Fellow Christians, what does this passage mean to you?

What churches teach and what the majority of Christians belive are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS..... right Douche?

Keep spinning douche.... now you are suggesting that the majority of Christians DON'T believe what their churches teach them? Just admit you were caught in your douche baggery and are now embarrassed. It's ok, we all have known all along what you were trying to accomplish with this thread. You wanted to paint Christians in a bad light and you wanted to do so to them with a very broad brush. Your biggest problem was that you don't know shit when it comes to what Christians actually believe.
 
Okay, so NOW you want to drag this off into a discussion about the various beliefs and interpretations of the scripture by different groups? I don't think so, skippy! This is not about what people mistakenly believe the Bible says, but what the Bible actually says. Some people believe all kinds of CRAZY shit... was THAT your point? If so, you proved it by your own erroneous thinking about what the Bible said. Well done!

You said, in the other thread, that you didn't see anything wrong with considering Sharia law in American courts. Have you had a sudden awakening on that point of idiocy today too? Or are you still standing behind that statement? I never know with you... next you'll be telling us that you don't really believe what you said, that it's just "some Muslims" who you personally know, who've told you they believe this... but you really agree with all of us.... lol

The Bible does stipulate that wives are to submit to their husbands and husbands are to love and protect their wives as if they were holy, and submit to them... it is mutual. It further states that no distinction is made by gender, all are equal in the eyes of God. NOWHERE does it state that WOMEN are to be SUBSERVIENT to men.... NOWHERE! It also doesn't state that men should subjugate women... NOT IN THERE! It doesn't say men are greater or more important than women.... NOT IN THE BIBLE! These are ALL interpretations you have derived through limited and ignorant knowledge of the Bible, and you have been totally schooled on it here, by people who aren't even Christian believers!

Meanwhile, throughout the Koran and Sharia, women are relegated to property of the man, NEVER is it articulated they are EQUAL in ANY way.... as a matter of fucking fact.... MUCH of what Radical Islam is all about, is the Western custom of gender equality, and how it undermines the teachings of Islam. That's what makes us "infidels" to them, women's liberation! Yet, here you are with your profound ignorance of both Christian AND Muslim religions, telling us what you believe both religions are saying... as IF you have any clue!

The picture in scripture that is being painted from OT to NT, is of a man and a woman joining together in love and respect. But to be clear, the woman is asked to submit to her husband as a helper. I have watched this go on for days and it's silly to think that someone who does not understand the full counsel of scripture, will ever get what is being described.

From the beginning in the Garden, Eve was created as a help mate and companion... this does not make her less valuable. Man was created to work; protect; and govern. A woman's love; encouragement; and help was to be sought by her husband- she was not created as his slave- but as his helper. That said, within the Christian community scripture has been abused to claim a woman's submission is equal to her being subservient and subject to her husbands command. This idea is completely destroyed when you read all of 1st Peter. Husbands are to submit equally to their wives- To love them sacrificially as Christ loved the Church. They are commanded to live with their wives in understanding (have men not complained down the ages that they cannot understand women?) God commands women to submit to their husbands as Christ submitted to God- in trust and in love. Women trust their husbands to lead and care for the family. This does not mean that a couple does not submit to one another in making decisions- examining all the options; costs; and sacrifices-just that, at the end of the day, the man is responsible to make a final decision- that is no easy burden. What if he chooses unwisely? The tension between men and women is related to the fall. It will always be there as long as sin exists. This is why choosing a partner should be done carefully and with a good understanding of yourself and your desires.
 
The picture in scripture that is being painted from OT to NT, is of a man and a woman joining together in love and respect. But to be clear, the woman is asked to submit to her husband as a helper. I have watched this go on for days and it's silly to think that someone who does not understand the full counsel of scripture, will ever get what is being described.

From the beginning in the Garden, Eve was created as a help mate and companion... this does not make her less valuable. Man was created to work; protect; and govern. A woman's love; encouragement; and help was to be sought by her husband- she was not created as his slave- but as his helper. That said, within the Christian community scripture has been abused to claim a woman's submission is equal to her being subservient and subject to her husbands command. This idea is completely destroyed when you read all of 1st Peter. Husbands are to submit equally to their wives- To love them sacrificially as Christ loved the Church. They are commanded to live with their wives in understanding (have men not complained down the ages that they cannot understand women?) God commands women to submit to their husbands as Christ submitted to God- in trust and in love. Women trust their husbands to lead and care for the family. This does not mean that a couple does not submit to one another in making decisions- examining all the options; costs; and sacrifices-just that, at the end of the day, the man is responsible to make a final decision- that is no easy burden. What if he chooses unwisely? The tension between men and women is related to the fall. It will always be there as long as sin exists. This is why choosing a partner should be done carefully and with a good understanding of yourself and your desires.

So, no matter how much you try to pad the language and make it soft, no matter how sinsative the man is toward the woman, no matter how much he consideres her opinion, at the end of the say she must submit to his final decision, correct?

