|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
 Posted - 08/05/2012 : 11:29:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
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. |
Yet there are several societies (35+) listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_matrilineal_or_matrilocal_societies . And those are of current societies.
And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy history section lists various societies from the bronze age.
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.
|
Well, it does seem to be the majority. However, rarely are two persons in a relationship truly equal in all respects, be it intellectual or physical. It seems to me that if there exist a difference, couple should complement each other. If that means that the man should be regarded as head of the household, the so be it.
I disagree forcefully that this order (man being the head) should be prescriptive, as in the mono-theistic religions.
|
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. |
 |
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2012 : 19:22:09 [Permalink]
|
Yes, a tiny minority of societies adopted a matriarchy. Such things happen when dealing with such vast numbers and time scales. Patriarchy is the norm, as any small child or lamb can see. |
 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2012 : 03:06:19 [Permalink]
|
I still disagree forcefully that this norm should be prescriptive, as in the mono-theistic religions.
Whatever works best should be the norm. |
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. |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2012 : 06:59:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by the_ignored
What do you thin about that article by the way?
|
I think that it is not what a christian marriage is meant to be as described in the bible. Being a tyrant is not a good example of a loving husband and father. It is clear that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Jesus loved the church (people) so much he died for it. If you love your wife like this then you would not humiliate her like this man has done to his wife. |
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) |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2012 : 07:36:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
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!
|
Yes, these verses indicate a submission of husbands to Jesus, wives to Jesus and her husband and children to Jesus and their parents. It is clear throughout scripture that no Christian should do anything that is in conflict with a direct command from God even if a husband or parent says to. Also no spouse or child should stay in an abusive relationship, if these things occur the husband does not love their wife as Christ loves the church.
These verses do not negate all the other verses in the bible as to how a christian should behave toward others. The wife willingly submits to a loving husband that cares for the family and loves God, the husband does not demand or force submission.
I think it is a misunderstanding of what Jesus did for humanity and what the husbands love for his wife looks like. For you to say wives and children should have blind obedience is to disregard the entirety of what the bible has to say on the subject. Doctrine is formed through systematically going through all the pertinent verses in context in the bible on a subject and coming to a conclusion.
|
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) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2012 : 09:12:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
The wife willingly submits to a loving husband that cares for the family and loves God... |
Why is that what should happen? Why not a husband and wife in equal partnership? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2012 : 09:18:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
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. |
Because we can see that the old way was inequitable. "That's the way it's always been" isn't a good argument for maintaining the status quo.| 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... |
But patriarchies conflict with the Golden Rule, so one of them has to go.| ...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. |
Why 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. |
So what? Neither the age nor popularity of an idea implies its truth. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2012 : 11:26:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Convinced
The wife willingly submits to a loving husband that cares for the family and loves God... |
Why is that what should happen? Why not a husband and wife in equal partnership?
|
What do you mean by equal partnership?
Wives submitting does not mean they have no input. If a husband loves his wife he will value her input and thoughts. There are some areas in our marriage that I defer to my wifes wisdom. For example, how to handle some situations with my daughter, my wife understands her more than I do and has good input on how to handle certain situations.
What happens when a husband and wife are opposed to each other as to a descision that needs to be made? Ultimately the biblical model is the wife would defer to the husband. |
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) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2012 : 12:29:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
What happens when a husband and wife are opposed to each other as to a descision that needs to be made? |
If neither one is willing to work towards an agreement, then they're both being jerks. My wife and I have never faced a problem where thoughtful discussion failed to result in a decision that we could both live with, even when we began from "opposed" positions.| Ultimately the biblical model is the wife would defer to the husband. |
Yeah: why? Why does the husband "love," but the wife "submit?" Seems like good, old-fashioned biblical male privilege to me. And given the context of the horrors perpetrated against women in the Old Testament, the NT stuff is only a kinder, gentler misogyny by comparison. In today's world, where we understand that men and women make dumb (or wise) decisions in about equal parts, insisting that a wife always defer to her husband in case of conflict makes no sense whatsoever. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2012 : 13:31:42 [Permalink]
|
Convinced:
Ultimately the biblical model is the wife would defer to the husband. |
Ultimately, the biblical model is sexist. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2012 : 13:55:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
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. |
With these ideas, it seems to me you're building the goodness into the word liberal by supposing the new ideas are innovative and encourage societal progress.
It's also hard to define progress. Looking backwards we can better know what progress means to us because we know roughly what we like about modern societies, though it's invariably somewhat circular because it's based on what matches with our ideas of justice and fairness, which I don't think are eternal or unchanging, and are therefore influenced by these societies in which we live.
If history is any indication, I am confident new moral initiatives will become things we take for granted in the future as clearly necessary for progressed society while others fall by the wayside, but don't think I could differentiate the two categories by my sense of justice/fairness.
| 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? |
Only if we force the conservatism-liberalism dichotomy on individuals and political factions, which I think is not that often an applicable classification, particularly in the case of individuals.
| Or have I entirely missed your point? |
No, you're understanding me right, the words are usually not defined usefully, I agree. Mostly I was just reacting against liberalism being given credit for literally "every single advance in human history" because if we're to view liberalism in that sense, it's a practically tautological statement. I see it as analogous to giving conservatism credit for continuing to use every idea that has ever worked 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 |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2012 : 14:09:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
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. |
So what? Neither the age nor popularity of an idea implies its truth. |
I think his assertion was that moral philosophers argue that since the golden rule because it independently arose in most cultures long ago, it therefore comes from some innate morality. Patriarchy did that too, so we should accept it too.
But that's not why I accept the golden rule... |
"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 |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 08/06/2012 14:12:07 |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2012 : 19:20:35 [Permalink]
|
| I didn't say it was "true", Dave, if any kind of social organisation can ever even be called that. I said it may be indicative of an innate Human morality. |
|
| Edited by - On fire for Christ on 08/06/2012 19:21:34 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2012 : 22:09:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
I didn't say it was "true", Dave, if any kind of social organisation can ever even be called that. I said it may be indicative of an innate Human morality. |
That makes your comment even more irrelevant: there are plenty of apparently innate human activities that we teach our children to avoid if they are to join polite society. Our base instincts aren't necessarily something we should strive for. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2012 : 22:47:59 [Permalink]
|
| Innate human activities which have to do with the self-emergence of the same power structure in disparate societies is a little different to not farting at the dinner table, even a lamb can see that. But if you really have to disagree and be confrontational about every thing I ever say no matter how ridiculous it makes you sound then feel free to exorcise that little demon of yours. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
How to be a Christian "Head of Household"
