Announcement

Collapse

Fraternity Guidelines

This is a guy's only forum. No girls allowed. Male bonding time.

In here we can leave the seat up, drink from the carton and talk about manly things without fear of the ladies butting in. You know how they can be.

But remember, always play by the rules: here
See more
See less

Your Views on Patriarchy

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    I don't see how it's any different than the functional subordination within the Trinity.
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    That is the orthodox view. Anyone who goes with essential subordination has crossed the line into heresy. (And that's the heart of an intense theological dispute in recent years touching on this issue.)
    As I understand it, the egalitarian view is that the distinction between "functional" and "essential" is a recent invention by complementarians, concocted by working backwards to find additional support for their hierarchical view of male/female (or at least husband/wife).
    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    Beige Federalist.

    Nationalist Christian.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

    Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

    Proud member of the this space left blank community.

    Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

    Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

    Justice for Matthew Perna!

    Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
      It just so happens that "egalitarians" are the ones who think authority = superior and project this on all complementarians. It's the sin of Pride at work. Once you think you are equal to your "better" it's only a matter of time before you start thinking you are equal to God. Ultimately, egalitarianism is the same sin that got Satan thrown out of heaven.
      You are not making sense. You claim that we egalitarians are the ones who equate authority with superiority, and then go on to explicitly say that some really are "better." Explain yourself more clearly.
      Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

      Beige Federalist.

      Nationalist Christian.

      "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

      Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

      Proud member of the this space left blank community.

      Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

      Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

      Justice for Matthew Perna!

      Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
        The problem with egalitarians is that like with all other leftist thought the egalitarian keeps projecting basic assumptions on a completely different system. In this case the egalitarian starts from assigning equal, hollow value to both sexes and then distributing traits (and complaining about how complementarians distribute them).
        No. We start with Scripture, which shows that God created humans male and female, equally bearing the image of God, and assigned both of them to rule the earth and all other living creatures on it. (Gen. 1:26-28) There is no mention of one of the humans ruling over the other.


        When in practice Adam was created first and specifically made as steward to creation. Woman was subsequently created, not to order Adam around but so that he could have a helper.
        Neither was created to "order around" the other. The woman was created as a "suitable companion" for him. The NET translation helpfully notes that the Hebrew word "ezer," often translated helper, does *not* convey the sense of subordination.
        Whereas in the egalitarian model, preference is given based on either whoever feels the most passionate or whoever has the most knowledge concerning the particular issue, or whoever is the one most gifted, etc.
        The egalitarian model seems to assume that both men and women exist for no purpose other than to pursue whatever crosses their minds at any given time rather than to fulfill God's purposes.
        I don't know where you got that quote. You pulled it out of some orifice with no citation of source. And I don't know how you came up with that dim-witted interpretation of it. In the egalitarian model, male and female are equal. Neither is automatically prohibited any "role" solely on the basis of gender. We serve God as equal partners. We also sometimes refer to ourselves as "mutualists," because submission is not one-sided. We are always ready to defer to each other. So, yes, in a given situation, either can be the "leader," depending on knowledge, gifting, etc., or they can collaborate with neither really being "the" leader.


        So from this atheistic perspective egalitarianism sounds like a swell idea. Of course, in actual practice the egalitarian model seems to have mostly resulted in self destructive behavior at the civilization level on the part of both sexes. If women should be able to do whatever they feel like, then so should men. So both are increasingly abdicating their responsibilities, down to even something as basic as reproduction.
        You are clearly speaking from poorly informed preconceptions, utterly ignorant of actual egalitarian Scriptural arguments and life practices.


        These decisions are based on gender mutuality in an egalitarian marriage instead of one gender being superior to another holding the "tie-breaking" vote in a complementarian marriage.
        Once again the idea that authority = superiority shows up without justification.
        The unnamed poster did not use the word, "authority." (As a possibly interesting digression, the word "authority" does not occur in any of the NT passages commonly invoked when discussing family structure, with the exception of 1 Cor. 11, where the woman is the one who has "authority" in the matter there under discussion.) The poster used the word "superiority." If one has the tie-breaking vote, how is that one not in position of superiority? If one gender always has the tie-breaking vote, how is that gender not in a position of superiority?
        Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

        Beige Federalist.

        Nationalist Christian.

        "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

        Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

        Proud member of the this space left blank community.

        Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

        Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

        Justice for Matthew Perna!

        Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

        Comment


        • #49
          "tie-breaking" decision
          Description with zero sense, not even wrong!!! If one out of two parties has authority of decision, then there is no vote. Full stop!!!
          Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
            *hogwash*
            Let's tell truth: egalitarian view is recent invention by egalitarians, concocted by trying to read worldly ideas into Scripture, saying 'what Paul said was affected by his culture around him!!!' Of course, egalitarian view of Scripture coming up when worldly culture becoming egalitarian is just yuge coincidence!!

            Sad!
            Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
              No. We start with Scripture, which shows that God created humans male and female, equally bearing the image of God, and assigned both of them to rule the earth and all other living creatures on it. (Gen. 1:26-28) There is no mention of one of the humans ruling over the other.
              1. It's not very detailed.
              2. It does not even say they equally bear the image of God.
              3. It is obvious from the context that eve was created for Adam's benefit because God made Adam first, then stated it is not good for him to be alone. Exactly what degree of subordination this entails isn't stated just from Genesis, but it does set a pattern of man having his own goals and women being there to support said goals.

              Let's not forget that they originally looked for a helper among animals, but none was found.

              Neither was created to "order around" the other. The woman was created as a "suitable companion" for him. The NET translation helpfully notes that the Hebrew word "ezer," often translated helper, does *not* convey the sense of subordination.
              The word is used earlier when it states there was no help found for him among the animals. Do you think it does not convey any sense of subordination there as well? How can someone even be considered help if he is not subordinate to the person he is helping?

              I don't know where you got that quote. You pulled it out of some orifice with no citation of source. And I don't know how you came up with that dim-witted interpretation of it. In the egalitarian model, male and female are equal. Neither is automatically prohibited any "role" solely on the basis of gender. We serve God as equal partners. We also sometimes refer to ourselves as "mutualists," because submission is not one-sided. We are always ready to defer to each other. So, yes, in a given situation, either can be the "leader," depending on knowledge, gifting, etc., or they can collaborate with neither really being "the" leader.
              My apologies, I often think and write too fast assuming the person on the other end can keep up. I will try to slow down, so that someone of your vastly inferior intellect isn't completely lost.

              For starters, I don't understand why you are talking about being prohibited any role when I say you believe you are not prescribed any roles. They are completely different things.

              The rest of your post is also, amusingly enough, unwittingly making the case I made.

              You are clearly speaking from poorly informed preconceptions, utterly ignorant of actual egalitarian Scriptural arguments and life practices.
              Quite the opposite, I see egalitarianism fail over and over again. The only egalitarians who do not fail are the ones who unwittingly follow complementarian prescriptions but falsely believe themselves to be egalitarian (IE: men/women who closely follow gender roles but think they are actually a mixture of both)

              The unnamed poster did not use the word, "authority." (As a possibly interesting digression, the word "authority" does not occur in any of the NT passages commonly invoked when discussing family structure, with the exception of 1 Cor. 11, where the woman is the one who has "authority" in the matter there under discussion.) The poster used the word "superiority." If one has the tie-breaking vote, how is that one not in position of superiority? If one gender always has the tie-breaking vote, how is that gender not in a position of superiority?
              If you view getting your way as an unmitigated good, as egalitarians do, you are correct. Of course, I am not an egalitarian so I think the answer to your question from my perspective is self evident, if only you were capable of thinking about it from a different perspective.
              "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

              There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                You are not making sense. You claim that we egalitarians are the ones who equate authority with superiority, and then go on to explicitly say that some really are "better." Explain yourself more clearly.
                I put it in quotation marks for the obvious reason that I was quoting the egalitarian perspective.
                "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                Comment


                • #53
                  wildflower logic: Giving money to the homeless can be abused. So don't give anything to the homeless.
                  "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                  There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Question for the women on this thread who think "the husband gets to be a tie-breaker":

                    I got divorced in 2014 after 11 years of marriage. There were a lot of reasons for that, but the beginning of the end occurred when my then-husband became infatuated with his co-worker. I never found any evidence of anything physical between them, but he was spending an intense amount of time with this woman.

                    You see, she lived in Chicago proper, and she took a job at my then-husband's place of business 27 miles away in Northbrook. The problem? She had no transportation to the job, and there were no public commute options that could get her to her shift and back on-time.

