|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 08/07/2012 : 03:42:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
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... |
No, it's no different when the question is "should we behave this way?" Whether the behavior is instinctual or learned is irrelevant, because "innate" doesn't imply "morally correct." Isn't part of the Bible message that we should try to overcome our animal nature? Turning the other cheek definitely runs contrary to instinct, for example.| ...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. |
Why are you lashing out so much these days? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2012 : 08:01:51 [Permalink]
|
OFFC wrote: | 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. |
I also find it "interesting", though not in the same way you seem to. You seem to be surprised and your phrasing suggests a disparaging tone, as if that which has been around longer is in some way superior, and that which developed only recently is inferior because it has yet to last the test of time. Fair enough I suppose, but it seems obvious to me that the reasons for the development of modern morality are fairly obvious and here to stay. Namely, technological development that has completely transformed the environment of modern human societies. Modern societies have developed a machine-based workforce that make brain more necessary than brawn. We live in an economy where many women's brains are suddenly more valuable to society than our wombs. And we have such elaborate division of labor that women who work as doctors, researchers, teachers, politicians, lawyers, judges, etc. can go ahead and have children but hire other people to do most of the child-rearing and child-educating.
Speaking as a women - This is awesome! I'm valuable for the talents and skills that I possess both inherently and which I choose to develop based on my interests. If I want to have kids and make my primary occupation as a housewife/stay-at-home-mom I can, but if I'm better suited to other occupations I can do them instead. In other words, I'm more of a PERSON - woo hoo!
Just as science and technology has put a man on the moon and provided cures to countless diseases, it has freed women from the shackles of our own biology. History can keep that old patriarchal system that has dominated human societies for so long. This modern system IS superior.
| Moral philosophers like to point out that things such as the Golden Rule arise independently in various cultures, suggesting an underlying innate human morality, |
Yes, I agree that a generalized sense of empathy and concept of fairness is pretty universal and probably innate to humanity.
| 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. |
Obviously our environment has been radically altered, so changes in our behavior as a species should be expected. Personally I don't want to go back to the dark ages of the Patriarchy any more than I want to go back to an age before the invention of glasses, vaccinations, bypass surgery, chemotherapy, and so on.
Viva science! Viva technology! May it march on and be used for the benefit and not harm of humanity! |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2012 : 12:15:56 [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? Ultimately the biblical model is the wife would defer to the husband.
|
I love you dear and I respect your decision as long as it's the same decision I would make.
I like it. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Hal
Skeptic Friend
USA
302 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2012 : 12:26:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
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? Ultimately the biblical model is the wife would defer to the husband.
|
I love you dear and I respect your decision as long as it's the same decision I would make.
I like it.
|
Or, as we say in my house, "FINE!!!"
|
|
|
|
alienist
Skeptic Friend
USA
210 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2012 : 15:33:29 [Permalink]
|
Everytime I read about someone supporting patriarchy, it feels like a punch in my gut because I think of what women have been through over the centuries and the lack of freedom they had over their own lives.
To OFFC and Convinced: would you agree that slavery is wrong? Yet slavery has been around for centuries (and still goes on in some places). My point is that just because an idea has been around for a long time doesn't make it moral.
Why is it so hard to think of marriage as a partnership?
There is a website called No Longer Quivering in which people contribute stories about what it was like to live in a patriachal household. most of the writers are women but there are a few men who also write about how the patriachal household negatively affected them. |
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2012 : 21:14:49 [Permalink]
|
Convinced wrote:
| 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. |
Oh, gee, so long as it's all clear and there's not huge amount of room for interpretation. Oh wait...
See, I'm sure most would agree that a woman whose husband comes home every night drunk and beats her should not stay in that relationship even though the marriage was ordained by God or whatever. But that sort of abuse is far more rare and extreme than others which are probably more common. In a relationship where any disagreement can be resolved by deferring to the same partner's judgment (in this case the man 'cause, er, well God says so, I guess) that creates a power dynamic by which the person with more power can emotionally abuse the person with less. Let's say a woman marries a guy when she's 21 years old. She's all in love and he seems like such a together sort of guy who shares her values and vision of the future. But after marrying him she finds that his opinions about just about everything are more strongly held than she ever imagined they would be. She finds her household totally micromanaged by him as they defer to his judgement on everything from the style of household decor, to how the children will be educated, to what places their family is willing to re-locate to for jobs. She tries to advocate for her own opinions on things, and maybe he seems to listen and consider her views, but ultimately he's deciding 90% of all big decisions and even micromanaging a lot of aspects of their lives. Is this abuse? Certainly this could describe a sort of abuse. But would it constitute her threatening him with divorce if he doesn't give her input more weight? Would her church community or family support her leaving him if he refused to change, or would they view her as merely a selfish and un-Christian feminazi?
| 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 you don't understand the meaning of the words you are using. Submission is acknowledgement and compliance with an authority figure who already has more power than you do. A defeated army willingly submits to the winning army in order to end any further loss of life. To not submit is to choose death. A slave willingly submits to his or her slavemaster. To not submit is to choose punishment. No army that is winning a battle suddenly stops fighting and gives the losers what they want. If a slavemaster says to the slave, "Hey, if you try to run away, I won't stop you or anything. And if you refuse to work I'm not going to punish you." then he or she ceases to be a slavemaster anymore. In that case if the former slave continues to work for the former slavemaster, that is now called FRIENDSHIP or COOPERATION. It is no longer a relationship of dominance and submission.
Sometimes in an argument my husband gives in to me because it isn't worth it to him anymore to keep fighting. And sometimes I give in for the same reason. Nobody calls this "submitting". That is a mis-use of that term.
In other words, you want to embrace Biblical values, but you can't really, so you are just changing the meaning of words to make them mean what you want them to mean so you can pretend to be following the Bible. For crap's sake, you are casually accepting a Biblical metaphor which compares women to the deeply flawed human institution of "the church" and men to God almighty Himself!
| 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. ************ |
And amazingly enough, Christian doctrine varies from theologian to theologian, from sect to sect, and always has. Amazing.
| 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. |
That isn't an example of you disagreeing with your wife but deferring to her judgement. That's you agreeing that she knows the right thing to do and you aren't sure.
| 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. |
I'm trying to come up with a response to this that isn't condescending... it's really difficult.... I've been married for 8 years, had many, intense arguments with my husband over many topics, and never once did we get to the point of total, unresolvable stalemate. Mature adults find a way to compromise (even if it means seeking council from a third party). If they can't, they have no business being married in the first place. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/07/2012 21:18:22 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
How to be a Christian "Head of Household"
