Aslan is the Best wrote:Personally, I'm tired of the debate between complementarian/egalitarian. In the context of debate, though, I do have some problems with the organized complementarianism
So do I. As an Anglican, I married according to the vows set up in the
Book of Common Prayer, originally formulated in the Tudor era of English history. The vows are for a woman: to love, honour and obey. Though even at the time of my marriage (1/5/1971) I was given a choice to love, honour and cherish, as it is for the man.
I did point out though at the time, at our pre-wedding interview with the minister who married us, that there is a difference between blind obedience and obedience because I agreed that my husband was right. Although, to avoid an argument, I have allowed him his way, even though I knew full well he was wrong, and hadn't thought out his decisions and opinions nearly carefully enough, my husband has at least been man enough to admit that he was in the wrong and to apologise. Not a lot of men would, in my experience.
In the case of batterers I agree they need professional help regardless whether it is behind bars or not. Anger management is called to mind. After the horrors of the many wars we have endured as a society, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the bad treatment meted out to wives, in particular, and also children, are not only the result of past bad or absent fathering practices, through many generations, but also of a collective post traumatic stress syndrome, something which didn't spring up suddenly as a phenomenon in the 20th century, no matter what people might have thought in 1918.
IlF wrote:I read article and it was all most laughable. For those who it wasn't a parody for. There are some great loop wholes. If heaven is real than I can se a number of scenarios where this type of system wouldn't work.
For one if the women had no husband and never knew her father.(she couldn't "submit" to a man she never knew).
Quite so. In any case, Christ was quoted as saying, in one of the items TOM linked to, that "In heaven there would be no male or female, no giving or taking in marriage"(sic). And St Paul, writing in his epistles, also warned that married couples should not be "unequally yoked together", even though he also said that women should submit to their husbands. I suspect that in an afterlife, which is what the parody was referring to, that women would be absolved from submitting to anyone except to the will of God, and that men, likewise, would have got to heaven also because they, too, genuinely put the will of God first, instead of letting their own egos get in the way.
As I have remarked beforehand, it wouldn't be much of a heaven if there was no forgiveness of others, and if people held on to their rancour and bad memories after death. And in marriage, and in family life, in day to day matters, there have been so many reasons for disputation that it is doubtful, even if there is a heaven, that the situation would even arise about how anyone would get on with more than one wife or husband.
TOM wrote:I think with the man-hatin', it's probably pain and passion for justice, though of course that's a huge oversimplification. One might have had a pretty good life and still be enraged at the way that the word treats other people, particularly the people without a voice.
True. And unfortunately, injustice goes a long way. Does anyone really think that in any heaven one might genuinely believe in, that Henry VIII, who famously divorced two wives, and executed two others, would genuinely make the grade?
Besides, I don't know why the situation would arise in the afterlife, anyway, whether one believes in it or not. Yesterday we were told in the news about a young man, a promising jockey, who had married a beautiful young woman just two months ago, and had everything to live for, but who died tragically at the age of 23, of Norse syndrome, something like encephalitis, just as he reached Sydney, from Singapore, where he and his bride had been residing.
His is not the only untimely death that has been brought to public attention. A famous and popular cricketer, Glenn McGrath, who has since remarried, lost his first wife, Jane, to breast cancer, and when you see cricketers and other sportsmen wearing pink t-shirts in cricket matches it is in her honour and to raise money for breast cancer research. By the way, although it is relatively rare in the world, did you know that men can also get breast cancer?
What I am saying is that we are physical entities whose bodies will break down, one way or the other, in the fullness of time, including the bits which make us man and woman. Women may or may not get breast cancer, but they can also get ovarian cancer, and other female-related nasties, that have nothing to do with cancer at all.
So can men. In Australia, to get money for research into prostate cancer, a highly painful and humiliating complaint for men, November has become Movember, during which men grow moustaches (mo's-geddit?). Or else they or their womenfolk get their head shaved or dyed as part of the fund-raising activities. I was looking at a health program about a man in USA, whose life was made a total misery because of an abnormality of his nether regions, one of many that can afflict men, no matter how powerfully manly they consider themselves. Wouldn't it be a relief for man and woman alike in the afterlife, to be free of such nasty, horrible and often deadly complaints, would you agree?