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

[Esquilax]

I am not advocating might makes right as clearly shown in what I said.

Your just not tuning in.

Who should serve whom?

Be you male or female, should the weak serve the strong or the strong serve the weak?

Who is biologically the strongest in the human species?

Regards
DL

Crazy thought: how about instead of making sweeping generalizations based on gender with no thought as to individual circumstances, we consider individual cases on the merits of the people involved? You know, put a little attention to detail there, rather than just making a single statement and then stopping, forever?

Or hell, in a proper partnership, each serves the other, regardless of relative "strength." No one person is a comprehensive, perfect person in every regard; we all have strengths and weaknesses. A relationship can be symbiotic in a way that strengthens both participants, rather than this power imbalance nonsense. Luckie and I complement each other, she doesn't need to submit to me, and in situations where I'm weaker and she's stronger I'm self aware enough to let her take the lead.

Context matters, dude. You can't really get away with making lofty generalizations in something as chaotic as, you know, life.

We can certainly discuss your above objections to the treatment of women. This is however a separate line of discussion from the roles of husbands and wives.

One informs the other. Discussing marriage relationships divorced (if you'll pardon the pun) from the larger context of gender relations when what we're discussing literally relates to gender means that we're missing large swathes of information. Fact is, during the time that those commandments for husbands and wives were written, the idea of what a wife was and how one went about the business of marriage were very different, and that matters to the discussion.

1. Biblically defined roles directly encourage abuse.
2. Biblically defined roles offer easy justification for abuse.
3. Biblically defined roles furnish no positive effects at all.
4. Biblically defined roles are huge, sweeping generalizations.
5. If huge, sweeping generalizations work for an individual it is best that he/she enters into said generalizations of his/her free will.
6. If huge, sweeping generalizations do not work for an individual, then said generalizations are nothing but a trap.
.:/ If biblically defined roles offer a chance for abuse and provide no positive effects at all, then they are more harmful than anything else, and are morally wrong.

Accurate representation?

Basically, though with regard to five and six, I'd suggest that if you make a generalization and then are able to point to exceptions, then that generalization is factually incorrect and useless on its face, and that is why they shouldn't be used. It's like, if I make the generalization "flowers are blue," and then you show me red flowers, then I guess not all flowers are blue, and what I've said is wrong. If you say "women should submit to their husbands," based on the bible, and all I can come up with are scenarios in which women should not do that, and no scenarios in which that would be bindingly true, then that too is an incorrect statement on a factual level.

I'm not understanding your argument here. Are you asking why God allows people to operate outside of His commandments?

I'm asking why god would formulate these commandments that ostensibly lead to better, more effective marriages, and then remain entirely silent on the huge pitfalls that would lead to that not being true. Or is it that those commandments aren't there to make better marriages, and are instead... what? Like, weird personal opinions?

Fair enough, I'll rephrase. A husband and a wife are looking to purchase a home. The husband likes home A more and the wife likes home B more. Following the Biblical roles for husbands and wives how does the decision making process go? How does the decision making process go for an atheist couple?

In the former, it's really hard to say: a straight reading of the text would indicate that the wife accede to the husband's preference and get home A. Of course, anyone who reads that text differently presumes the correctness of their interpretation over a straight reading of the text.

For the latter question, it really depends on the couple, and so I can only really speak to my own relationship, which is where discussion and compromise take place. If Luckie is capable of making a good argument for why home B would be better I'd obviously change my mind, and depending on how much I like home A I might also prioritize her happiness over my preference and go with home B just to make her smile.

I understand your point. Is the command to submit for the believer or the unbeliever? And is the physical torment for the believer or the unbeliever? Does God call anyone to willingly submit to eternal torture? In other words, for your argument to follow, God would call believers to willingly submit to eternal punishment.

Wouldn't a believer have to accept god's judgment regardless of the content of that judgment? Mysterious ways, he knows better and all that?

I'm not understanding your point here. Please clarify. I'm assuming by harmful you mean needlessly harmful (certainly there are times that the most loving thing we can do will cause some kind of harm such as intervening in the life of an addict).

I agree that emotions and actions don't always line up. However, can a person be 'emotionally' in love with a person while at the same moment cause him/her needles harm? Maybe I'm not understanding your argument.

Maybe you've never had a stalker. Imagine, for a moment, a person totally in love with another, up to and including being willing to prevent them from leaving the relationship by whatever means necessary, for their own good. They're convinced, you see, that the only way the other person can be truly happy is to be with them, and that in the end they'll be thankful.

Or hell, maybe just consider a husband who only has poor models to base the relationship on. No matter the emotions, if all someone has to go on is violence as a means of control, that's what's going to happen. Emotion isn't necessarily a good indicator of actions, if the individual's idea of what actions are proper is twisted.