Maybe he knew it would come back to bite him in the ass. If he knew then, would he have made the same choice?
They subscribe to a religion that describes the male female relationship in terms of ownership. Why should any of this surprise us?
Here's two for starters: Colossians 3:18 Ephesians 5:22 IIRC, you, yourself have said that you believe since God created man, He can treat mankind any way He chooses. By saying that a wife should submit herself to her husband the way she submits herself to God, that means her husband can do whatever he wants to her, as she has given him the power of God over her.
Even if you can manage to wriggle out of acknowledging all the misogyny in the Bible, it's certainly a major tenet of the Quiverfull movement.
No I cannot, as I don't make a habit of memorizing mythological scripture. But I went to a Catholic wedding once, where that was the thrust of the sermon. Some shit about the bride surrendering herself to the groom. And the priest did cite scripture and plenty of it. I have no reason to think he was lying or using a faulty translation.
"submission" from what I've been taught is not precisely what you think of. You're inferring it makes the woman in some way lesser than the man. When in fact it designates greater responsibility on the man than the woman given their different roles in the family.
What makes you think you've been taught correctly? And why should there be any ambiguity about the meaning of the verses? When you're dealing with a document upon which a person's very existence is decided by them following the rules contained in the document, you don't want there to be any ambiguity or doubt. When I worked for the sat phone company, one of the first things I did was to rewrite the documentation so that it was very easy for people to understand how to use the phones. Because they were used in remote areas by people calling for help, the directions had to be crystal clear in how to use the phones, otherwise people could die. I'm not inferring anything. I'm just going by what it says. Here's some more examples: 1 Corinthians 11:3 1 Corinthians 11:6 But its okay for men not to cover their heads. 1 Corinthians 11:7 The easy joke would be to say that the guy who wrote these next verses didn't understand biology. 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 1 Corinthians 34-35 Hardly an equal partnership if the wife isn't allowed to speak in church. Ephesians 5:24 1 Timothy 2:11-12 Titus 2:4-5 1 Peter 3:5 We all know how that worked in the OT, right? Do you see the pattern here? Women are not men's equals, according to the NT, but are lesser creatures. If you're of lesser status, then you're not going to be treated with respect, you're going to be treated as property. As women were, in Biblical times. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that women are the equal of men and should accorded the same respect.
Of course it does. Matthew 7:12. “Do to others what you want them to do to you. This is the meaning of the law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets."
Maybe I should've trimmed that part, but it didn't seem right to post anything but the entire verse. Nevertheless, do women not count as others? And is not this an instruction to treat others as equals, with the same respect we feel we deserve?
I assume you don't know that given that the wome Wasn't that an improvement on the status of women who were on the losing side of a conflict in that day and age? It seems to me that many of the Bible passages that our society seems to think delegate women as second class citizens are actually attempts to protect women during that era.
So apparently a Huckabee appointed judge ordered all records and documents relating to this case destroyed........last Thursday when this was starting to leak. According to the police spokesman for the department that destroyed the records that is highly irregular as records are usually kept indefinitely. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/23/josh-duggars-record-destroyed-police_n_7428762.html If that's not fucked up I don't know what is. Vote Huckabee!
Numbers 31:13-18 What's the "improvement"? That only some of the women were to be killed? What about the women who'd been raped prior to Moses giving the order to kill "every woman who has slept with a man," but hadn't been with a man prior to this? Were they to be killed as well? I'd say that it hardly seems fair to murder someone over something which they had no control over, but we've established that you don't believe in fairness. God had no problem ordering the Jews to snip the end of their dicks (something at this point in time was painful and dangerous, due to a lack of anesthetics and antibiotics), but He couldn't expect "His people" to not rape and murder if He so ordered them? On a related note, there's this statement from you: So, basically, what you're saying is that we haven't advanced much in all that time and that women today should be treated exactly as they were in the Bible. I know you like to discount the OT, but if there's no Fall of Man, there's no need for Jesus to get nailed to a tree millennia later. So, I'm going to agree with the Christian scholars who say you can't have the NT without the OT, and you can't just handwave away the parts you find inconvenient. As for your prior statement about my "inferring" something, allow me to quote you on how one should read the Bible. "Face value" is to read "submission" as its defined by the dictionary. How you get from that, is a mystery to me.
When I argued in another thread that the Bible was designed for primitive man and therefore was no longer valid, you responded that man had not changed enough for that to be the case. So which is it? Have we evolved beyond the rules in scripture, or do I own my wife?
I don't know what Jesus meant, but taken with the known male-dominated society at the time, I imagine women weren't considered.
