Weekly Poll: Is Marriage Better when Wives Submit to their Husbands?
Traditional Christianity teaches that women should submit to men generally and that wives in particular should submit to their husbands. Conservative Christian organizations have been emphasizing this teaching more and more because modern society has tended to reject it. Are they right, though, that marriage would be better if women simply submitted instead of insisting on equality?
According to Christian Nationalists, the role of the woman requires her to be subordinate, obedient, and helpful while the man's role requires him to take charge, lead, and make the tough decisions. Such ideas about how husbands and wives should relate were at one time uncontroversial, but today the rest of society has changed too much for such attitudes to be accepted uncritically anymore. Modern society has made great strides towards the emancipation of women, something which conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists find abhorrent.
There are regular stories about conservative churches attempting to stem the tide by becoming even more reactionary and misogynistic than a strict interpretation of their doctrines requires. There is no question but that such acts merit criticism, but no criticism can be considered informed and reliable without taking into account the fact that efforts to keep women "in their place" are merely part of a larger desire to see all power relationships be made more strict and more clear.
Conservative evangelical Christians perceive a strict hierarchy between God and humans which must be replicated in the social and political spheres. Children must obey parents; wives must obey husbands; Christians must obey ministers; citizens must obey leaders. It is believed that problems in society stem from the chaos of too much freedom, too much license, and weakened expectations about one's social role. Women who voluntarily enter or remain in extremely patriarchal religious communities cite as one of their primary reasons the fact that their social and familial roles are clearly laid out, as are their expectations of husbands, children, and neighbors. Clarity of purpose, place, and direction mean a lot to some people.
The question of whether marriage would be better if women simply submitted to the leadership of men instead of insisting on equality is thus, in some ways, a proxy for asking if it would be better if everyone simply submitted to their divinely-ordained "betters" instead of insisting on equality and liberty. Is a well-ordered society in which everyone knows their place and doesn’t try to rise too high better than a disorderly society in which people take advantage of liberty to do things which bother others?
Comments
It’s disgusting that anyone would vote yes in this modern time, how is it 25% of the poll did?
I don’t like it either, but the only thing I find suprising is that it’s 25% of the people who visit this blog. I didn’t think that there were that many right-wingers reading this.
I put ‘I don’t know’. I think it varies on the type of people in the relationship. Some are better served by equality, others by one partner or the other (male or female) dominating it. Maybe even taking turns, or varying depending on the aspect in reference. It think it’s too generalized anyway, since it implies a male/female 2-count coupling.
I happen to be a christian and believe the bible’s teaching no matter what modern times would ask me to believe.If culture is our basis for faith and practice (e.g. marriage ), especially modernity, then it is not solid and firm because culture changes, and that’s the reason why more than 50% of today’s marriages ended in divorce.
Modern times would have you believe that slavery is wrong, so I guess you go with the Bible on this and think slavery is OK?
Actually, there is so much divorce because divorce is legal and women live longer. In the past women died very young (in childbirth) and those who lived didn’t have the option of getting a divorce at all. Today it is accepted in the West that marriage exists for the sake of love and personal fulfillment; ergo, when one or both disappear, then divorce becomes an option.
Yes, culture changes, but this doesn’t mean that it isn’t a solid or valid basis for behavior. Culture has changed to give women the right to own property and hold a job. Do you object? Culture has changed to allow interracial marriage. Do you object? Culture has changed to defend equal civil rights of minorities. Do you object? Culture has changed to protect religious freedom. Do you object?
Speaking as a Wife and A woman…
I believe that women are equil in marrage, and everything else… just because there was slavery in the bible doesent mean it was right… it was accepted. In the same way, just because divorse is accepted now, doesent make it right. Only accepted.
Its about morality, everything is. By what do we judge what is moral and what isnt? Well, no matter how many people wish it wernt so, Our Nation, from the begining has judged it based on the bible.
(Read “Original Intent” by david Barton)
Is marriage better when wives submit to the leadership of their husbands?