                    My then-husband's solution was to offer to drive this woman back and forth to and from work. Every. Single. Day. It took him 3 hours a day to do this and was costing us hundreds of dollars extra in gas, to say nothing of the wear-and-tear on our aging vehicle. He did not consult with me before making this decision, he just started doing it. There was no time frame on the rides, either; this wasn't temporary help. He intended to keep giving her the rides until she got her own car, and there was no sign of that happening any time soon.

                    I eventually told him point blank that I wanted the rides to stop, that she was a grown woman who needed to be responsible for her own transportation to work. I told him that I felt it was inappropriate for him to be alone in the car with this woman for 3 hours a day, and we couldn't afford these rides, and I needed his help at home. (I was 4 months pregnant at the time, trying to finish a master's degree, and our first child together was disabled.)

                    He responded that he had prayed about it and God had told him not to stop giving this woman rides, so he wasn't going to stop, and I didn't get any say in the matter.

                    What do you think I should have done in this situation? Should I have submitted myself to his tie-breaker vote?

                    I have thick skin and won't take your answers personally, I promise.
                    Keeping in mind that we only have one side of the story (IE: it almost certainly is worse for MsJack than this already looks, and it looks pretty bad as it is), she divorced her husband because ... he kept giving a woman charitable rides? Seems like MsJack adopted "egalitarianism" (AKA a feminist perversion of Christianity which is in many ways worse than run of the mill secular feminism) to excuse her own sins. Mind you, he shouldn't have been giving her those rides, but that alone is nowhere near a divorce worthy offense.

                    She also seems to be quite upset that her husband wasn't following through on his patriarchal duties. So what if she was 4 months pregnant? It's his job and his money, if she's living off him she really does have no say whatsoever. You can't reject the Patriarchy and then demand your husband support you while you mooch off him.

                    Bottom line, never marry a feminist. They're not honest about what they want, and they routinely aim their attacks at the people trying to accommodate them the most. They are never satisfied and the extra effort isn't worth the lesser reward.
                    Last edited by Darth Executor; 09-23-2017, 01:08 PM.
                    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                      Keeping in mind that we only have one side of the story (IE: it almost certainly is worse for MsJack than this already looks, and it looks pretty bad as it is), she divorced her husband because ... he kept giving a woman charitable rides? Seems like MsJack adopted "egalitarianism" (AKA a feminist perversion of Christianity which is in many ways worse than run of the mill secular feminism) to excuse her own sins. Mind you, he shouldn't have been giving her those rides, but that alone is nowhere near a divorce worthy offense.

                      She also seems to be quite upset that her husband wasn't following through on his patriarchal duties. So what if she was 4 months pregnant? It's his job and his money, if she's living off him she really does have no say whatsoever. You can't reject the Patriarchy and then demand your husband support you while you mooch off him.

                      Bottom line, never marry a feminist. They're not honest about what they want, and they routinely aim their attacks at the people trying to accommodate them the most. They are never satisfied and the extra effort isn't worth the lesser reward.
                      To be fair, Ms. Jack is leaving out details she's posted elsewhere - such as her husband declaring to her repeatedly that he was head over heels in love with the other woman. Maybe as a Mormon he felt that was perfectly fine, but it's not something I expect a woman to put up with.
                      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                      sigpic
                      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                        To be fair, Ms. Jack is leaving out details she's posted elsewhere - such as her husband declaring to her repeatedly that he was head over heels in love with the other woman. Maybe as a Mormon he felt that was perfectly fine, but it's not something I expect a woman to put up with.
                        Christ makes it quite clear that divorce in general is unacceptable and the sole exception He gives is adultery. So while I wouldn't expect someone to put up with it, it seems strange to bring it up when making the case for your own leadership when it was in fact a failure.
                        "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                        There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                          Christ makes it quite clear that divorce in general is unacceptable and the sole exception He gives is adultery. So while I wouldn't expect someone to put up with it, it seems strange to bring it up when making the case for your own leadership when it was in fact a failure.
                          Christ also makes it clear that a man looking at another woman with lust has committed adultery in his heart. Even if he didn't physically commit adultery (which may or not have been the case), he was certainly not being faithful.

