Quid?
How do you come to the conclusion that I think men should read books written by woman? In general one should read books by successful people.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Helpmeet - Ruprecht Wachter
- Thread starter Example of Sarah
- Start date
Quid?
How do you come to the conclusion that I think men should read books written by woman? In general one should read books by successful people.
Your statement presupposes that anyone who arrives at a conclusion other than what you find desirable, must have set out with a preconceived goal in mind. What I actively seek out is "what does the Bible actually say." That turns out to be "women should be submissive."
Truly, there have been more than 45 citations given in this thread alone, and you have not been able to refute a single one, yet you accuse all who refute you of being "selective?"
Doctor, heal thyself.
Some understand that it works and is beneficial for all.
And as I have mentioned God did not have any issues with using Deborah as a leader. She did give a hoot about anyone's opinion.
I am curious, as a somewhat ex-Catholic but who spend a large amount of time in a Catholic school, how can people who really believe in the Bible to the letter, not come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the "correct church™"? Peter was given the task to build the church, that is what the scripture tells us, and the Catholic church can trace it's foundation to Peter. We can therefore conclude that Pope Francis is the successor to Peter.
Not sure how Martin Luther argued here, he is not exactly a popular topic in Catholic dogma.
I have made my point clear, I view the Universe as verbatim God's work, but he did not verbatim write the bible. Large portions of the bible were written by people who never met God, the were working from 2nd hand sources, some parts were plagiarized from non-Christian sources. They let their own views of society color their work. Look at how many arguments there are here in the forum about scripture. If God had written the bible, or even proof read it, there would not be any need for interpretation, it would be clear. In fact I would not be surprised if some of the authors of the bible got a pretty cold reception in heaven for not having the prose of a pro.
Beneficial for some.
It mostly depends on whether both are working from the heart.
Deborah was a prophetess, not a leader. And in fact, she specifically rebuked Barak for expecting her to lead (Judges 4:9).
Well, you've made your point, and it's an openly blasphemous one. This statement right here is an open license to pick and choose what Scripture to accept, and a denial of its Divine origin. If that's your take, then there's nothing anyone can say to you or do for you.
I'm not sure if you noticed this but the site is called Biblical Families. If you don't believe the words of the Bible (and you just confessed that you only do when it suits your fancy) well then... *shrug*
But God did not literally write the Bible. People did. Those people were, however, His agents on earth and doing His work. Linguistic analysis tells us 40~ different people wrote it, as you can see their personal writing styles in the extant sources. Some of the boos are even the authors directly writing to other members.
Let's ignore I'm Mormon and ignore the additional scriptures we use for this: the Bible was arbitrarily assembled from numerous texts by a group of men, it likely isn't even all of the documents that should be considered as valid in Christendom. There are even differences in the Bible between non-LDS denominations (The Roman Catholic Bible has 12 extra books, Greek Orthodox has even more, and the Ethiopian has even more, etc).
I'll grant that it was not God's hand holding the pen and moving it over the parchment, but if one doesn't acknowledge that God is the source of Scripture then why follow it at all?
I'm not even attacking here, it's just a simple statement of fact. There's not really much of a point in a debate when you and Maia (your wife I presume, given your near synergy of viewpoints on everything I've seen) both proceed from the premise that Scripture can be selectively picked over and accepted when its convenient but dismissed as Human influenced when it isn't (which is ironic given that Maia has accused all who oppose her view of doing precisely that). I mean, I can't be sure but I strongly suspect you'll find that almost the entire site rejects that premise.
So choose wisely.
Considering you view it more as a Master/Property scenario, I find it cynical to expect the property to be working from the heart.
She is literally introduced as "
4 Now Deborah, a prophet, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time. She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites went up to her to have their disputes decided."
She was more then just a Prophet.
Everyone does.
Look at the position of woman as priests. Some churches allow it, others do not. Queen Elizabeth was head of the Church of England for 65 years. All pick and choose. Are you Catholic? Do you follow the church that as per canon scripture Peter was instructed to create? No, well you are not following scripture to the letter the no?
There is one guy here who only views the OT as canon, just chucks out the NT in it's entirety.
So I am in good company.
Certain passages are written by people who have never meet God, some parts are taken from non christian sources, how can God be considered the source for it's entirety?
Last edited:
I have one who full heartedly embraces it, one that is leaning that way, and one who is a bit too much like you.
Off course some (50% of population) enjoys submissive role. Otherwise, why BDSM wold even exist?
And yes, women naturally enjoy being submissive toward man she is attracted to.
And add @ before someone name. Like @Maia. This way person will receive notification he/she was mentioned.
Because leadership in relationship isn't same as leadership in business. There is some overlap, but not too much.