Yes, it is… but submitting doesent mean we’re are not equil parties.
Why?
Perhaps we secular humanists are wrong about what people really want and what is right for them. This article touches on something I’ve been thinking about for awhile. Perhaps the reason many women are willing to submit to male dominance is the same reason why religion is still around, why Singapore is the happiest country in Asia and why Hitler was able to turn most of a nation into automatons. I think it all comes down to that most people simply WANT to be told what to do, what to think and how to live. Thinking is so hard for most they would rather have someone else do it for them. This is why folks blindly follow preachers, politicians and news pundits.
This brings us to the question; should we atheists/humanists continue trying to educate people, should we try to take over and then try to move humans toward thinking and ethics or should we just take over and establish ourselves as the ruling class and be the ones who will do the thinking for most of a society that has no interest in thinking for themselves? At least with us in charge, we could prevent destruction and create a logical world order.
I have my own opinion on this but I’m interested in what you folks think.
>Our Nation, from the begining has judged it based on the bible.(Read “Original Intent” by david Barton)
I thought our nation was founded upon the Constitution? I didn’t realize it was founded on the Bible. But I guess if David Barton says so, someone should alert the Supreme Court that they’re using the wrong document to interpret our nations laws. We should also probably stop swearing in our President and making him promise to “uphold and defend the Constitution.” He should be swearing to uphold and defend the Bible in this case.
>just because there was slavery in the bible doesent mean it was right…it was accepted
Sorry no. The character Yahweh had no qualms about forbidding things in the OT. He forbade (made illegal) all sorts of things that did nobody any harm–wearing mixed fibers, eating shrimp, and so on. Are you expecting me to accept that the same god who would punish people for wearing polycotton felt compelled to let them indulge in slavery because he didn’t feel a need to forbid it? Eating shrimp is worse to your god than enslaving young virgins for use among the men who won a victory in battle?
By the way, this same god didn’t just “accept” infantacide–he instructed it, telling the Hebrews to kill all the children of the Amelakites. I guess that’s moral, since it was god’s instruction. The Hebrews didn’t go to Yahweh saying, “Oh please let us slaughter all the infants of our enemies!” God simply told them to do so. The children, the infants, even the animals.
Please don’t talk to people about the morality of the Bible until you’re ready to uphold it as moral through and through. And when you’re ready to do that, I’m ready to tell you how messed up you are for saying that mass infantacide/genocide is sometimes “moral.”
Is marriage better when wives submit to the leadership of their husbands?
Yes, it is…
Why?
For the Bible tells me so! QED! Lulz…
“just take over and establish ourselves as the ruling class and be the ones who will do the thinking for most of a society that has no interest in thinking for themselves? At least with us in charge, we could prevent destruction and create a logical world order.”
Jim I think this is what we should do…like a modern-day Plato’s Republic, governed by leaders who have special honorable qualities and can be trusted to govern for the good of everyone. Of course no system of government will be without flaws but clear-thinking secularists will easily set up checks and balances rather than do away with them.
Re marriage (at least in the context of “western” civilization), i believe it is simply an institution created by men to control women and other or lesser men. Men made the rule that two spouses must be physically and emotionally loyal to no one but each other, but the men who made the rule truly only meant that it should apply to the wife. These same men also made the rule that men are the natural leaders who must be obeyed. The traditions all have their roots in power and control, dressed up in fancy mystical fables to make it appealing to those who would believe.
I had to select “Yes” because I’ve been submitting to her leadership for seven years, and she seems to be having a whale of a time.
I was at a wedding some years ago where the pastor (the groom’s brother, I think) mentioned multiple times about the bride submitting to her groom. A few friends and I spoke incredulously about it after; I mentioned how there will be NO talk of submitting at my wedding day. Now, my wedding NIGHT… that’s another matter!
As a therapist of over twenty years and having done a great deal of couple work, I have never seen a couple relationship that didn’t benefit from more equality/better balance of power.
