Wrangler
Well-Known Member
If asked my wife to stop doing this many times. And told her point blank to stop several times. Beyond having boundary issues, it is baffling.
Submission Of The Wife: How Serious A Matter Is It?
- Thread starter Hidden In Him
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
If asked my wife to stop doing this many times. And told her point blank to stop several times. Beyond having boundary issues, it is baffling.
Yes, sister. And this goes to another point taught in scripture. Do we foster sin and encourage others to do more of it, or do we set limits? This is one place where I can come dangerously close to contradicting Biblical teaching myself, so I tread lightly here, but I don't think we always do the sinner a favor by turning the other cheek. Again, when the believer has no choice in the matter then they have only one course of action. But allowing a partner in marriage - where you may not have equal responsibilities but you certainly have equal rights (i.e. for love, respect, etc) - to simply walk on you all the time, and in the name of God, is to encourage them to continue sinning against both God and man.
How many times do the scriptures warn against facilitating someone else to sin: Feed the widows, but not if they are busy-bodies; If a man will not work then do not let him eat, and such. The same needs to apply in marriage I believe. Granted, the teaching was to win over the unbelieving husband, but I think that may have been applicable to a man who knew little of the Christian faith and would form his opinions of it based on the conduct of the wife. But a man who knows very well about the faith and is actually using it to manipulate the spouse is another matter altogether, and should not be tolerated or entertained in the least. I am not encouraging anyone to sin, least of all when they are using and abusing me in the process.
Last edited:
By extension that applies to ALL MEN. Thus Paul says "Marriage is honourable IN ALL..." in the book of Hebrews, and he also tells ALL the younger widows to marry.
Depends on how you define slavery. Did almost all blacks then get enslaved to the Democrats after the Civil War? And now have huge numbers become enslaved to Marxist Communism, Black Racism, and Anarchy even though they never had it so good? And did the same federal government which went to war for slavery in the South virtually enslave the Native Americans in the rest of the country? Slavery is a state of mind, and former slave Booker T. Washington proved it.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
That whole post is a group of Topics. Not entirely untrue but a short blurb does not give it justice.
If it has anything to do with slavery during the biblical period you can be sure it was true slavery. The economics of the time relied heavily on slavery....Some had an easy life, some construction and various labors and some used in entertainment....some given to gladiators. But as a whole they were owned by somebody.....And some fell into slavery due to debt....that is another story.
And JESUS said, that "not EVERYONE is capable of marriage. Some are born (incapable) so, some are made so by others , and some renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:11-12)
So, no. It doesn't apply to ALL men (or ALL women, for that matter).
Dropship
Well-Known Member
At a guess I'd say the truth is that most slaves were happy, but the powers-that-be don't want us to know that..
I mean, they were rescued from the dangerous sweaty jungles, given free passage to the great country of America, then given good steady work in the fresh air of the cottonfields with free housing, free food and free medicare, I bet some thought it was paradise on earth..
I mean, they were rescued from the dangerous sweaty jungles, given free passage to the great country of America, then given good steady work in the fresh air of the cottonfields with free housing, free food and free medicare, I bet some thought it was paradise on earth..
Philip James
Well-Known Member
Interesting that this thread is leading to a discussion of celibacy. I think Paul and Jesus have something to say on that but I think I'll just keep kibitzing for now
Pax et Bonum
What you have quoted does not contradict the Bible in the least. Christ was speaking about RARE EXCEPTIONS, not the general rule.
Actually celibacy imposed from above -- "commanding men" -- is a doctrine of demons. And we all know the serious problems with "celibate" Catholic priests (who are in fact anything but).
Jesus never said...or alluded to...that it was "rare", or that it should be "rare."
Paul even cautioned about marriage because (I'm paraphrasing) those who are married will be more concerned about pleasing their spouse, instead of pleasing God.
The point is, that not EVERYONE is called to be married. And no...that does NOT mean, that if we remain single, that we're called to be priests or nuns. One can 'serve' without joining an Order.
