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

[orangebox21]

In our countries, the religious are the vast majority. If women do not presently have full equality it is primarily because of so called religious men. Religious men who have forgotten their duty to family.

Regards
DL

If we assume that in our country the religious are the vast majority, it does not necessarily follow that women do not presently have full equality (with respect to pay) in the workforce. The Biblically defined roles are within the context of a formal worship setting and the home. It does not define 'workplace' roles.

If A is true and B is true, does that necessitate that A caused B?

Except that under the sanctions the bible places on women, they generally can't: divorce is a no-no, after all.

Is your argument then (and please correct me where/if I'm wrong):
Pr. Biblical roles provide the possibility of abuse.
Pr. Women who are abused cannot divorce their husband
Therefore Biblical roles are wrong.

Typically a woman is more akin to property in their biblical role than people, though I can't wait for you to dismiss that observation out of hand as being not a correct interpretation, while you make no effort at all to demonstrate why yours is the right one.

I'm going to need more clarification of your point here. We've been discussing the biblical roles of husbands and wives, no mention of women being akin to property has been discussed. Also, interpretation of what? The scriptures I'd previously posted?

How does being submissive necessitate being property. I obeyed a traffic light on the way to work, does that mean that I'm the traffic light's property?

Necessitates? No. But it does leave the door wide open to abuse and give very little recourse should it start happening. Which is the problem. Something doesn't have to be the exclusive cause of a problem for it to exacerbate it.

You're argument however is that because Biblically defined roles can lead to abusive situations they are wrong. This is a different argument from your above argument. Both arguments however are non-sequitur and you've agreed above. If said roles do not necessitate abuse then it is non-sequitur to conclude that the roles are inherently the cause of the abuse and therefore wrong.

And there are scriptures in place forbidding a husband to abuse his wife.

Do you think all abuse is physical?

The bible is remarkably silent on mental and cultural abuse, after all.

I have not defined abuse as only physical.

Who said anything about physiology? The explanation is about the creator and the created order.

Don't play games here, we both know that gender as the bible describes it is a physiological condition. You can shop off the responsibility for that all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that under a biblical system if you possess a penis you're given a level of assumed power over women.

What you just said is a transparent dodge that doesn't address the issue I was raising at all.

I was not intentionally dodging the question. Due to your response I felt clarification was required. The explanation given for the justification of roles is not biological. The explanation is tied to the created order (See 1 Timothy 2:13 and the doctrine of federal headship). Had women been created first and then men, women would have the roles men currently have. It is not an issue of biology it is an issue of the created order.

That is wrong.

Just as an aside, do you understand how utterly insipid this "nuh uh!" answer is?

To clarify, women being paid less than men for being just as productive at the same job is wrong. I was not saying the statistic was wrong.

Not only that but there is still no out for women whose husbands abuse them.

Separation. Incarceration of the abusive husband. Certainly the immediate safety of any abused person is the first priority.

Having scriptures in place that forbid abuse does nothing to protect women whose husbands choose to abuse them anyways.

While I disagree and assert that scriptures do something to protect women from abuse, I do see your point.

There are certainly laws in place to punish any husband who abuses his wife for whatever reason. Any man who abuses his wife is in no way justified and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

There is no scripture in place to allow for divorce in the case of abuse.

To my knowledge that is true. Consider Matthew 19:9 (Jesus teaching on divorce). You'll see that it is not the divorce that causes the sin, but rather the remarriage.

Throughout the age God has allowed certain things that are not a part of His initial intent. While it was and is God's initial intent that marriage be one man and one woman for life, there are times and circumstances that divorce has been and is tolerated.

A little more reading about the Bible and divorce