I also have a 23 yr. relationship with a man who I still love, trust, and respect and know that this is mutual. Abraham Lincoln once said “since I would not be a slave, then neither a master will I be”. Women who have learned to be submissive and men who have learned to be controlling often have a hard time unlearning this but for a healthy relationship, I honestly believe that sharing power helps keep sex better and friendship more vibrant. Change isn’t easy for most of us but change and growth are what we all need to have a more fulfilled life.
Walking is always better on just one leg. It is better to see with one eye shut. I can’t tell you how many red lights I didn’t run thanks to a watchful wife. Religionists are the stupidest people on earth. They can’t see what is right in front of their face. (Somebody has been monkeying with the poll)
Why doesn’t the poll include a “marriage should be wife-led” option?
I wonder if this is why so many theists oppose gay marriage– a marriage in which there are, say, two wives, would create a model in which each is submissive to her husband, who doesn’t exist.
TILT.
TILT.
TILT.
I can’t believe any good has come out of “submission”. That was the reason women were legally mistreated by abusive husbands and everone looked the other way: she was his PROPERTY! I’m in agreement with Jim (comment #8.) I also believe we’d all be better off WITHOUT religion. Think: the brutality of the Crusades.
I notice that when you ask women who subscribe to the submission doctrine how they feel about it, they always say something like “well, it doesn’t really mean submission,” or “it doesn’t mean my husband can tell me what to do.” The doctrine is emphasized in contexts where it can act as a rallying point for fundamentalists fighting modernity, but minimized when its negative consequences are exposed.
Whilst there has to be equality in marriages, we must not overlook responsibility. Try hard as I may, there is no way I,(a male) can conceive a child. Men and women have their own responsibilities.
Also,in any team, there can only be one captain,who accepts overall responsibility.Any team there has 2 captains is doomed to discord and strife.
The idea of the man being superior is ridiculous. In some cases the wife makes most decisions and runs the house. Not all men even want the responsibility. Whether one or the other is dominant or they are equal depends on what they decide between themselves. I have known men who leave everything to their wives.
Submission in the past meant such things as the husband taking over his wife’s assets and the wife submitting to sex whenever the husband demanded it.The days of patriarchal societies at least in the West are over.
Women are the only ones who can give birth and nurse, but not all women can do that. What other responsibilities do you think that women have? I can’t think of anything social which only men can do.
Are you trying to argue that the ability to conceive a child is, by itself, sufficient basis to assign both men and women a host of alleged “responsibilities”?
It is interesting that you assume that a group must be organized in a top-down, hierarchical manner with a “captain” who has full decision-making powers while the rest are “not captains” without any ultimate decision-making powers or responsibilities. Upon what do you base this assumption?
Have you ever heard of something called a “partnership” where two or more people make decisions jointly? There are no “captains,” just partners.
Do you feel that you would be unable to have a relationship with a women if she wanted to be a partner with you? Do you feel that you could only have a relationship with a women if you got to be captain and she had to accept certain “responsibilities” simply because she is female?
My late wife (46yrs) always said a successful marriage is where the wife lets her husband THINK he’s boss.
For the first half of my marriage I think I was a bit too much “Traditional”,gradually, both in our business, and home I realised the superior intellect and character of my wife. I acceded. She succeeded. I seceded. “What a woman.”
tomedga@halenet.com.au
Funny that a very important verse is left out when Jesus is asked this very question. Yes, women are to be submissive. Now hold on to your miss guided fundamentally secular beliefs. Jesus goes on to say that men are to love thier wife as Jesus loved the Church. Do you understand what that means? After considering all points of a situation and getting the wifes input the ultimate decision is the mans. With husband and wife on thier knees praying for guidance the man is responsible for making the final decision. Does this mean the man has dominance over the woman, certainly not. And as Christ loved the church, so is the husband to love the wife. And Christ gave ALL for the church. Knocks your socks off.
The Point I was trying to make is the man’s descisons is with the wife’s interests in mind.
