing you know, all these evangelicals, New Calvinists, and other fundys will be wanting women to wear burkas and stay in the house with the doors locked and windows shuttered from the outside.
WG
EDITED TO ADD: I am in NO way advocating this doctrine, merely pointing out some of the false teachings out there that are encouraging wrong practice in man-woman relationships.
Edited by Watered GardenLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
And even if there verse(s) in the Bible that meant that, ... what real difference should that make?
Think about it. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
Honestly, Garth I do personally believe the Bible is Holy Scripture, but I've noticed over the past few years, with the previous church plant and now this one, that Mr. Garden and I get along just fine when religious teachings on marriage don't try to weasel their slimy way in between us!
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
I think that oversimplifies things. There are plenty of other cultures / religions that are just as oppressive, if not more so, to women than the Abrahamic religions (loosely Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Historically you have a long and semi-omnipresent history of men brutally oppressing and suppressing women...followed by women, fighting for their survival, finding new ways to escape the oppression, followed by more psycho men figuring it is a rebellion which leads to harder oppression - and the cycle continues to grow. This ain't no bible thing - it happens ALL over the world - and has for thousands of years before paul wrote some of his percoset ramblings in the so called NT.
Religion just made this oppression and suppression "OK." God now says it's ok, or Vishnu, or whomever is your god of the moment. Genesis and other scripture "so-called" simply codifies the suppression as a "godly" thing, an "OK" thing, the "will of the lord" - as hence must be followed to guarantee salvation. You will find similar thoughts in the Bhagavad Gita which predates both Christianity and Islam.
I think it is a waste to give "credit" to the Abrahamic religions as the inventors of female suppression. They were simply cheap copy cats who wrote their own version of the comic book called the bible wherein they copied or stole from half of the other religions already in existence.
oh...with the exception of VPW because god (or was that Stan Lee) made it snow for him....LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL - darned I need a hit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
so what's the cause then? there have been societies dominated by women? or are those rumors?
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
I agree; it's obvious that other religions teach this. Look at the young couple who were executed by the righteous men of Allah for eloping. That's pretty oppressive, for both of them.
But I'm talking about Christianity here because it's what I know a bit more about.
Doesn't make it right. Any oppression of any believer is IMO ungodly no matter what your religion of choice.
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
No, not BECAUSE of men, but BY men. If you can fix the odds in your favor....if you know what I mean by that....then say that it is the will of God that you OBEY these rules....
Then keep people (especially the underlings) ignorant of the original languages that the English texts were translated from..well....OMG!
Snowball keeps getting bigger and bigger.....when will it end?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Funny, you should bring up those verses WG...when I was in seminary, the professor was pontificating upon those very verses, but then ignored the very fundamental teachings that the seminary was promoting...LOL, i.e. "stay to context"
I unfortunately do not have my Bible with me at the moment, but I do believe I have my notes in the margin and it definitely doesn't mean that.
I don't particularly wish to barf right now, so I won't go the link that you offered based upon your description of the article :blink:
When I GENTLY reminded the professor about the context and offered the meaning.....he just looked at me and I got a "B" on my paper today...do you think there was a cause and effect with that grade??????
Edited by brideofjcLink to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
I knew it! Couldn't resist....like looking at a bad accident....you just have to....you know?????
Where's that puking icon that floats around the GS?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
Like looking at a bad accident is right!
I sure hope our little church plant never starts something like that or I will be making a VERY DRAMATIC exit!
If you happen to run across those notes on context, etc, please post them.
The whole thing is just nauseating; that's not what it says! I looked in every Bible I could find without going downstairs (my office is upstairs) and I don't see this thing about the woman's desires shall be to "rule over) her husband.
Sometimes I wonder if the teachings of the Taliban are infiltrating Christianity.
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
This sounds like a conspiracy theory. BY a few men or all men in general?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
I'm gonna put in my two cents' worth and say IMO only the men who controlled the church before, during, and after the reformation. I watched a smidgen of a PBS program on the English reformation, which came after the German reformation chronologically. It dealt with men like Tyndale and someone else who founded the Lollards whose name escapes me, John somebody I think. I know Tyndale translated the Bible into English and Luther into probably German (?) and so they would have to had been the ones who said "Oh, by golly, I think I'll just make sure everyone understands women are inferior and men are superior.
Just my opinion. I think a lot of men admire and respect women, but of course it's the ones who don't that get in a lot of trouble.
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I wonder if these are the same jerks who decided we need to "honor father and mother". It's all about control.
For every controlling man I've met, I've met a just as controlling and deceptive woman. Perhaps marriage just sets up barriers for the other party to escape.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
I do believe, although I am not 100% :) that Abraham predates the Tali-banned!!!!
I will, although I have to go to Panera to do my net thing and so often as it is would be, I do not have my Biblos with me at the same time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.