Here is a link Submit Ye Olde Hag ( )with a host of Bible verses (KJV) on the subject of the marriage relationship between an man and a woman.  Ladies, hit me with your best shot as to why such words are offensive, and why you think the Christian Church is so eager to wield this verse, while conveniently forgetting to mention the role of the husband, as it pertains to what is perceived as the Biblical model.  I want to here your hang ups and objections to it.

For the record: no the link does not actually say that on the website, I made it up as an attempt at sarcastic humor.  Also, I don't believe a woman should be submissive to her husband - at least not in the context the word submit is often used.  I believe a woman should only be submissive in as far as the word "respect" allows, and I believe that a man, in the role of a husband should do the same.  My wife and I try our best to run our marriage in a mutually respectful and egalitarian manner, and you can bet that no matter how much I may not like my wife raising hell with me for what can be regarded as a piss-poor decision from time to time, I appreciate her more for doing so than if she didn't.  Why?  Because it means that she is invested in the welfare of our family, and I couldn't ask for anything less.

Any way, fire away!

No Blind links please


Views: 1358

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

So should she be submissive as a sign of respect or just respectful when respect is earned?

This is a good question.  I guess the best way that I can answer is this: when my wife respects me she is submissive within the certain context that our relationship allows, so as such it would follow the pattern of the former part of your question.  However, she is also only respectful towards a decision or behavior of mine when such a behavior or decision earns her respect, which in turn plays into the latter.  So in a way, there is a give and take, push an pull between the two concepts, and the reasoning behind it has more to do with our strengths and weaknesses in terms of who we are as individuals. 

The way the Bible verses are written is terrible, because the words are so terribly vague, yet strong.  The word "submit" has so many varying degrees of application and meaning, and sadly in the interpretation most often used by the Church - particularly those within the rightwing - implies total subjugation.  No human being can ever really live in a situation like that - it's completely unhealthy and damaging to do so, and I can see why women take issue with it because they are after all, human beings.  I would not submit myself to an overbearing, power-mongering wife, so why should I expect a woman to do that for me or for another man?  I would say that what makes my relationship work with my wife is that she knows that she can have a voice in what goes on in the house, and yes, actually make decisions in what is best for the family.  We respect each other's weaknesses, and submit to each other's strengths, thus creating a balance for our relationship work.  After all, what I am terribly weak at, she is strong in, and what she is weak in, I am strong at, and thus falls into place the roles each of us take within the relationship.

You can rationalize all you like, but there is nothing vague about the status of women in the bible. If you are looking for permission to shut a woman up, rape her, stone her to death it's all there. Burn a "witch", go to heaven. 

When my religious ex-wife would preach to me I would tell her to shut the hell up and read her bible, LOL. Of course my ironic sense of humor was lost on her. One can only imagine the loss of human rights and equality caused by the Abrahamic religions.

Robert, I am not rationalizing at all to justify the status of woman in the Bible.  However, your comment does bring to the front my awareness that I am applying my twenty-first century sensibilities and moral paradigm in trying to understand a book that is written from a very different context and set of sensibilities.  What I am doing here is purposefully stirring up the controversy of this passage in order to find evidence as to why, sociologically, it is found to be so offensive.  In other words, I guess you can say I am doing research.

As for the word "submit" I do honestly find this word being very nuanced in some senses of it's use.  Obviously, there is the very hardcore negative meaning of it that implies subjugation of one being over the other, but the word is not entirely evil given an applied understanding of varying degrees.

That's all sweet, but what you're really doing is sidestepping the bible and substituting your own morality and rules, because even if you're not fully aware of it you know that your own morality is far superior to that of any religion. (Which is not that hard, frankly even Ted Bundy has better morals than god.) If the people who wrote the bible were still in power and they saw your post they'd have you tortured for it, and you know it.

Becoming more aware of that daily, kOrsan.  This morning I pondered this: is it possible to "transcend," or supersede the morality of the Bible?  My guess is yes, considering how much more developed society has become within a moral context.  It should be that women are not scene as second class citizenry, or property; it should be that slavery be abhorred and abolished.  Most importantly, it should be that the moral paradigm of the current generation supersede and be superior to the moral paradigm of the generation before. 

All the Bible is, is a record of what came before us in terms of ethics and morality, and we can improve upon that which the Bible demonstrates.  Does this fly in the face of what many Christians consider to be the moral standard?  Yes!  But they contradict their own Scripture when the do in fact say that the Bible says is God's Word, when in fact, the Bible even says that God's Word is Jesus - the one who all Christianity claims to follow.

"they'd have you tortured for it, and you know it.

I was going to let this go, but I just couldn't. The people that wrote the bible were people that either knew God personally, or followed Jesus - like they actually saw Him and lived with Him. For those who are real followers of Jesus, not "Christians", but those who live a life according to Jesus, would have never tortured anyone. 

For those who are real followers of Jesus... bla bla bla

Dear mods,

can we please just have these theists go through a quick fallacy quiz before completing their signup on this website? It's tiring to see the same 2 or 3 non-arguments. It feels like teaching a toddler math and have them drool on you.

No true Scotsman! DRINK!

We should have an introduction video course:
-here's what christians like to say on TA (list hot topics)
-here's what their Bible actually says about that
-here's a bit of Abrahemic and Christian history
-here's a basic explanation of scientific facts and theories relevant to modern life
-here's a 101 prep course on logical fallacies

*Repeat for Judaism, Islam, and New Age Woo

Yeddie- how can you say "but those who live a life according to Jesus, would have never tortured anyone. "?

You believe that Jesus is god right? and god very clearly commands genocide and the murder of woman and children in the bible. He even gets pissed off with one of the Jews who did not want to murder all the woman and children.

Not to mention he sent his son to earth as a scapegoat to be tortured and murdered. Why is it that some many religious people don't comprehend the "big picture"? They take away half of the story.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service