What does “dominance” mean if not that?
It’s not “love” to be treated as inferior.
And how does that exclude being dominant? I never said that the husband was to not consider what the wife’s interests might be - but notice how you don’t say that the husband’s decisions should be the same as what the wife would decide herself.
What you describe is how a child might be treated, not an equal adult. Would you accept a government that treated you this way?
I think everyone is missing the main point here. Marriage I believe was created by religion at some point. We are all just animals in the wild kingdom, we just happen to be at the top of the ladder due to our intelligence. It has been a mission of religion (especially Christianity) to de-animalize us, - to separate us as a “higher creation of god” rather than just another entity that rose out of the primordial soup of evolution. They have done this with inventions like marriage, monogamy, circumcision and their skewed moral values. There are many things they adapted and carried through into their scripture that is just human nature and has been carried through probably since the beginning of man kind – like male dominancy. Look at 90 percent of the world’s creatures and you will notice a tendency for male dominance and multiple female mates. Almost all mammals on earth have a hierarchy of elder and stronger males. I’m interested in some feed back on this issue, so let me have it.
You stated asked the question,
“Are they right, though, that marriage would be better if women simply submitted instead of insisting on equality?”
However that statement is a major logically fallacy called “False Dilemma, or the Either/Or fallacy. Women can practice the Biblical teaching of submitting and be equal to their husband at the same time.
There is also a major misrepresentation of the Bible here. The author has left out the second half of this principle. The Bible says that the Biblical marriage relationship is to be modeled after Christ and the Church (”the Church” being followers of Christ, not a building). The Bible says that Christ loved us so much that He gave Himself for us, even to the point of death. This is the mans role in a Biblical marriage relationship. While the woman is to submit, the Bible says that the man is to lead her, by being a serving her. This concept of servant leadership is not a concept of ruling over a person but of making putting her before you every day.
This author has completely manipulated the reader by misrepresenting the Bible. When digging into the real idea for what God intended marriage to be like, we find that is is not a lordship where the man rules over his wife, but it is a relationship where the husband places his wife before him in every decision he makes.
Feel free to explain how.
So, the husband is supposed to submit to the wife?
Feel free to demonstrate how.
Ah, but he’s still the one making the decisions, right? If she isn’t making decisions, then she isn’t equal.
People don’t reject the Bible because it contradicts itself. People reject the Bible because it contradicts them.
Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The heart of the matter is a matter of the heart. The other stuff discussed here is just that — stuff. They’re just side issues, not the root of the problem. The root of the problem is the heart of man, which is hardened toward God. When the heart is right with God, all these other issues about submission fall into place.
Man brings pain upon himself AND upon others because of sin, not because God caused it. God is not to blame for all the wrongs in the world. We are.
If your child falls and scrapes his knee, are you not a good parent? If your children grow up to make bad decisions, that’s all your fault? We all have a will. There’s a will to do right and a will to do wrong. Life is full of choices. Our choices are our own.
The erasing of the lines that show clearly the difference between right and wrong is the reason our prisons are overcrowded, and our little girls are having babies at an alarming rate — and proud of it. Okay, so let’s not tell people the truth about what’s right and wrong. Let’s just think for ourselves. Thinking for ourselves has really given us things to be proud of as a nation, hasn’t it?
The lines have been rubbed out so that in today’s society you can sort of step out of virtue and enter into a middle gray — the fog. There’s a problem with fog. It’s hard to see where you’re going. Like it or not, God decides what’s right, not the world. God decides what the standard is, not the culture.
It stuns me how we shake our fists in the face of a loving God who wants to do nothing but bless us, but then on 9/11 our lawmakers stand on the steps of the Capitol and dare to ask God to bless America? Why should He? He owes us nothing but sent His Son who died to give us everything. Could it be we finally realized that we’re not always big enough to take care of ourselves?
