alek0

I absolutely agree with that, me too!

By the way, what is wrong with short hair? A woman can look attractive with short hair too.

Muffinstuffer

I don't think I've seen one post that actually tried to describe the Biblical basis yet. And I'm not entirely sure anyone WANTS to see it, but anyways. here it is...It comes from Ephesians 5:22-33.

The problem people seem to have is obviously with the first part, Ephesians 22-24. It basically seems to say "Bow down before your husband, slave!"

That's not it at all. Problem is, even plenty of Christians seem to think it is, which just makes it worse.

Luiseach

How would you interpret this, then?

'22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.'

alek0

When I mentioned Ephesians 5:22-33, I've been told that I misinterpret it to mean submission, that important part is that husbands should love their wives, and it is all about "equal but different"

I just don't get it... I also don't understand how muslim converts feel liberated. You don't need to become a religious convert to dress in unappealing clothes and feel comfortable. But I guess this is more of an issue of lack of confidence and need for justification. Seems that "my religion commands me" is a valid excuse for almost anything. If you do something because you feel like doing it, people are free to criticize you. If you do it for religious reasons, all of a sudden it is just fine. You got to love political correctness...

Rational BAC

Assume this is from one of Paul's epistles.-----------

Shouldn't take St Paul all that seriously. I don't think he even liked women.

sakrilege

Are there any quotes from jesus about women? He did only have male disciples.

Muffinstuffer

Well, if you really want to know, here goes.

People get stuck on the first sentence. They only see the word SUBMIT. They never manage to get to the second sentence.

Obviously the church is supposed to submit to Christ, because He's the main focus of it. HOWEVER....they tend to forget a bunch of stuff....such as the fact that He DIED for the church, He spent His entire ministry helping the sick, the poor, the downtrodden, the dying, etc. He did not spend His 3 years on Earth as the Son of God saying "I'm the man, I'm king, check me out." He spent them helping people.

Wives are supposed to 'submit' to the husbands, but this doesn't mean the wives are supposed to be of a lesser importance, or that they are to be beaten, have no value or self worth, etc. What it is supposed to mean is that they are supposed to submit their authority - as well as responsibility for actions taken - to the husband.

BUT - and this is where a lot of Christians screw it up, admittedly - it goes HAND IN HAND with Christ's command for the Husband.

The wife is supposed to submit authority and responsibility to the husband (and by authority I mean authority to run everyday affairs as well as spiritual - but I don't know ANYONE who is in authority who runs things by themselves - obviously men can't function without women to help them out ) BUT the man is supposed to love his wife as Christ loved the church, and to give his life for her if necessary. The woman may be submitting authority to him, but the man is supposed to use that authority correctly - in a 'Christlike' manner so to speak. Problem is, no one really tends to figure that out, and I AM talking about Christians. *L* They see 'submit to the husband' and it's all over. *L*

So yeah, the 'equal but different' thing applies here. The guy is 'in charge' but not because he's better....it's because the whole relationship between husband/wife should be as that of Christ/church.

villainess

Wait, wait, wait....

That's supposed to be the kinder, gentler, more acceptable explanation?

I hate to use emotionalistic language, but that's almost as rich as the old history text I read once that claimed that most masters hardly ever beat their slaves and fed them very well, really.

Dress it up in whatever "love" language you like, you're still talking about a belief system wherein one adult human being is discouraged from making choices and taking responsibility for life in favor of dependence on the intelligence, insight, and strength of another human being. This is frought with danger for both parties.

For instance, if I screw up my finances, or my partner screws up his, really badly, that can cause a little discomfort for us as a couple if we have to cut back our lifestyle for the rest of the month or if one of us chooses to give or lend the other some money. But if we had a joint checking account and he made all the decisions regarding it, firstly I'd have no recourse if he screwed it up, secondly he'd have no one to borrow money from since he'd have screwed up my supply as well as his, and third I'd never learn how to handle money on a day to day basis, so if he died or left or became incapacitated I'd really be up a creek. Even if God said to do it that way it still sounds like a really bad idea.

Anyway, no matter what commands Jesus supposedly gives the husband, what recourse does a wife who is being properly submissive have if he's not loving her like Christ supposedly loved the church? It's not like that's one of the legitimate reasons given for divorce. Pulling this 'round to back on topic, you just perfectly illustrated my second point from earlier in the thread - mistaking the idea that God gave someone a responsibility for the idea that that responsibilty will be carried out. Even Christians acknowledge that this is not so, claiming that we live in a "fallen world" with "free will." But I'm sure a lot of women make the same mistake and think that God will bring their husbands to better behavior, which is easier than standing up for themselves.

the_villainess

Rational BAC

Bringing up Paul again-----

He was very important as far as bringing the Jewish cult of Christianity to the Gentiles and making it more universally accessible. And it is a direct result of Paul's life and works that Christianity has become as large a religion as it is today.

That part is OK I guess. But sometimes I think that Jesus's teachings would have stood very well all by themselves without Paul's "help". Christianity would have turned out to be a much smaller religion, but much more of a valid one. Just my humble opinion.

But why anyone would take anything that St Paul wrote as being anything more than that of a very neurotic man is beyond me. I cherry pick a lot through Paul's epistles. Some good, some bad. Most bad.

Luiseach

*snip*

*snip*

For some reason, the excerpts included here stood out from the rest in stark relief for this particular Daughter of Eve. I can't imagine why...

[IRONY]Of course, if the husband loves the wife, then there should be no problem, as has been suggested....right?[/IRONY]