For example, mystery in business is bad thing. When boss hides things, nobody can figure out big picture and coordinate their efforts towards common goals.
Horewer, for man it's very bad, very bad, very bad to be open book for his woman. He isn't giving her intrigue, curiosity and something to thing. No woman will complain of receiving order on Friday afternoon to pack up because her darling is taking her on mysterious romantic trip.
A person who claims to have the authority to decide what to accept or reject from the Bible has made him or herself god. Who are you to question them since they have absolute authority??
Not sure about 50% but some certainly do.
I doubt I fall in that category. I do not enjoy it when I am not in control of a situation, at least for many situations. Now, I can acquiesce if I see a logical reason to, for example if it is something that someone else is simply better at then me. Also, if I find taking the lead to much of a bother, that is of course a negative example
I know, I have used it before. I just knew it was not needed for you. I do not even have to say your name 3 times for you to appear.
Well, I guess opinions differ there. I am in a kind of a mentorship program ( I guess to learn business from the ground up, everything from spending time in the factory, to tagging along with the CFO) some are champions of openness, stating that if one does not trust the people one interacts with closely with ones emails, and even the personal calendar, then one should fire them. Others, especially it seems the legal people, are more in favor of compartmentalizing information. Stressing the need to know. The subordinates might not need to know, but ones boss might not need to know either, and perhaps he does not want to know. It was made clear to me that at the latest when someone had publically denied something that is accurate then he needs to know.
I think if I marry someone he cannot be an closed book to me. I would want to be able to read his mind as they say, and he should be able to read me, like a binary unit.
That can get annoying real quick I would imagine.
Islam, Judaism. and Christianity (and others as well, it becomes more of a problem with religions with more then one God) are all worshiping the same God, yet there are difference in the lessons. Everyone believes that they are right. There is a religion (Yazadies?) where Lucifer was never the fallen angle, he has a position similar to what Gabriel has in Christianity and Islam.
There are also people who use the fear of a God to control other people.
Women make 50% of population.
Unless you have female domination fetish, you prefer being submissive. And you would already know do you have this fetish. I don't remember you mention brother(s), only sisters. You are probably oldest sister in family which implies your father treating you as son and preparing you to inherited family business.
This will make you more masculine masking your inherent femininity. Don't work, femininity is steal there. Only thing is needed is right man to unlock it.
Well, I guess opinions differ there. I am in a kind of a mentorship program ( I guess to learn business from the ground up, everything from spending time in the factory, to tagging along with the CFO) some are champions of openness, stating that if one does not trust the people one interacts with closely with ones emails, and even the personal calendar, then one should fire them. Others, especially it seems the legal people, are more in favor of compartmentalizing information. Stressing the need to know. The subordinates might not need to know, but ones boss might not need to know either, and perhaps he does not want to know. It was made clear to me that at the latest when someone had publically denied something that is accurate then he needs to know.
You are too full of business info. Can't apply same toward sexual relationships. And my point was never about trust. It was about women's need for man's mystery.
Still not about trust. Just hubby won't tell everything going in his life. He will keep some things for himself. Including some plans for both of you.
It's doesn't work like that. You are assuming you will make plans for weekend and you and husband will coordinate yourself.
Sexual relationships don't work like that.
This isn't a "view." It's the Bible's exact and literal words. We've already been over that.
There is no Hebrew word for "husband." In absolutely every instance I've found except Hosea 2:16 (where the Hebrew word is "Ish," meaning "beloved"), the word that is translated as "husband" in English (mis)translations was originally a Hebrew word for "Master" or "Owner."
Calling a wife her husband's property isn't an "interpretation." It's a verbatim quote from the overwhelming preponderance of Old Testament usage. In the New Testament too, we have 1 Peter 3:6 reinforcing this concept rather explicitly.
So much to unpack here. First of all, you confess that you selectively apply Scripture and then justify it by saying "everyone does." You then cite examples from heretical churches (the Catholics and the Anglicans), and you claim Canonical Scripture instructed Peter to found the Catholic Church.
It doesn't.
The Catholic Church was founded in Rome, a city Peter never visited (unless you believe Catholic historians), inhabited by Gentiles while Peter was an Apostle to the Jews. Further, Peter does not even fit the supposed qualifications for the office the Catholics claim he held first (the Papacy) due to the fact that he was married and had children. A suspiciously heavy body of evidence supports the view that the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Simon Magus of Acts 8:9-24, making the Roman Catholic Church the source of most of the heresy in Christendom (such as the Greco-Roman ideal of enforced monogamy). So, your claim that Catholicism is "the original faith according to Scripture" is patently false right on its face, and using that fallacy as a justification for blasphemy is, well... "presumptuous."