God’s not a vending machine. He is holy and not at all impressed when we run to Him, slap a quarter in the slot trying to soothe our consciences and find some measure of peace, knowing full well the intent of our hearts — that we don’t want Him. We just want to feel better about our sin.
God desires a relationship with His creation, which is why He sent His Son Jesus. By the way — His grave is empty, proving that He is who He said He is — God in the flesh. Emmanuel.
We could discuss issues all day long, but that’s not the root of the issue. The bottom line is this: what’s going to happen one second after you die? It’s appointed unto man once to die. I didn’t create Heaven, so I don’t have the right to decide how to get there. Good works wont get me there. If they could, then why did Jesus die?
I know I’m going there, because I’ve been born spiritually as a child of God in the same way children have access to my home only because they were born into my family. You get to God’s house through relationship with Him, not by merit or favor. The Word of God gives clear direction how to do that, and because I’m a child of God, I don’t fear death or eternity.
You only have so many years on this earth. And they’re years to form a relationship with your Creator. So for all the issues being discussed here, we all bear one thing in common: we’re all going to die. One second after you die, not ONE thing being discussed here makes a matters one iota if you aren’t prepared for eternity.
I’m prepared and I know where I’m going. Do you?
Just saying that scripture has no contradictions does not eliminate the contradictions. The bible is full of divine backpedaling, mixed messages, vindictive slaughter and justly confused saints.
The common analogy to God as a father and we as the insolent children ignores one Christian assertion. My children may be disobedient and turn out poorly despite all my best efforts, but I never made the claim, as God has, to be all-knowing or all-powerful or all-present. If I was, my child rearing would be vastly different. I wouldn’t simply watch as my babies got spattered while playing on a busy street. I don’t prattle on about how afraid everyone should be of my eternal hell fire vengence and I would never choose the assinine act of sacrificing my child to just to have a better conversation with anyone.
The whole Abrahamic-God construct is flawed. It is based on a middle eastern warlord concept of cheap life and subjection as a fact of life. It only resonates when one adopts a fuedal stance in life. The big reward at the end of a Christian life is to rule and reign with Christ in heaven. Rule who? Reign what? Why would you want a ruler? How does a promise like this resonate with anyone but a peasant shepherd or a brutal meglomaniac?
The previous posting by “Anonymous” is typical of those that have no reason and probably have a very limited knowledge of the very scriptures they flaunt. They are so sure of their status as “Children of the King” that they cannot use their own name. It is time to grow up folks.
What’s with the thread necromancy? This is two years old!
“I’m prepared and I know where I’m going. Do you?”
You’re going the same place i am, a hole in the ground.
Todd,
You will be tormented in that hole in the ground for all eternity. The bible is very clear on this. It is irrefutible. It is the Word of God. How stupid that you place your faith in the words of men and not the Word of God. I can’t wait for armageddon because this time Jesus will be coming back with a sword to slaughter you unbelievers.
One point that hasn’t been brought up in this thread is how Christianity, once again, has evolved to be something today that would be completetly unrecognisable to “Christians” of the past, who would burn modern Christians as heretics.
The passages above have been quoted, and Christians say, “no, really, husbands and wives are equal but different. Jesus said so!” These apologists go on to use the Bible to support their own opinions, which are part of the greater societal zeitgeist. Note that the opinion comes first, and the religion is used to support it - NOT the other way around.
Theists can’t acknowledge that their religion has changed, so they pretend it hasn’t.
But of course, it has. The very same Biblical phrases that people today claim speak of “equal, but different” are the exact same phrases that patriarchs used in the past to dish out punishment to wives and children, to control them like property, and exclude them from voting and other social and political rights.
The hypocracy of religion is not a news flash, nor is the fact that people in different societies pick and chose what they want from it, despite its laughable claims to be eternal and unchanging.
“I can’t wait for armageddon because this time Jesus will be coming back with a sword to slaughter you unbelievers.”
