Good morning Dano,
<<it clearly spells out that a women is to be secondary to a man, to be subserviant and compliant. It calls her the weaker sex, to be fully submisive and compliant.
<<Only this generation would think so>>
Subserviant, compliant, weaker sex? In any generation, those are words describing a secondary value.
Subservient means subordinate or servile. that is secondary no matter how you slice it or color it. The passages you posted, say that a man is to love and honor a women, but it clearly gives a women a secondary role.
<<The Word says what the word says. I will not "give you a different opinion" on what has been said.>>
I am not asking for a different opinion. I am asking you to explain why you think it says what it says. Anyone can recite passages in the Bible. I am asking you to go a little deeper and discuss the why's of what it says. I am not asking you to contradict it. In fact, I don't want you to contradict it. I have no desire to change your opinions or faith. I am just inerested in hearing your reasons, or the reasons you think it says what it says.
<<Now... I know from experience and just watching families that if a man is treating his wife as Christ does the church, and is a servent as he should be, there are no arguments about this question, if indeed it is a question.>>
If a man treats his wife according to the passages we have both cut and pasted, he will love and honor her, that is true. However, she will also be taking a back seat to the husband inmany ways. that may be fine with many women, and if that is the case, then that is great.
For other women, it may not be as great. there is no reason a competent, talented women shold have to hide those talents, for the sole reason that she is not a man. Like I said before, think of the world if women like Jane Addams, Harriet Tubbman, Rosa Parks, Joan of Arc, Margaret Thatcher, and Madame Currie had decided to be passive and hide their talents so as not to overshadow a man........
mark
|
