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

http://www.thinkatheist.com/page/think-atheist-guidelines

~Admin

Views: 1368

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yes, when you get right down to it, the Bible and the Church (particularly the right-wing and/or fundamentalists) does suggest, theologically, that women are spiritually inferior to men.  I actually once posed this question to the now former senior pastor that I once worked with by exposing the double-standard he and other leaders seemingly either supported or down-right ignored when it came to the role of women in the church compared to the role of women in society (i.e: most of the women that were in the church I worked for held positions of authority outside of the home, many of those positions of authority being over men, and may have been the bread winners from time to time when it came to providing income for the family.  The only response I could get from him was, "It's just different in the church."  So essentially, he justified the complete negation of what the church championed as moral and Godly living when it came to family structure and gender roles outside the church walls by side-stepping/avoiding the challenge within the question, and all because he took issue with how I was "allowing" my wife to use her financial expertise in managing our family budget, as well as volunteering her time teaching others (men and women alike) fiscal responsibility at the local YMCA.  In other words, he didn't like the fact that I was letting her "tell men what to do with their money." 

As I have come to learn, unfortunately through trial and error, the only good relationship between a man and woman, is one born out of mutual respect for each other.  Sacrifice, compassion, love, and honor are virtues to which a relationship or marriage can thrive.  The more I think about it, and read responses here, the more I find that "submission" is just not the right word to describe, nor is it the right place for the woman to be, her role within a relationship with a man.  There is just too much room, as you point out, for abuse.

I have, in fact, seen two relationships turn abusive towards women whose husbands used this verse to justify their behavior.  In both cases, I advised, and wound up directly assisting one, the women to leave their husbands.  Both now are happier.

As for the men, one is still the same sh*t-bag, and the other listened to reason and sought therapy for his behaviors.

Do not be ashamed of your response. It was a wonderful one because it accurately communicates the truth of how you feel.  Sometimes I believe that we under value our emotions, and by default over value logic.  I do not think the over valuing of logic is intentional, but simply a reaction to how emotions can be so powerful that it can be scary and dangerous in expressing them.  That is why logic is so important - to balance the emotional side out so that we do not become irrational; however, I do believe that becoming overly dependent on logic is detrimental because in doing so we lose the other half that makes us human by stuffing our emotions down deep.  Thus, always a balance there must be, and quite the balancing act it is to experience.

It's ironic actually.

From analyzing the texts for writing style, etc., it would appear that the most misogynistic parts of the bible were not written by Paul.  Timothy, for instance, is entirely a forgery--it says it's Paul but it isn't.  There's very little doubt of this outside of literalist circles.

Other bits in the middle of genuine Paul books are probably later insertions (in other words also forgeries).  Paul regularly addressed prominent women members of his churches in his epistles.

Christianity is misogynistic, but I don't think it's actually Paul's fault.  It's the fault of the later church for selecting such things to be in the bible.

I find the idea of a wife who is completely submissive to be the most boring possibility out there. 

A. The Christian church is not perfect. 

B. People, even Christians, take this verse out of context

Eph 5:22-25 say, "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her"

The word submit, like you say, seems really negative in this paragraph. But to submit to your husband as you do to the Lord is different. Submitting to the Lord gives you the greatest joy. Think of it like this, when you were little, one of your parents said don't do 'this'. You didn't understand, but they knew that 'this' would not make you happy, but rather not doing 'this' would bring you full joy. This is kinda what submitting to God is. 

Also, The text goes on to talk about Husbands and how to love their wives. It says to love her as Christ loves the church. Jesus gave his life for the church. Jesus was in heaven and came down to a broken world so that he could be with his people(the church) again. This is saying way more than women submit to your husband. Rather, husband and wife live together, loving each other by sacrificing and put each other above self. 

C.  Women during Jesus's time were the lowest of low. But Jesus still loved them. In John 4, you can view a story of a women that slept around with many guys/husbands, yet Jesus still loved them. 

Jesus was in heaven and came down to a broken world so that he could be with his people(the church) again.

 Are you 12?

Jesus gave his life for the church.  

Do we really have to condescend, and tell you the giant gaping anus of a plot hole in that story? Jesus is god, and god gave his life to appease himself and forgive the sins he created in the first place?

Women during Jesus's time were the lowest of low.

There it is. I wish more theists were as forthright about their misogyny as you are. Kudos for that, at least you're not trying to be sneaky about it.

Think of it like this, when you were little, one of your parents said don't do 'this'. You didn't understand, but they knew that 'this' would not make you happy, but rather not doing 'this' would bring you full joy. This is kinda what submitting to God is. 

But see, this is the kind of sneaky shit you theists pull. You're trying to make it sound as if being a little kid and having a patronizing sky-daddy is something good. How sick and twisted.

Let me extend your facile analogy.

God is kinda like a parent who tells you not to touch the stove, but he leaves the stove on, and in your reach, because he's an irresponsible idiot. Now you're a curious little kid, so eventually you do touch the stove. But instead of letting you just burn your hand, god grabs you, tells you you and every offspring you will ever have are now cursed forever! You are dirty worthless sinner, and you have disobeyed him, so he turns your hand into a pillar of salt, he kills your puppy, and then he smashes your face into the hot stove and tells you you're going to burn forever and ever while your flesh melts and fuses to the stove.

But before all that, he tells you to fuck your sister so you can populate the house, while he watches.

Now then, have fun being a little child for your entire life, but us grown ups have shit to do. 