As a new subscriber, I can’t believe such a solid supporter of “GOD” would be proud to say that Jesus is going to slaughter anyone who didn’t think exactly like him! How can you stand behind being a kind, morally correct Christian yet be happy to envision Jesus or who-ever slaughtering non-believers? Besides, if the all knowing GOD is open to saving people, we should be ok if we don’t believe anyway since we’ll be saved.It’s all just a matter of opinion. Just let us live our lives happily and you go to Church and live yours happily too.
Ford in #26 asked about how essentially “natural” male dominance is, and commented on how common it is in nature. There has been a lot of work on this subject over the past century by biologists, anthropologists and others, and the results are a mixed bag. Male dominance is not as common as you might think, and has more to do with whether males stay in a group on reaching sexual maturity and females leave or vice versa (an instinct related to increasing genetic diversity / preventing inbreeding).
It’s useful to look at our own confirmed ancestors. 4 million years ago, males averaged about 80% larger than females, and social groups tended to have more males than females. 2 million years ago, males averaged 60% larger than females, and the M/F ratio was more equal, Today males average about 20% bigger than females, and the proportion is roughly equal. Can you see the trend, here? Physical size generally allows for domination (though not necessarily - in bonobos, our closest relative with more than 99% the same genes as us, males are larger than females, but females dominate by working together). If we don’t start dramatically engineering our genes, it’s pretty easy to see that in another couple million years, there will be little difference between males and females. It is entirely possible that males could disappear altogether and females could reproduce by parthenogenesis - the y chromosome has been shrinking, and this has happened with some species of lizards (though they are all female, they still have sex with each other, a remnant of earlier instincts).
Think about how we have changed culturally in the past several thousand years. Before 9000 years ago, all people lived in small groups, mostly nomadic, living off the land. These groups tended to be pretty equal among their members (what they call “egalitarian” in the professional literature). Roughly 9000 years ago we began to rely on agriculture more than gathering wild resources, and everything changed for us. The key fact is that our population shot up tremendously, crowding us together - at first in villages, then towns and cities. This created huge conflicts between people that did not exist before. It became necessary for societies to have leaders to mediate all these new conflicts, and chiefs were born. In smaller chiefdoms, the authority of the chief came from personal reputation for fairness, but as societies grew larger, it became necessary to have more controls and more levels of control. As the bureaucracy grew, resistance grew, in a cycle. The earliest nations, now with kings - more powerful than chiefs - found that you could not control society with police or military might alone. Those that tried collapsed. It was necessary for the people to rule themselves. That is why the kings of early civilizations were gods and/or priests. Only by threatening the people with all-knowing, all-powerful beings could they ensure that a majority of people would obey without questioning how their obedience impacted their own, personal lives. Religions have always been control mechanisms, as long as humans have lived crowded together in cities.
Fast forward to the 19th Century. Changes in technology like automation, transportation and firearms made it possible for women, who average 20% less muscle mass, to physically compete with men. Since women began agitating for their rights as soon as the technology overcame their physical disadvantage, it is pretty clear that they have the intelligence to handle freedom. We withhold freedom from children because they are both physically weak and have poor judgement due to inexperience. The holy books of the Western religions have specified a role for women that is equivalent to that of permanent children. It is clear once women start getting equal education that they have equal mental faculties (since mental faculties are trained, not born with).
As our technology advances and our population grows, what will happen in the next couple million years?
I can’t wait for armageddon because this time Jesus will be coming back with a sword to slaughter you unbelievers. Comment by Warrior for Christ — July 17, 2008 @ 11:25 am
Like it or not, you will have to get used to waiting. And waiting. And waiting.
You will waste your life in fruitless waiting and fantasies of revenge. But at least you can thump your chest when you come here. Maybe that will bring you some solace.
1 Corinthians 1:18 “For the preaching of the cross is, to them that perish, foolishness; but unto us which are saved, it is the power of God.”
The entire reason none of this makes sense to some of you, is because to those who don’t know the Lord, it IS foolishness. That comes as no surprise to me. On the contrary, it makes complete sense that you would feel that way! And so, I don’t condemn you for what just comes naturally. Rather, God said long ago that He would be foolishness to you, and well . . . He’s right. Right?
