For liberallogic: Bible Topics

[archangel]

You don't find me...attractive??

attractive-" no way Jose" Try clay! I'm just a old fashioned guy...sorry!

 

[Nienna]

Just havin' some fun...but there still is a casual connection...No?

There is a CASUAL (loose) connection, but not a CAUSAL connection.

I'm sorry, I missed the "fun" part. Sometimes I'm a little slow about jokes.

 

[archangel]

There is a CASUAL (loose) connection, but not a CAUSAL connection.

I'm sorry, I missed the "fun" part. Sometimes I'm a little slow about jokes.

My sense of humor...Sucks!... But hey thats just me..carry on! :funnyface

 

[dmp]

attractive-" no way Jose" Try clay! I'm just a old fashioned guy...sorry!

Don't hide it, Arch. Embrace yourself. I've even made a new avatar for you.

 

[liberalogic]

Still, though, while I understand the connection that you are making between love and the reciprocity of the relationship between man and woman, that one line that God said (he will be your master), just really sticks with me. We can dissect relationships all we want, but there is obviously a sense of obedience that he is attempting to instill in the woman. Maybe it's not as exaggerated as the Catholics think it is, but there is, to at least some extent, an inequality.

Agreed. Sort of. Agreed that it is a precedent. I wouldn't use the word "superiority," but "authority." And, the fact that this is specific to the husband/wife relationship; it does not apply to ALL men and women. It is a hierarchy of responsiblity within a family.


I can't answer for Catholicism. I disagree with some of its practices.

It became a tradition throughout history 1)because sin must be punished, and 2) because men have abused their authority throughout history. As Darin said, look at the NT. Wives must submit and respect, but husbands are to love sacrificially. Men throughout history stopped at "Wives, submit to your husbands," instead of reading on and taking to heart "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church." This is the result of man's sin, not the result of God's plan.

 

[archangel]

Don't hide it, Arch. Embrace yourself. I've even made a new avatar for you.

You watch way too many commercials...color is cool on background...but hey what can I say...I'm a ultra conservative Independent...carry on =D=

ps: I am assuming you are referring to the 'Dolly Parton' song..."Coat of many colors" if not...??????

 

[dmp]

Still, though, while I understand the connection that you are making between love and the reciprocity of the relationship between man and woman, that one line that God said (he will be your master), just really sticks with me. We can dissect relationships all we want, but there is obviously a sense of obedience that he is attempting to instill in the woman. Maybe it's not as exaggerated as the Catholics think it is, but there is, to at least some extent, an inequality.

You're caught up on semantics, and not context.

Of course things aren't equal. Men can't have babies. Women can't drive (sorry, being silly). Unequal does NOT mean 'bad'. Just 'different'.

 

[manu1959]

why do people apply the lens of today's world on words that were written for a context of life 2000 years ago ..... then get all pissy about semantics so as to avoid the intent and meaning of the story ....

or as a wise man once said....you are so focused on debating the texture of the bark on the tree in the forest you dont realise you are looking at a rock in the desert.....

or as another wise man once said.....you are so busy trying to be right that you will never be correct

 

[Nienna]

Still, though, while I understand the connection that you are making between love and the reciprocity of the relationship between man and woman, that one line that God said (he will be your master), just really sticks with me. We can dissect relationships all we want, but there is obviously a sense of obedience that he is attempting to instill in the woman. Maybe it's not as exaggerated as the Catholics think it is, but there is, to at least some extent, an inequality.

Not obedience, necessarily. Submission. Fine line, but there is a difference. Not mindlessness, not control of every part of life. Just, when it comes down to a decision that must be made, as long as the decision does not conflict with the woman's relationship with God, she should "submit," or allow the husband to lead.

Also, when God said, "he will be your master" (or "he will rule over you"), it wasn't a decree from God that she is now worth less than her husband. God was just enlightening her about the consequences of her sin. Like when my daughter forgot her library book at school. She called me at home to bring it up to her. But I thought it was more important for her to have a lesson in responsibility, and besides, I had just put my youngest down for a nap. So her library book was late, and she wasn't allowed to check out a new one. I didn't put her down, tell her that she was stupid and doomed to a life with no library books; neither did God declare Eve to be worth less than her husband or doom her to a life of mindlessly obedient drudgery. The simple consequence was that, due to Adam's new responsibilities, he wasn't going to be "all that" to her any more.

