Here is a link Submit Ye Olde Hag (http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Wife-Submit-... )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
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.
Ummm, no, they didn't. I suggest you backtrack in one of the other threads to where you were provided quite a few links and a good amount of information on how and when the bible was written.
I would agree that (most) of the New Testament backs up your statement. But history does not. We can easily list countless examples of Christians murdering other Christians because they didn't believe the right thing. When you say they weren't "true Christians," you just invite the question as to why so many thousands of people would call themselves Christians through the years if they weren't really following Jesus at all.
Could not have guessed, personally. :-D
In all seriousness, you are right to do so.
Belle, I did not forget it, but will admit to conveniently leaving it out. Why? Because I wanted to stir up the controversy that such a verse, by itself brings. Why? Because it proves my point, and your answer is very similar to the one that I have often used in responding to the Church's or church leader's insistence on the position of women in the church and within a family unit. In other words, you are providing evidence within an argument I entirely support, and that is that this verse is misused, mis-interpreted, and for all intensive purposes, should not even be in the Bible for what many Christians claim to be. However, I am very much aware of why it is in there to begin with - as a number of scholars are - and it has nothing to do with "being a perfect image of God's "design" for marriage. It had more to do with being more palatable to individual citizens of city-states within the context of the societal norms of ancient society (p1129, of the Harper Collins Bible Commentary).
It is understood within scholarly circles that first generation Pauline Christianity rejected many traditional family values as it pertained to the society within early Christians found themselves living in. They welcomed into their groups women and slaves without their husbands and masters, granted equal status to all in baptism, and allowed women to share leadership with men. Pagans regularly criticized Christians for such "socially irresponsible and dangerous anti-family behavior, and in response, the Christians back away from the more culturally offensive of these practices and reassert the conventional patriarchal standards and pagan values that formed the foundation of pagan society. (Taken from The Harper Collins Bible Commentary, p. 1129).
One could easily guess why such a compromise was made, and how now convoluted it is to assert and apply the societal standards of an ancient and less-evolved society to what constitutes a twenty-first century mindset of ethical behavior.
All that nonsense only gives rise to shit like this http://www.fixthefamily.com/blog/6-reasons-to-not-send-your-daughte...
Lovely! If I had a daughter, I would totally follow what these quacks suggest! Umm...NO! And I suppose that because I suffered from ill-health over the last year, I would be considered lazy because I could not work, and currently have only secured a part-time job as a barista. Thus, "forcing" my wife to work the slavish hours of a full-time job that she is good at and went to school for, and putting her at risk to sin with other men staring at her breasts all day long..
If you liked that, you will love pledging your virginity to your father at a purity ball and dedicating your life to shooting out as many baby Christians as your vagina can tolerate (the aptly named Quiverfull Movement). Hey it could be worse...they could be locking these girls into chastity belts. At least we don't burn women anymore for picking up forbidden knowledge or pissing off the local teenagers (which itself, is so much more humane than stoning adulterous sluts, as the Bible tells us to). /rant
You need to fix your link. Your current link leads to HTTP . com, which is a malware site designed to be accidentally linked to by people who don't clear the link field all the way out before pasting your link.
As for your question, I'm not a woman, but your bible has all sorts of things to say about homosexuals, of which I am one. I was an Atheist before I discovered my homosexuality, but had it been the other way around, I'm sure that I personally would have spit in the pastor's face had he told me that I was going to hell for simply being what I was, a condition that I had absolutely no control over at all. If you actually read that book from cover to cover, you'll find that it's full of bad ethics, poor moral choices, false logistics, and metaphors that could have just as easily been hallucinations. I became an Atheist after reading the bible, as did millions of other nonbelievers. All it takes is to read it, and think it through in the context that they want you to think about it, and realize that it's bullshit.
No sane and rational person lives by the bible. They may say they do, but they do not. If you're willing to cherry pick the bible for the parts you like and leave out the parts you don't like, then it's not actual belief, it's just Atheism in denial.
To be honest, I have no problem with religious people. My problem is with their beliefs, and that one belief in particular that tells them to try and make all the other people around them adopt their beliefs. Proselytizing is one of the most annoying, and in my eyes, dishonest things there is. It's the equivalent to telling little kids that you have candy in your van. You're luring in people with false ideas. And I say false ideas and not lies because you actually believe your own propaganda, and you believe it with the exact same lack of evidence as you market it to everyone around you.
Atheists aren't luring innocent children to the van with claims of candy. We're pointing to a table in broad daylight with a bowl of fruit on it. Fruit doesn't taste as good as candy does, but it's healthy for you and will help you grow. Candy will rot your teeth, and eventually kill you if you eat too much of it.
P.S. In the context of that analogy, isn't it strange that there was a forbidden fruit tree, and a magical kingdom that you can only see if you're dead and can't come back to life and tell everyone about it?
P.P.S. Through out this post, I use the word "You". I'm not speaking of Barry personally, but of theists in general. And even then, I'm only grouping in the most zealous believers. Many of my friends are theists, and are good people, at least when not talking about the bible.
There. The link is fixed. Boy, do I feel dumb right now! Any further problems, let me know, and I'll just do the work of posting the actual verses myself.
I'm not a woman but I have thought about this...
As a Christian I never had a big problem with this verse, because of the second half of it. But as I become more honest about what the Bible really says, I have more and more problems.
Because, why are women supposed to submit? The answer is because they're inferior. Christians say that's not it, but I don't know how you can read the bible and not reach that conclusion. 1 Timothy 2:11-12 says “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing…"
1 Corinthians 11 says women must cover their heads. Christians say that was just a cultural thing. But listen to why women should cover: “ But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man…A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head.”
So, woman was made for man, and woman was made to naturally be under authority of man. There’s no room for equality here unless you assume that the Bible is wrong.
I think the reason the church is so eager to hit the first part of that verse, but not the second, is because our modern reading of the text is so dependent on a gender equality belief that we reached apart from the Bible. As you said yourself:
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.
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.
In other words, we bring the answer we already know to the Bible, and then 'interpret' the bible so that it says what we need it to say.
If we know what is right and wrong, and have the courage to stand up for it, then why do we need to bring in the Bible at all? It adds nothing useful to this equation.