Are Husbands to submit to wives as Christ submitted to God, or are Husbands simply to submit? Is there a difference, if not why does the Bible describe the two obligations differently?
 
So, no matter how much you try to pad the language and make it soft, no matter how sinsative the man is toward the woman, no matter how much he consideres her opinion, at the end of the say she must submit to his final decision, correct?

Are Husbands to submit to wives as Christ submitted to God, or are Husbands simply to submit? Is there a difference, if not why does the Bible describe the two obligations differently?

If he considers her his equal, her opinion would certainly mean more then just some advise. If she values his responsibilities to make a final decision and trusts his judgement, why would she not have confidence in his making a decision? You seem to struggle with the inward workings of how marriages operate. Again you want to see biblical submission as some sort of dictatorship- it just isn't.
 
If he considers her his equal, her opinion would certainly mean more then just some advise. If she values his responsibilities to make a final decision and trusts his judgement, why would she not have confidence in his making a decision? You seem to struggle with the inward workings of how marriages operate. Again you want to see biblical submission as some sort of dictatorship- it just isn't.

Well if the two have a disagreement, when it comes down to the brass tax, who decides? who submits to who?
 
Lets say they are going to buy a house, he wants the one on the corner and she wants the one at the end of the street. They discuss it till they are blue in the face, weeks go bye, they cant come to a compromise. She is sure her choice is best for the family, he is sure his choice is best for the family. He considers going with what she wants, but finally decides that giving in is not what is best for the family.

What happens?
 
Well if the two have a disagreement, when it comes down to the brass tax, who decides? who submits to who?

What should happen? If the husband is submitting to his wife as Christ submitted to the church...that is sacrificially, what do you think the outcome would be? If a wife is submitting to her husband as Christ submitted to his Father...that is in obedience and trust, how can they not come to an agreed upon decision? You keep wanting a tyranny to exist- I am telling you that in the majority of Christian marriages, that is simply not the case. I already acknowledged that there exists abuse over interpretation- but it is the exception, not the rule. It is also the misguided intention of those outside the church to think they understand biblical submission- they just don't.
 
What should happen? If the husband is submitting to his wife as Christ submitted to the church...that is sacrificially, what do you think the outcome would be? If a wife is submitting to her husband as Christ submitted to his Father...that is in obedience and trust, how can they not come to an agreed upon decision? You keep wanting a tyranny to exist- I am telling you that in the majority of Christian marriages, that is simply not the case. I already acknowledged that there exists abuse over interpretation- but it is the exception, not the rule. It is also the misguided intention of those outside the church to think they understand biblical submission- they just don't.

You keep avoiding the question, who makes the decision if a disagrement exists...?
 
I never said Tyranny existed, I did say that the wife has to submit to the final decisions of the husband. I belvie I am correct in this...
 
You keep avoiding the question, who makes the decision if a disagrement exists...?

You keep avoiding reality. Who should submit first, according to the way passages in 1st Peter are written? Would the husband be guilty of tyranny if he made a decision that did not deal directly with protection and provision? Which are the only circumstances where a need for him to make a unilateral decision would be called for, if he himself is submitting. That a couple may imperfectly attempt to live with one another in submission, is no fault of God's or scripture, but only of imperfect human beings.
 
Lets say they are going to buy a house, he wants the one on the corner and she wants the one at the end of the street. They discuss it till they are blue in the face, weeks go bye, they cant come to a compromise. She is sure her choice is best for the family, he is sure his choice is best for the family. He considers going with what she wants, but finally decides that giving in is not what is best for the family.

What happens?

They usually find a different house.
 
Wrong dumbass. I was raised in the Catholic church. Not once did they ever preach that women should be subservient. But thanks for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that what I stated was correct.

Douche bag.

Well, they aren't allowed to preach, there are still some priests who do not alllow women readers or altar girls. They are denied the priesthood. The church has grown, but it still doesn't promote equal rights for women.
 
Last edited:
Jarod... the only WACK on this thread is YOU. You seem bent on getting some kind of gotcha moment on Christians.

As for the Catholic Priesthood. It is because of tradition. Jesus chose his 12 disciples/apostles and all were men. Those 12 then went out and chose other men to be ordained and so forth.... It is believed that because that was Jesus's intention, it should be carried forward.

That said, Pope John Paul II came out of Vatican II and stated emphatically that the church believes in the equality of women. He specifically said years later when reaffirming that only men could be priests that it was not because women were inferior or incapable. But that it was the tradition of the Church to maintain what Jesus started and the apostles continued. Many Eastern Churches that broke from the Catholic church still believe this as well. Others have altered their views and now allow women to be ordained. There are even bishops within the Catholic church who have secretly allowed women to go through the ordination process and have ordained those women as Priests (though Rome does not recognize them as such).

Now I know you want some big gotcha moment and you are looking for ways that you can minimize and mock their beliefs, so by all means.... let loose with more of your stupidity. Show us how 'tolerant' you are of other people's beliefs.

Yeah, talk is cheap, I was a woman in the Catholic Church, there is no equality.
 
Back
Top