And I must stress again, this is not for ALL women and ALL men. It is only meant to be a hierarchical structure within a family for the purpose of provision and protection. In other relationships between men and women, there is no difference. No inequality. No hierarchy. It ONLY applies to husbands and wives.

 

[Joz]

(or "he will rule over you").

I will not take away from what Mom has said in this thread. I think she has done a marvelous job in her explaination of all this.
But I will add this. I think this is more an indication of how society would be set up rather than the actual act of a husband being ruler over a woman. We have kings over kingdoms, masters over slaves, bosses over employees......sort of a 'pecking order'.

(Only a man would keep bringing this up. :tng: )

 

[dmp]

I will not take away from what Mom has said in this thread. I think she has done a marvelous job in her explaination of all this.
But I will add this. I think this is more an indication of how society would be set up rather than the actual act of a husband being ruler over a woman. We have kings over kingdoms, masters over slaves, bosses over employees......sort of a 'pecking order'.

(Only a man would keep bringing this up. :tng: )

...right - it could be God was foretelling, not dictating.

 

[Nienna]

I will not take away from what Mom has said in this thread. I think she has done a marvelous job in her explaination of all this.

Thanks, Joz! That means a lot, coming from you!

But I will add this. I think this is more an indication of how society would be set up rather than the actual act of a husband being ruler over a woman. We have kings over kingdoms, masters over slaves, bosses over employees......sort of a 'pecking order'.

I do have to disagree with this, though. I really think it means just what it says. That a husband will have SOME (NOT TOTAL) authority over his wife, and over his household.

 

[dmp]

Thanks, Joz! That means a lot, coming from you!

I do have to disagree with this, though. I really think it means just what it says. That a husband will have SOME (NOT TOTAL) authority over his wife, and over his household.

Go make a sammich for me, woman!

:

 

[Nienna]

Go make a sammich for me, woman!

:

Certainly, dear! Would you mind if I made it from leftovers?

 

[dmp]

Certainly, dear! Would you mind if I made it from leftovers?

Depends what parts were left-over. :-D

 

[Nienna]

Depends what parts were left-over. :-D

I've got some chili, taco dip, and pork roast. It might be a little soggy.

 

[dmp]

I've got some chili, taco dip, and pork roast. It might be a little soggy.

I've never been more turned on in my life... :wank:

 

[liberalogic]

Thanks, Joz! That means a lot, coming from you!

I do have to disagree with this, though. I really think it means just what it says. That a husband will have SOME (NOT TOTAL) authority over his wife, and over his household.

Okay, so you are saying that the consequence of her actions were punished by her having to be submissive to Adam? If that's correct, then I think I understand what you're getting at. And I do think that you are doing a marvelous job with this and I'm using it as a tutorial. Though, I still disagree with the interpretation. What about the idea of men being allowed to have more than one wife in the bible?

 

[dmp]

What about the idea of men being allowed to have more than one wife in the bible?

Throughout history God has given people what they asked for, based on their cultural norms. Israel wanted a "King" just like every other nation then, so God gave them a King. God has a way of, at times, giving us what we ask for until we realize we don't want it.

During the time a large portion of the Old Testament was written (and actually, probably still today in some parts of the world) men had mulitiple wives. Was culturally acceptable. God 'may have' added guidence on how to treat the situation. Having one legal wife vs three legal wives probably won't have much affect on one's eternity. Sanity, yes.

 

[Nienna]

Okay, so you are saying that the consequence of her actions were punished by her having to be submissive to Adam?

Yeeeeees..... to a certain extent. Just being careful to understand that she is not expected to subvert her entire personality, or mindlessly obey. Just that he has become the head of the household hierarchy. But through the ages, men have abused their authority and subjugated women WAAAAY more than the initial punishment required. Maybe that's what God forsaw (as Darin said) when He used the word "master" ("lord"). God's curse was to Eve in this way. He didn't turn around and say to Adam, "Okay, you're her master. Whatever you say she has to do." He didn't place Adam above her. This is just the way it worked out, as mankind became more and more sinful.

If that's correct, then I think I understand what you're getting at. And I do think that you are doing a marvelous job with this and I'm using it as a tutorial. Though, I still disagree with the interpretation. What about the idea of men being allowed to have more than one wife in the bible?

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve and Violet and Dorothy. Again, men abusing their power. Keep in mind, much of the OT is an example of how NOT to act. Just because it's written in the Bible doesn't mean that God sanctions it. The OT points out over and over how people have screwed up, and thus are in need of a savior.