A wife cannot lovingly and joyfully submit (and it IS joyful, not drudgery!) to her husband OUTSIDE OF THE POWER OF GOD. She can’t do it or even WANT to do it without that key.
1 Corinthians 2:14 “But the natural man receiveth (accepts) not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
In other words — without the power of God to change your heart, you can’t accept the things of God. Any of them. It’s utterly impossible! You will mock, you will scoff. Again, that’s completely expected. When you are filled with the world’s philosophy, there is a spiritual blindness over your heart.
2 Corinthians 4:4 “. . . the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. ”
You are completely powerless to understand the love of or the ways of an Almighty God apart from Jesus Christ. How easy life is when you live it with the power of God! I don’t HAVE to do these things — God empowers me to do His will! Without Him, I can’t do His will on my own, and, like you, don’t even have the heart to WANT to.
But . . . you still didn’t answer the question. The real question is still being skirted. It’s an easy defense to fling the accusation that one doesn’t know his Bible. The Bible doesn’t need me to defend it. It defends and speaks for itself.
But the bottom line answer for yourself still remains unanswered. Where will you be one second after you die?
You either know or you don’t know. You could write paragraphs and go into deep theological discussion, but the heart of the matter is still, and will always be, your relationship with Jesus Christ.
The truths of the Word of God is like a sword. It cuts to the heart. It very decisively brings all of us to a crossroad of decision. Do our own thing or do it God’s way. And until we know God, it is utterly impossible to do it His way.
I also know that whoever posted the harsh statements about God’s judgment doesn’t know the God of the Bible very well. Oh my!! How shamefully hurtful. God’s judgment on sin is something that should SO grieve the heart of the Christian! God’s judgment NOT a sword to be wielded to cut and hurt in the time of confrontation. Forget not that we are to “speak the truth in love.” There is a balance, dear friend.
Forget not Jesus died for ALL of us. Forget not that if you too know Jesus, you’re a just sinner saved by grace, just like me, and that your sin is no better than those who contradict the God we serve. The only difference between us and them is one simple — that we’re forgiven.
Jesus came to seek and to save. He came not weilding a sword 2000 years ago. He came as a baby in a manager, and He came to hang on a cross and provide victory of death. He came as a picture of mercy, not as a conquering tyrant.
The poster has presented only one aspect of God, and has forgetten His all compelling love. Yes, God is Holy — and thus requires consequences when we do wrong — but God is also love! A love so strong that He willingly sent His sinless Son to die in our place. The Bible tell us that the GOODNESS of God leads us to repentance! Wrath draws no one.
Yes, there is a real Heaven and there is a real Hell. Hell, however was not originally created for us. The Bible tells us that it was created for Satan & his angels. Adam sold you out long ago and gave you a sin nature, dear one. Ever wonder why you never have to teach your kids to lie? Ever wonder why you have to teach your kids to do right? They don’t just naturally do good all the time. Why do we have laws in the first place? Because we’re all born sinners. We’re all born with a bent to do wrong. Just one sin makes us a sinner.
Now if God was TRULY unloving . . . He would have just left it there. We would all be doomed to spend eternity separated from Him. But He provided a way! And He provided a way that cost HIM — not us. God’s gift of eternal life doesn’t cost us a thing. It’s free. The only thing required to have a gift is one thing — to accept it.
To reject the gift is to go without it. God’s gift is eternal life in Heaven. To reject it is to then choose separation from God. That’s not God’s doing, but ours. He’s not going to make you take it. You choose your own destiny.
Do you know where you’re going when this life is over? I’ve never seen a hearse pulling a Uhaul. You can’t take it with you. Culture and technological changes . . . let them come. Let them change. But sadly, they’re going to mean absolutely nothing when we stand before God.
