RemnantResilience
Member
Well that escalated quickly! Anyone seen this video?
-
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.
The "Biblical View of Marriage" Explained
- Thread starter RemnantResilience
- Start date
As the Olde Saying goes - that's 15 minutes that I'll never get back.
But since they're gone, an observation or two.
"A women's consent meant NOTHING in the Biblical world." What a crock. Up until that point, I had begun to conclude this twit just hated the Book and anything associated with what Scripture said is 'good' and 'true'. Now I really don't think he actually READ it, but just went through a 'Cliff's Notes' version looking for non-PC stuff to ridicule.
And the 80/20 Rule applies here. Mix 80% Truth with 20% unmitigated BS and people might swallow it.
One thing I absolutely did NOT see: ANY indication on that part of that guy that the Bible PROTECTS women. (You'd've thought at LEAST he could remark that it protects camels and goats, too...)
But surprise - the real agenda becomes obvious.
But since they're gone, an observation or two.
"A women's consent meant NOTHING in the Biblical world." What a crock. Up until that point, I had begun to conclude this twit just hated the Book and anything associated with what Scripture said is 'good' and 'true'. Now I really don't think he actually READ it, but just went through a 'Cliff's Notes' version looking for non-PC stuff to ridicule.
And the 80/20 Rule applies here. Mix 80% Truth with 20% unmitigated BS and people might swallow it.
One thing I absolutely did NOT see: ANY indication on that part of that guy that the Bible PROTECTS women. (You'd've thought at LEAST he could remark that it protects camels and goats, too...)
But surprise - the real agenda becomes obvious.
Came across this quote today that seems to fit here: "You can't coherently mix traditional gender roles with feminist concepts like 'consent'. You are either the property of your father then your husband, or you are a feminist. And if you claim to be a Christian, this half-baked feminism is heretical, the Bible is brutally clear on this."
Subtracting the grammatical errors that allow multiple interpretations, and just focusing on the clear intent of the message, would anyone like to refute or support the claim? Or to rephrase: Is female consent (of the governed) Biblically a requisite of male authority and acquisition or not?
Subtracting the grammatical errors that allow multiple interpretations, and just focusing on the clear intent of the message, would anyone like to refute or support the claim? Or to rephrase: Is female consent (of the governed) Biblically a requisite of male authority and acquisition or not?
I’ve long stated that if she doesn’t give you authority, you don’t have any authority.
Even though that is not what Yah designed.
Feminism says that there is no authority other than her own, and even if she gives you any it still belongs to her.
I've long stated that authority is not something anyone gives to a man. It comes to him as a consequence of credibility. He has a good job, his house is in order, he is respected among other men, he can defend himself and his family against all foes, and he asserts his authority in a Godly manner and not just for the sake of his own ego.
A woman can deny to acknowledge such a man's authority but then that man should not have anything to do with such a foolish woman. He is literally too good for her.
Of the father, by birth, 'consent' is not an issue. Of a husband (examples abound, from Rivkah on) it is an ELEMENT. But instruction such as the 'war bride' (Deut. 21:11, etc) is does not seem to be an 'up front' requirement. Still, it may end up being an element in any decision to 'put her away'.
PS> When she consents, she GIVES her then-husband that authority. 'Feminists' won't like it, but when she "offers herself" that authority is transferred.
If she gives herself to a man, but withholds the authority until he is worthy of it, she is doing it wrong.
Questions:
- If she withholds authority, has she truly given herself to the man? Or has she just engaged in a temporary transaction?
- If a man accepts her partial 'gift' on her terms, isn't he the one who has failed to demonstrate being worthy of authority? If he's willing to join her in pretending that the authority is shared, doesn't he demonstrate that he doesn't deserve to be fully respected? (I'm quite certain that was true of me during the decades and relationships in which I put up with that.)
Responsibility without commensurate authority is enslavement.
"Why give up the milk when one can get the cow for free?" or "Why give up the milk when one can get the steer to pretend to be a cow?"
FID-dullards on the Hoof
or, "Why Give Up the Milk When I Can Get the Cow for Free?”
imnhvn.substack.com
Definitely not, Fake it till you make it doesn’t work here.
True, but a very likely scenario is the woman who makes a mental accent to give him authority, but fails to yield when the rubber meets the road.
This can, and has at times, happen years into the relationship. Feelings change and people follow them.
You and I have unraveled these very points in many past conversations, Zen Trucker. That "rubber meeting the road" has far more significance than the gas that comes out of one's mouth. You are spot on: feelings change, but if feelings change, those feelings have no more validity than hormonal variation and/or pure self-interest, and then if people follow them, the "rubber meeting the road" that has primacy in a family is the fact that this has become a watershed opportunity for the man in question to demonstrate leadership. If, for example, the wife prioritizes following her feeling of desiring expediency and in so doing decides, consciously or unconsciously, to simply pretend that she's "on board" with her husband's vision, or patriarchy, or polygyny, or moving to the country -- and in all likelihood something on an unconscious level inspires the husband to entirely sidestep testing the sincerity of her "on board-ness" -- but then the "rubber meets the road" and one or more of those things she's supposedly "on board" with suddenly threatens to be more than a lofty goal -- and she follows her feelings by orchestrating life to prevent from occurring what she claims to be "on board" with -- and when the husband just begins to ruffle his feathers about it she explicitly or implicitly threatens to destroy the family by divorcing and/or taking his children from him -- if the husband then follows his feelings by prioritizing not losing her over demonstrating true leadership, then the Realm of Feelings has become the paramount force in the family, and the ultimate outcome will not only be the wife ruling the husband (no matter how it 'appears' on the outside) but the husband reporting to not just the children but the pets as well. It is in female nature to muster any forces necessary in service of manipulation.
One word for a situation that devolves to this extent is cowardice on a man's part. No matter how we look at it, the bottom line is that the man is 100% responsible for what happens in his family (responsibility isn't a zero-sum game, so even though the wife is also responsible the buck stops with the man -- or patriarchy means nothing), and that means that if he caves in to his wife's emotional demands out of fear of 'losing' her, ultimately that man will be 100% responsible for his family turning into a tyranny grounded in the Realm of Feelings with those who bear insufficient responsibility wielding most of the power.
In a very real sense, given not only common sense and natural law but the facts of how YHWH very purposefully created the two genders, it's also the case that no woman can ever take authority from her man.
That man has to voluntarily give it to her.