The word submit, like you say, seems really negative in this paragraph. But to submit to your husband as you do to the Lord is different. Submitting to the Lord gives you the greatest joy. Think of it like this, when you were little, one of your parents said don't do 'this'. You didn't understand, but they knew that 'this' would not make you happy, but rather not doing 'this' would bring you full joy. This is kinda what submitting to God is.

The only problem with your argument (and it's a BIG problem) is that you can easily say within it's context that women need to treat men as if they were God, and if they were God, then their word and judgement is infallible, and if their word and judgement is infallible then there obviously is something wrong with the woman's judgement because, after all: her husband knows better than she does as to what it's like to be a woman and to be her as an individual.

In the same way, we can also use what I say in the paragraph above within relationship to the church and it's place with the man: that men need to treat the church as if it were God, and if it was God, then the church's word and judgement is infallible, and if their word and judgement is infallible they there is obviously something wrong with the man's judgement because, after all: the church is God and God knows best.  So if the church tells a man that his wife cannot deny him sex, then it obviously must be okay to rape his wife because the church says that a woman cannot deny her husband sex, that she must submit and be the all-purpose cum dumpster for the man's cock even though she does not want to have sex.  In other words, her judgement and primacy as a human being matters not because it is inferior to the man's, just as the man's is inferior to the church's.

Which brings me to another point: following this logic, then it would be right to say that the church's judgement is inferior to God's, and while it is true that the church admits this in theory, the reality is that it does not admit this in practice because if it did, we would see less injustice committed by the church against individuals, and even cultures. However, history shows us otherwise, my own personal experience and the experience of others on here and elsewhere shows otherwise, which then leads to a particular conclusion regarding the logic of women submitting to men, men submitting to the church, and then the church submitting to God: either God is a really big f**king sadistic prick, or the church is not fit to be God's messenger because it is inept in doing exactly what it says it means to do, thus it needs to be done away with or completely overhauled (again), or there is no God - just men drunkenly obsessed with power in controlling the lives of others.

So, then, I ask which one is it?  As a theist, to ask such questions is unsettling, but they must be asked.  And they must be asked because those who profess God must be kept honest in their response, because many misrepresent the truth of what is in front of them.

Forgive me if I sound harsh and contemptuous, but if you would have walked alongside me this year, you would certainly understand my condition of response.

Oh, and I forgot to address your part a directly:

A. The Christian church is not perfect.

Using this as an excuse is akin to a soldier guilty of war crimes saying, "I was only following orders."  It does not justify, nor excuse behavior, that is inherently known to be wrong.  Just as I pointed out in my argument above, the church admits to not being perfect, but only in theory and not in practice.  In other words, it always represents itself as being perfect, aka: Biblical - a now well used term among a number of churches as a selling point to the masses that it's got it's theology "right" as opposed to all the other churches/denominations in town.  However, nothing could be further from the truth as it is a fallible institution.  Maybe I could cut it more slack if it admitted fallibility, but it doesn't because "being" right is far more important than getting it right within the church's mindset of image.

First of all, people are individuals... and what brings joy to an individual varies greatly. No one (not even some god) can impose one ultimate idea of joy on all of humanity. The fact is, no parent knows what will bring their child the greatest joy. Parents are supposed to discover what makes their child happy, and treat them as an individual, and not shame them for being different than they expected or hoped. This description of God makes him sound like a horrible, tyrannical parent who's trying to live vicariously through their kid. A parent may have some wisdom about life, but that doesn't make them all-knowing arbiters of truth. And allowing your kid to get scalded on a hot stove to teach them a lesson is disgusting.

And it's all so patronizing. We're actually not children. We've been children, and we've learned right from wrong, and we've learned what happens when we touch a hot stove, and we've had our hearts broken, and we've made mistakes, and we've improved and grown up. Women are not perpetual children, either. Men do not always, or even often, know what's best for us. And thinking that loving your wife is somehow equal to her submitting to you is utter bullshit. It's patronizing! Someone's love of you does not give them authority over you, nor does it give them insight into what's in your heart or mind.

Lastly... in case you were not aware, sex requires at least two people. These women who were "sleeping around" were sleeping with men. The idea of sexual purity is absurd, for one. And why wouldn't it also apply to men? Why the hypocrisy and the double standard? Because the Bible was written by men! As if that weren't utterly obvious. The status of men is better in the Bible because... DUH... it was written by men. OF COURSE men are going to write themselves as the hero, as the character that gets to have consequence-free sex, that gets to be in charge, that gets to call the shots. How convenient. C'mon. Seriously. C'mon. Dudes have NEVER been more moral than women. Ever. That's a piss-poor rationalization of the awful treatment of women in Bible times, or any time. Having sex does not make anyone, not even women, the lowest of the low.

Rape does, however. Murder does. Genocide does. Torture does. Abuse does. And all of those things... the Abrahamic god is guilty of. He's the lowest of the low.

Interesting info about the church suggesting abused wives get counseling and it exacerbating the problem. That is exactly what my mom and step dad did for years. And that must have greatly contributed to why she stayed, that and the shame of being divorced... again. But she should've left. She should have saved herself, and saved us. It's hard for me to feel pity for her, but reading your account softens my resentment of her a little. It's not just me that has had to deal with this kind of brainwashing. My mother, too... and she still does deal with it. She's still with this man. I've made as much peace with the situation as I can, but she grieves the fact that we're not a happy, "whole" family. She has continued to hope it would all someday be resolved and seem as though nothing had happened. The last time I visited, I calmly told her it would never be totally okay... that there would always be a little tension, and that I would never totally trust my step dad.

The Bible is so full of evil. I wish moral theists would just chuck it already. If they believe in a kind, just god... he doesn't reside in that book.

Kudos to your Sammy!  He is quite the good man for that.

RSS

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service