Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Religion
 How to be a Christian "Head of Household"
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

Hal
Skeptic Friend

USA
302 Posts

Posted - 08/03/2012 :  10:03:48  Show Profile Send Hal a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'm not posting the link to the original article because a) ick, and b) only the General can provide the appropriate commentary:

Jesus' General: It Ain't Easy Being A Christian Head Of Household

Hey, I'll admit I'm rarely as assertive as I should be, in most situations, but it honestly never occurred to me that I was failing my family by not "punishing" my wife for disagreeing with me (in front of the kids, yet), or by not requiring her to say "Yes Sir" in response to my commands.



Well, the eye roll is my first reaction. After about five seconds of thought, that turns into , on behalf of the women who believe they must not merely tolerate, but actively support this sort of relationship with their husbands.


Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King Jr.

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 08/03/2012 :  11:09:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Every time I have suggested that my significant other respond with "Yes, Sir!" to one of my requests, it has always been met with the same response.

Gales of derisive laughter.

I gotta pick stupider women.


Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

Convinced
Skeptic Friend

USA
384 Posts

Posted - 08/03/2012 :  13:27:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Convinced a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Being the head of the household does not mean being a tyrant. Women should submit to their husbands willingly, no man should demand it from her. No matter what the wife does however the command for the husband remains the same:

Eph 5:25-28 - Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

Col 3:19 commands husbands to not be harsh with their wives.

Proverbs 5:18-19 also says to love your wife romantically.

Christian marriage is one of mutual respect and love for each other becasue of what jesus has done for us on the cross. Christ loved the church with compassion, mercy, forgiveness, respect, and selflessness even to death for the church. This is the biblical example for husbands to love their wives. They are equal in Christ (Gal 3:28)

Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17)
Go to Top of Page

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 08/03/2012 :  13:29:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Seriously, not a troll?

"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking

"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus
Go to Top of Page

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2558 Posts

Posted - 08/03/2012 :  19:24:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Convinced

Being the head of the household does not mean being a tyrant. Women should submit to their husbands willingly, no man should demand it from her. No matter what the wife does however the command for the husband remains the same:

Eph 5:25-28 - Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

Col 3:19 commands husbands to not be harsh with their wives.

Proverbs 5:18-19 also says to love your wife romantically.

Christian marriage is one of mutual respect and love for each other becasue of what jesus has done for us on the cross. Christ loved the church with compassion, mercy, forgiveness, respect, and selflessness even to death for the church. This is the biblical example for husbands to love their wives. They are equal in Christ (Gal 3:28)

Equal in christ? Bullshit. If they were equal, there'd be no "submission".

What do you thin about that article by the way?

>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.
Go to Top of Page

The Rat
SFN Regular

Canada
1342 Posts

Posted - 08/03/2012 :  20:25:26   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit The Rat's Homepage Send The Rat a Private Message  Reply with Quote

If I told my wife that she had to answer me with "Yes Sir", my long-departed tonsils would be quickly replaced with reasonable facsimiles from a couple of feet lower down.


Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.

You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II

Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 08/03/2012 :  23:05:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Convinced

Being the head of the household does not mean being a tyrant. Women should submit to their husbands willingly, no man should demand it from her. No matter what the wife does however the command for the husband remains the same:

Eph 5:25-28 - Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

Col 3:19 commands husbands to not be harsh with their wives.

Proverbs 5:18-19 also says to love your wife romantically.

Christian marriage is one of mutual respect and love for each other becasue of what jesus has done for us on the cross. Christ loved the church with compassion, mercy, forgiveness, respect, and selflessness even to death for the church. This is the biblical example for husbands to love their wives. They are equal in Christ (Gal 3:28)
What a benighted and paternalistic attitude! Yes, and all from the Bible. [Sigh.] And it's even worse than you let on.

Of course, as is usual when Christians quote their scripture, there is a bit of quote-mining and cherry-picking going on, hmmm?

A fuller quote than your carefully selected verses 25-28 from Ephesians, with added emphasis:
5:20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
Your Colossians 3:19, back into its context:

3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
3:19 Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.
3:20 Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.
3:21 Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.
3:22 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God
3:23 And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;
3:24 Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.
(I see no problem in the verse from Proverbs. Lovely stuff.)

Thus we have female submission and blind obedience, the unquestioning obedience of children, and obedient slaves who must serve their masters out of fear of God -- all wrapped up in ancient slave-state paternalism and tied with a bright, God-says-so ribbon. If you obey the nice parts, how about the nasty parts?

The Bible -- both Testaments -- is simply a horrible source for morality!



Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 08/04/2012 02:21:36
Go to Top of Page

On fire for Christ
SFN Regular

Saudi Arabia
1266 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2012 :  03:49:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Yes, it conflicts with the morality western liberal society has developed over the last century or so in human history. Therefore it's bad.

Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2012 :  06:10:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ

Yes, it conflicts with the morality western liberal society has developed over the last century or so in human history. Therefore it's bad.erior to
You say "western liberal society" morality as if that's a bad thing? Compared to slave state patriarchy? If that's what you mean, please explain in what manner slavery and patriarchy are morally superior to abolition and sexual equality.

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

The Rat
SFN Regular

Canada
1342 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2012 :  07:19:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit The Rat's Homepage Send The Rat a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ

Yes, it conflicts with the morality western liberal society has developed over the last century or so in human history. Therefore it's bad.


Every single advance in human history has occurred because someone had a new idea, and tried something new. That is the very essence of liberalism. Perhaps you would like to tell us how conservatism has advanced anything.


Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.

You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II

Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9677 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2012 :  07:29:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ

Yes, it conflicts with the morality western liberal society has developed over the last century or so in human history. Therefore it's bad.
I agree, biblical morality is bad.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2012 :  10:21:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by The Rat

Originally posted by On fire for Christ

Yes, it conflicts with the morality western liberal society has developed over the last century or so in human history. Therefore it's bad.


Every single advance in human history has occurred because someone had a new idea, and tried something new. That is the very essence of liberalism. Perhaps you would like to tell us how conservatism has advanced anything.




Way the frame the question so that it can be answered no other way. All conservatism could possibly do in this sense is prevent something from happening, and therefore, we couldn't know what it was and couldn't answer the question anyhow.

"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking

"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2012 :  10:41:56   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Machi4velli


Way the frame the question so that it can be answered no other way. All conservatism could possibly do in this sense is prevent something from happening, and therefore, we couldn't know what it was and couldn't answer the question anyhow.
I'm left scratching my head. You normally parse much better than that. Could you please give that another try?

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 08/04/2012 10:42:28
Go to Top of Page

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2012 :  14:40:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by HalfMooner

Originally posted by Machi4velli


Way the frame the question so that it can be answered no other way. All conservatism could possibly do in this sense is prevent something from happening, and therefore, we couldn't know what it was and couldn't answer the question anyhow.
I'm left scratching my head. You normally parse much better than that. Could you please give that another try?


I felt he was reducing the virtue of a way of thinking to the advances it has produced. Clearly, conservatism can't do that if we're to suppose conservatism is merely cautiousness with respect to new ideas. In this context, it's only a friction, it encourages us to practice restraint with new ideas.

I'll certainly concede ideological conservatism has a stronger grip on the political discourse than ideological liberalism because not many people are actually jumping on every new idea blindly because it's new, whereas some people will support old ideas blindly on the basis of tradition. However, don't take me to be conflating these with being ideologically left or right.

And, looking at conservatism vs liberalism over time and measuring outcomes of one or the other as better seems silly. It's typically a meta-classification of individual political beliefs, not one that implies some position outside the context of the moment.

Just as it wouldn't make sense to blame liberalism for any idea we've tried that causes problems, it doesn't make sense to give liberalism credit for any idea we've tried that works out well.

"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking

"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2012 :  23:48:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Thanks, Mach, I believe I followed that. Any further misunderstanding is my own problem, not yours, but you may certainly correct my misapprehensions as you encounter them.

First, I think that political liberalism and conservatism are rarely defined meaningfully. Indeed, I have seen people called "liberals" who actually range in political beliefs from Goldwater conservatism (aka "classical liberalism") to democratic Marxism. The "conservative" tag is given to, among others, Libertarians (who also get tagged as liberals!) and a spectrum that runs through the Tea Baggers and the Religious Right. (I often wonder, David Barton's mythical pseudo-history aside, how establishing a theocratic nation in America could in any way be considered "conserving" anything!)

But if I use vague ideas about liberalism and conservatism, as opposite trends, the first generally promoting democratic innovation, the second democratically opposing it, then I can see that someone who is in many ways actually innovative in thinking but is politically conservative might feel somewhat abused by being thought to be a rear guard against societal progress.

But isn't that simply a result of the real political process? And isn't such a conservative person left feeling insulted only to the degree that the person is actually more innovative than the political faction he or she supports?

Or have I entirely missed your point?

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

On fire for Christ
SFN Regular

Saudi Arabia
1266 Posts

Posted - 08/05/2012 :  09:40:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'm not advocating any particular morality in this topic. I just find it interesting that a set of standards that has developed in the blink of an eye, in terms of human history, (which also remains largely untested in the long term), is suddenly considered superior to the patriarchy that human beings have overwhelmingly and independently self-organised into over millennia, and to such an extent. Moral philosophers like to point out that things such as the Golden Rule arise independently in various cultures, suggesting an underlying innate human morality, the same can be said for patriarchy, Confucious said, "Do not unto others as you would not wish done unto you", he also determined that in every social relationship between two people, one will always be dominant, in the case of husbands and wives, it would be the husband. This mirrors the teachings of the Christianity, Buddhism, and the vast majority of societies ever to have been documented, including our own until the last few decades.

Edited by - On fire for Christ on 08/05/2012 09:41:36
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.71 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000