A
archangel
Guest
dmp said:You don't find me...attractive??
attractive-" no way Jose" Try clay! I'm just a old fashioned guy...sorry!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
dmp said:You don't find me...attractive??
There is a CASUAL (loose) connection, but not a CAUSAL connection.archangel said:Just havin' some fun...but there still is a casual connection...No?
mom4 said: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 said:attractive-" no way Jose" Try clay! I'm just a old fashioned guy...sorry!
mom4 said: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.
dmp said:Don't hide it, Arch. Embrace yourself. I've even made a new avatar for you.
liberalogic said: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.liberalogic said: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.
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.mom4 said:(or "he will rule over you").
Joz said: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: )
Thanks, Joz! That means a lot, coming from you!Joz said: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.
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.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'.
mom4 said: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.
Certainly, dear! Would you mind if I made it from leftovers?dmp said:Go make a sammich for me, woman!
:
mom4 said:Certainly, dear! Would you mind if I made it from leftovers?
I've got some chili, taco dip, and pork roast. It might be a little soggy.dmp said:Depends what parts were left-over. :-D
mom4 said:I've got some chili, taco dip, and pork roast. It might be a little soggy.
mom4 said: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.
liberalogic said:What about the idea of men being allowed to have more than one wife in the bible?
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.liberalogic said:Okay, so you are saying that the consequence of her actions were punished by her having to be submissive to Adam?
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.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?