Plenty of Catholic priests are celibate...and have remained celibate from day one.
And you would know this for a fact somehow????
'Furthermore, Sipe reports, some priests are celibate at some times but not at others, so that only 2 percent have "achieved the celibate ideal."'
HALF LEAD SEXUALLY ACTIVE LIVES IN 'SECRET CULTURE,' AUTHOR SAYS
And you would know that ALL Catholic priests are NOT celibate...as a FACT somehow? Look again, at your title in red. It says that SOME priests are celibate at times...not ALL priests are celibate at times.
And unless that author has interviewed ALL Catholic priests, I don't put much weight into what the author says.
Sorry Enoch, but there ARE people--men and women--who have NO interest in sex...especially as some recreational past time.
And I suspect that there are a number of people who are having sex because they believe they're "supposed" to...not so much because they actually desire it.
Christian Tony B
Member
Thank you.
At the risk of sounding arrogant, I'm pretty sure what I am inferring here is correct. But I'll ask the Lord and see what He says.
You're taking these verses out of context, and that's not cool.
First of all, you say that Paul says that "marriage is honorable IN ALL..." But that's not how the entire passage reads. Hebrews 13:4 says, "Let marriage be honored by all AND THE MARRIAGE BED BE KEPT UNDEFILED, FOR GOD WILL JUDGE THE IMMORAL AND ADULTERERS." The passage doesn't mean that EVERYONE should be married. It's that a marriage should be respected by everyone. Those who are married, shouldn't commit adultery. Those who are not married, should respect the marriage of others...and not interfere. Even in-laws should "keep out!"
As for younger widows marrying, he didn't tell ALL of them to marry. In fact, in 1 Cor. 7:39-40, he says, " A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whomever she wishes, provided that it be in the Lord. She is more blessed though, in my opinion, that she remains as she is, and I think that I too have the Spirit of God." Notice that it doesn't mention whether the widow is older or younger.
And in 1 Timothy5:14, he says, "So, I would like younger widows to marry..." and he gives his reasons in 1 Timothy 5:11-13 (to paraphrase)so that their "sensuality doesn't estrange them from Christ" or they become idlers, busybodies, and gossips. Of course, not ALL younger widows do this.
Paul also says in 1 Cor. 7:27, "Are you bound to a wife? Then do not seek a separation. Are you free of a wife? Then do not look for a wife."
Doesn't sound like he believes that ALL men/women should be married.
Paul isn't "commanding" widows to marry, nor is he commanding ANYONE to marry.
It's that way for a lot of people.
No it does not, and there are many more variations in the original manuscripts than most believers are aware of.
Like I said, I'd rather not turn this thread into a heated argument about manuscripts (with Enoch), but while the Received Text and earlier texts like Alexandrinus don't disagree in theological meaning except for in a couple of places, they do vary greatly in a lot of places as far as how much is actually said.
It's a long and yes technical discussion, but the answer is No. Not all the translators and copyists were always fully inspired in what they provided us with, and there are two camps on this that will argue very strongly about which is more trustworthy.
I agree but ALL TRUE BELIEVERS can be led by the Spirit to recieve the biblical truth of God's words even if it's paraphrased.
It isn't always the source that is life but IT IS ALWAYS THE AUTHOUR AND FINISHER of the source.
It is at odds with my spirit how ppl can take apart, remove, replace or place one scripture above another to make it say what they want.
They DO NOT take into account that it is a "LIVING" word, holy men of old were Spirit inspired to write the word and God does not make mistakes.!
@Mink57 Paul himself seems to have chosen to remain unmarried...........
I think most may have done so with good intentions at heart, just as many on the forums think they are in teaching errors they regard as truth.
The real problem is that not everyone is inspired, or led by the Holy Spirit to teach.
Lol.....this may get me put in suspension !
THEN MALE OR FEMALE THOSE ARE THE ONES WHO NEED TO REMAIN SILIENT IN ALL BIBICAL DISCUSSIONS !!!!!!
Similar threads
