Should man rule over women for women’s own good?

[orangebox21]

I'm going to give you a choice. You can give me all your money, or I will shoot you. It's your choice. You are volunteering to give me your money.

That is true. I still have a choice. The assertion is that if something commanded it cannot be voluntary. I responded that would be true if and only if the command necessitated the commanded action. Do 5 jumping jacks right now. Did you? Of course not. Why? Because the command (to do 5 jumping jacks) did not necessitate the action (that you do 5 jumping jacks).

This is the essence of your argument. I've simply replaced God with myself and submission with money. The result is the same. If you don't do said action you are disobeying God and deserve hell. If you don't do said action you get death.

I have not asserted that God is using the punishment of hell to coerce wives into willingly submitting to their husbands. As shown above, I have asserted that a command does not necessitate the commanded action. You have made the former assertion and then argued against it (a straw man).

If you believe that God is using the punishment of hell to coerce wives into willingly submitting to their husbands, then you will need to prove from Biblical scripture that this is true.

Also, I have given multiple bible verses saying that men are supposed to be the dominant and masters over women.

You have provided no verses claiming men are supposed to be dominant masters over women. You have chosen specific words and principles not within the provided texts to support you belief.

I am not making such a ridiculous assumption. Why would I?

Maybe I am not understanding you. In post #181 you wrote:

Every woman has the right to choose and if she should choose not to submit to her husband then she's still a good person and just as good of a woman as one who does submit.

Here you asserted that a wife choosing to not submit to her husband makes her just as 'good' as a wife choosing to submit to her husband. That is what prompted me to ask: If we assume that disobedience to God's word is bad, how can a person choosing to follow God's word be just as 'good' as a person choosing to break it? Am I missing something?

What combination of fabrics are you currently wearing? I happen to have a huge bag of rocks handy...

If it would please my Lord and by his grace, I would endure your stoning. Though it might be a bit tricky for you to prove from scripture your justification. Namely why you believe the commands for the nation of Israel apply to the Church today, and why you, being not without sin, have chosen to cast the first stone.

[Losty]

"Here you asserted that a wife choosing to not submit to her husband makes her just as 'good' as a wife choosing to submit to her husband. That is what prompted me to ask: If we assume that disobedience to God's word is bad, how can a person choosing to follow God's word be just as 'good' as a person choosing to break it? Am I missing something?"

What you seem to be missing is that I am an atheist. I don't even believe in god. I make no assumption that anyone should be obedient to the bible or the god in it that I don't believe in.
Why would I make such a ridiculous assumption? I don't understand. How can you miss this?

[ShaMan]

What combination of fabrics are you currently wearing? I happen to have a huge bag of rocks handy...

If it would please my Lord and by his grace, I would endure your stoning. Though it might be a bit tricky for you to prove from scripture your justification. Namely why you believe the commands for the nation of Israel apply to the Church today, and why you, being not without sin, have chosen to cast the first stone.

I asked a single question and I followed it up with a single statement. That you've woven the two into a threat spells disaster for your position, and speaks to the persecution complex that some christians use to bolster their apathetic faith. I didn't make one single biblical reference, nor did I make any threats.

Oh, and I didn't fail to grasp your judgment of me. I refuse it.

[orangebox21]

"Here you asserted that a wife choosing to not submit to her husband makes her just as 'good' as a wife choosing to submit to her husband. That is what prompted me to ask: If we assume that disobedience to God's word is bad, how can a person choosing to follow God's word be just as 'good' as a person choosing to break it? Am I missing something?"

What you seem to be missing is that I am an atheist. I don't even believe in god. I make no assumption that anyone should be obedient to the bible or the god in it that I don't believe in.
Why would I make such a ridiculous assumption? I don't understand. How can you miss this?

Gotcha. The reason I was 'missing this' is due to the context of our conversation. I had the impression that for the sake of argument you were assuming God exists and that the Bible is His word. Or else who would have been commanding that wives submit to their husbands? I run into these 'context shifts' often when speaking with atheists. In order to have a logical conversation, if we assume for the sake of argument that God exists, then while I know that an atheist doesn't start believing in God, the response of 'I don't believe in God' is irrelevant and illogical within the framework of the conversation. So, that's my mistake for assuming you had assumed the existence of God for the sake of our conversation.

I'll retract my previous line of inquiry and instead ask a question. You've asserted that a wife who does not submit to her husband is just as 'good' as one who does. How do you know this is true?

I asked a single question and I followed it up with a single statement. That you've woven the two into a threat spells disaster for your position, and speaks to the persecution complex that some christians use to bolster their apathetic faith. I didn't make one single biblical reference, nor did I make any threats.

Oh, and I didn't fail to grasp your judgment of me. I refuse it.

There are some pretty heavy implications from this quote. Please explain said quote so that I don't draw the wrong conclusion.

[Losty]

"Here you asserted that a wife choosing to not submit to her husband makes her just as 'good' as a wife choosing to submit to her husband. That is what prompted me to ask: If we assume that disobedience to God's word is bad, how can a person choosing to follow God's word be just as 'good' as a person choosing to break it? Am I missing something?"

What you seem to be missing is that I am an atheist. I don't even believe in god. I make no assumption that anyone should be obedient to the bible or the god in it that I don't believe in.
Why would I make such a ridiculous assumption? I don't understand. How can you miss this?

Gotcha. The reason I was 'missing this' is due to the context of our conversation. I had the impression that for the sake of argument you were assuming God exists and that the Bible is His word. Or else who would have been commanding that wives submit to their husbands? I run into these 'context shifts' often when speaking with atheists. In order to have a logical conversation, if we assume for the sake of argument that God exists, then while I know that an atheist doesn't start believing in God, the response of 'I don't believe in God' is irrelevant and illogical within the framework of the conversation. So, that's my mistake for assuming you had assumed the existence of God for the sake of our conversation.

I'll retract my previous line of inquiry and instead ask a question. You've asserted that a wife who does not submit to her husband is just as 'good' as one who does. How do you know this is true?

Makes sense. I guess the thing for me is, even if I were assuming the existence of god, I would not believe that obeying him is good or disobeying him is bad.
Anyways, I think I was wrong in saying that a wife who chooses not to submit is as good as a wife who submits.
I think probably a better way to express how I feel is to say that whether or not a woman chooses to be submissive to her husband has no bearing on whether or not she is/can be a good person.

[orangebox21]

@Losty

Thanks for the civil conversation.

[Losty]

@Losty

Thanks for the civil conversation.

I try to be civil. This is just casual talk I don't see any reason to get upset.

[ShaMan]

I asked a single question and I followed it up with a single statement. That you've woven the two into a threat spells disaster for your position, and speaks to the persecution complex that some christians use to bolster their apathetic faith. I didn't make one single biblical reference, nor did I make any threats.

Oh, and I didn't fail to grasp your judgment of me. I refuse it.

There are some pretty heavy implications from this quote. Please explain said quote so that I don't draw the wrong conclusion.

(bold added)
But why? You're so good at it

[tjakey]

Actually, I think women should rule over men for everyone's sake. If the women of the world simply stopped supporting the religious and political institutions that hold to misogyny, the planet would be in a better place almost overnight. The right wing political party in the US would be gone, as would Catholicism, many sects of Protestantism, and most if Islam. If women would act to save themselves, they would automatically save the world.

[Losty]

Actually, I think women should rule over men for everyone's sake.

No

If the women of the world simply stopped supporting the religious and political institutions that hold to misogyny, the planet would be in a better place almost overnight.

Yes
[/thread]