(September 22, 2015 at 10:40 am)Drich Wrote:(September 21, 2015 at 1:49 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:
Here's the thing.. Most of the core members know that I make a very great effort in speaking to everyone on equal terms. When the conversation is respectful I in turn show that same respect. However when it becomes harsh I to also become harsh. It is a 'do unto others' in practice.
That said I have no disillusion about Paul mandating a man's role in the marriage is to be over the woman. I am simply pointing out that this dominance is not to benfit the man for his personal gain. That we take on the role of Christ and the wife takes on the role of the church. We are supposed to love, respect and direct our wives as Christ so loves, respects and directs the church.
What was going on with Lucky's dad, was not a biblical example of the mandate Paul set fourth. In said mandate we are not meant to be equal partners. We are to fill roles, and these roles have guidelines and responsibilities we must honor. If we each fill our role correctly no one person rises over the other. But rather the two separate people become one whole unified being that brings honor love and respect to God and to ourselves.
That's why I said I disagree with your social conclusions, but felt you were interpreting the verses correctly. The dad was definitely "using the Bible wrong", as the saying goes.
I simply don't agree with the Pauline ideal of marriage, thinking that women don't have a "place", and neither do men. To me marriage is a partnership of equals, and each may fill whichever role they play best, complementing the skills of and filling in the gaps of the other. Of course, by my standard, the dad was equally wrong.
By the way, you didn't just spell out the "do unto others" rule in Christian terms. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is the Christian idea. Yours is "do unto others as they do unto you", which is according to Carl Sagan, the "Brazen Rule" (or the Brass Rule). We atheists, according to the same article, tend to follow what he calls the "Tit-for-Tat" Rule, which states, "Cooperate with others first, then do unto them as they do unto you."
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.