Religion says “work your way to God.” But God says, “Done.” Jesus already done it all for us by His finished work on Calvary. He just extends His gift of eternal life for us to accept or reject. God is a gentleman — He forces no one to love Him.
In that day, only ONE thing is going to matter — do you know the God of Heaven?
This is a lot of nice scripture-quoting, but clearly you did not read (or take seriously) my previous post. There are a lot of them, so maybe you just missed it in the fray. It is not just the Apostles whose ghosts would be pleased by this. All the prophets of all the old gods, as well as the newer ones, wanted to see exactly this - a populace that blindly believes without question the authority of their written texts. King Nebuchadnezzar and all the kings of Ur and Babylon and the rest have won with you. As long as you will not look beyond their words of authority, you will do exactly as the kings want you to. But if you want to convince anyone else, you will have to show how your particular book of kingly authority has any use in any context outside of the nation and the times in which it was written (and rewritten, and extensively edited, and commented upon and interpreted for the “unwashed masses”). That means you have to look outside of Scripture. It is not that other people do not understand, the issue is that they understand all too well - your book is a book of propaganda, a tool of government control.
God said long ago that He would be foolishness to you, and well . . . He’s right. Right? Comment by Anonymous — July 21, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, and lawn fairies are all equal in my estimation of their foolishness. By the standard you describe, this proves they are all equally close to God.
The truths of the Word of God is like a sword. Comment by Anonymous — July 21, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
The interesting difference is that a sword works no matter whether you believe in it.
Yes, there is a real Heaven and there is a real Hell. Comment by Anonymous — July 21, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
So you say, but you do not say why anyone ought to believe you.
We’re all born with a bent to do wrong. Comment by Anonymous — July 21, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
Then why do we do right far, far more often than we do wrong? Why is this true even for convicted killers serving life sentence in prison?
Just one sin makes us a sinner. Comment by Anonymous — July 21, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
What is the opposite of sin?
Anonymous:
To quote Archie Bunker, “Jeez, will you stifle it?”. I hate to break the news to you but I and most atheists are as familiar with the bible as you are. That’s one of the reasons many have become atheists. What a bunch of ridiculous tripe passes for Sacredness in that
misbegotten volume of claptrap.
Dear Anonymous,
Perhaps you were born with a bent to do wrong. Is it any surprise that you lack the imagination, empathy and maturity to see that not everyone on Earth is exactly like you? It has always been the cheap defense of the wrong-doer when caught to say that “everyone does it.” This is just a childish attempt to justify bad behavior. I would suggest you try keeping a journal for a week or two, writing down everything you observe people doing and categorizing as good or bad behavior, then see which comes out more. However, I know the power of the human mind to ignore what they don’t want to see and focus on what they do. It should be pretty obvious though, that if all humans were such terrible sinners, they would have destroyed each other centuries ago (and you wouldn’t need Yshwa to write you a license to sin). One sin makes you a sinner? How is that different from the old Jim Crow laws that say one drop of black blood makes you black?
Warrior for Christ,
F**k off, you bigot! No one’s responding to your hate speech, except with anger! Go f**king strap a bomb to yourself and blow yourself to pieces in the name of Jesus, you prehistoric sack of s**t! I’d love to meet you in person so that I belt the living s**t out of you! I’d love to knock all the filthy, disgusting, hateful bigotry and crackpot superstitious nonsense out of your head!!!
DOWN WITH THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT!!!!!! AAAAAARRRGHHH!!!!
Mr Cline,
Why on earth do you let this screwed-in-the-head fundamentalist nutcase pollute this sight with his/her garbage?
On the subject at hand here, I voted ‘no’. I, as a feminist, believe that both partners are equal in any marriage, be it between members of the same or opposite gender.
Maybe it sounds a bit vocal, but when dealing with people like warrior, I’d say born-again atheist hit the nail on the head. Good comment. Its a shame warrior doesn’t blow himself up, the world would be a far brighter place without him.
Cheers, K.anonymous, and my apologies to you for not responding sooner.