                          And she's not bringing it up to make a case for her own leadership, but as an example of someone who actually did leave when they found the situation unbearable. I don't think it was an appropriate example, though she seems to think so.
                          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                          sigpic
                          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                            Christ also makes it clear that a man looking at another woman with lust has committed adultery in his heart. Even if he didn't physically commit adultery (which may or not have been the case), he was certainly not being faithful.
                            I don't believe for a second Christ was saying lusting after someone is literally adultery. Committing adultery in your heart means just that. It's not actual adultery. The whole context of the paragraph is about casting away things that are gonna make you sin and you shouldn't be resting easy just because you haven't committed the actual sin. If you think it should be taken literally, then the gouging of eyes or cutting off of hands should also be taken literally.

                            And she's not bringing it up to make a case for her own leadership, but as an example of someone who actually did leave when they found the situation unbearable. I don't think it was an appropriate example, though she seems to think so.
                            It was a conversation about leadership, where she presumably wants people to think her husband's leadership is inferior (or at least equal to) her own, the justification for egalitarianism. Seems to me her case for her own leadership is highly suspect given the poor choices she's made in life.
                            "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                            There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                              Seems like MsJack adopted "egalitarianism" (AKA a feminist perversion of Christianity which is in many ways worse than run of the mill secular feminism) to excuse her own sins.
                              lol like clockwork

                              Yes, the Bible says you can divorce over adultery, but it's rather fuzzier on the subject of emotional affairs.
                              It's not fuzzy at all, it explicitly prohibits divorce except for adultery.
                              "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                              There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by MsJack View Post
                                Darth Executor, since you are taking such a great deal of interest in my reasons for divorce over in the Fraternity, as I mentioned before, I have told my story in detail elsewhere.
                                Thanks, I think I've already read the first two but judging by the title of the third it's well worth reading just to further validate my worldview.

                                Your knowledge of what the Bible says about divorce is deficient. As far as the New Testament goes, adultery and abandonment by an unbelieving spouse are both given as acceptable reasons for divorce (1 Corinthians 7:15), so I'm covered on both counts.
                                Abandonment means someone divorced you. It does not make it an acceptable reason for divorce. You simply don't have a say in it so there's no reason to bring it up at all. And in your case I believe you said you separated yourselves (which sounds like a stupid idea when he's chasing another woman, if you really want to save your marriage). So no, there's nothing deficient about my knowledge. The OT isn't even relevant at all considering the completely different marriage structure.

                                First century Christians wouldn't have recognized a difference between an "emotional affair" and a physical one. A married man who spent hours upon hours of time alone with another woman and chose to support her rather than his own family absolutely would have been charged with committing adultery---which is why I say that the Bible is fuzzier on the subject.
                                Your implausible interpretation of what "First century Christians" would have done has no bearing on what the Bible says. I also took it to refer specifically to the NT, unless you want to advocate for polygamy.

                                Behold what patriarchy really thinks of women! It tells women to stay at home and let a man support them, and then calls them "mooches." In reality, I was staying at home because I had a disabled child to care for (which has already been mentioned). We had jointly agreed on me quitting my full-time job to care for her after she was born and we learned of her disability. I don't think that makes me a "mooch;" I guess patriarchy doesn't think disabled children need caregivers.
                                I am only calling you a mooch because you advocate for feminism when it suits you and patriarchy when it doesn't. My comment was not directed at anybody other than you. It's actually egalitarianism who considers a housewife a mooch.

                                But telling women that they have no say in the household finances, even when a man is spending the household money on another woman instead of providing food and housing for the family, is exactly why patriarchy is an abject failure. How was I supposed to feed my family and pay rent with our rent and food money going to this other woman? We can't eat "charity rides to a co-worker."
                                But you don't live (and never lived) in a patriarchal society. You live in an egalitarian society where there is no culture or law to compel him to fulfill sexist patriarchal duties. So how is patriarchy an "abject failure" just because your marriage imploded in an egalitarian society?

                                In a patriarchal society your father (or some other close female relative) wouldn't have even allowed you to marry a Mormon in the first place. Sounds like you're using patriarchy like a whipping horse because you want to deflect most of the blame for your poor decisions.

                                patriarchy.jpg

                                I really, really don't think men like you have to worry about feminists marrying them.
                                You'd be surprised. But there are some desperate souls out there, many on this very board, that might consider making that mistake. My warning is for them, not me.
                                "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                                There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X