Johnny

Active Members
  • Content count

    189
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

261 Excellent

About Johnny

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    (Johnny is not my real name).

Recent Profile Visitors

2,264 profile views
  1. The Bible & Wifely Submission

    I already explained my reasoning for using the terminology I did. I don't really care enough to continue to discuss the use of it when it was just a figure of speech to begin with, so feel free to disregard that part of my post if you want. You could be right. I would need to review this section of scripture again with this thought in mind. However, I wouldn't necessarily draw conclusions about the subject of a noun or pronoun based on which words are capitalized, since capital letters didn't exist in the Ancient Greek writing and were added by the English translators. (You're probably aware of this, but not everyone is). Yes. Yes, but who's argued that wives should obey husbands regardless of merit or conflict God's moral law? The problem, though, is that not everyone is going to have the same concept of what's moral. So far, I believe you've used examples that very few people could argue against like in regards to rape and murder, but there are plenty of other, more likely examples of what we may find in Christian marriages. Let's say a wife feels it's wrong to eat out on Sundays. (Some people do. I know some of them). Can say she won't let her husband take the kids out to eat after church on Sunday? Can a wife rightly nag her husband if he lets their daughters wear pants instead of only skirts? Can a wife rightly refuse to sleep in the same bed as her husband if he watched Game of Thrones that night, assuming he wants her there (http://tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2015/02/husband-watches-nudity-on-tv/)? I say no to all of these, but again, I know each believer has to search these issues out for him or herself. It would be an accurate statement, and it would be a grossly inaccurate statement to claim that there's no scripture which states that God is a jealous, wrathful, and vengeful God. Oh, I'd say most people's interpretation of submission in the Western church is going to be a feminized version. That's where you get the idea of "mutual submission" or even submission reversal (i.e. the husband submitting to the wife). However, I don't believe people are going to be held blameless for simply misinterpreting scripture, particularly when their interpretation of it is causing them to violate it. It doesn't? Apparently, it was clear enough that Paul didn't feel the need to point out that wives aren't compelled to have to murder people if command to do so by their husbands, even though he used the words "in everything." Why do you think Paul wrote that scripture the way he did? I don't believe I've heard you explain that yet. By the way, you're the only one who's used the word "absolute." So verse 22 is more like a verse in another section of the Bible than it is like the two verses immediately following it? Verse 22 only means "as is fitting" and not "in the same manner as" even though Paul expounds on what verse 22 means in the verses that follow it with the Christ / church model?
  2. The Bible & Wifely Submission

    'Tis the Bearded One, if you want to consider my explanations contradictory, then that's certainly your right, but that doesn't make it true. I already allowed for the fact that wives may certainly need to disobey in certain circumstances in order to prevent committing a “greater evil,†and by using the phrase “greater evil,†I'm just acknowledging that a biblical principle is being violated in order to keep from violating another. Consider that in John 19:11 that Jesus told Pilate, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason He who delivered Me to you has the greater sin." Do we honestly think God can “sin†or that He was doing so by sending Jesus to die, or do we think Jesus was simply acknowledging that by all appearances sending an innocent man to die would be a violation of biblical principles (even though it really wasn't)? I appreciate your explanation and your use of biblical examples. That's what I was hoping for. I would add to the biblical examples you cited that that while the early church was instructed to obey the law of the land, they were right to refuse to do so when the law called for them to abandon their Christian faith or to pledge their loyalty to idols. However, if I stated that there was no scriptural command or counsel for believers to obey the laws of the land, would that be an accurate statement, simply because there could be exceptions to that biblical admonition? Even more importantly, would you tell a bunch of anarchists that there is no scriptural command to obey the laws of the land? In the same way, I wouldn't recommend stating that there is no scriptural command for wives to obey their husbands in everything, since feminists and egalitarians, of whom we have plenty in the readership here, might take that statement differently than you mean it. I don't actually think we're that far apart in our views on this overall submission subject, but I would argue that any wife who has been exposed to biblical teachings, particularly those on submission, is not like the person in your example who is wearing earphones and simply cannot hear his father telling him what to do. I think a more accurate analogy concerning a wife who has been exposed to submission teaching (or just reads the Bible herself) who refuses to submit is of someone who is intentionally wearing headphones in order to not hear his father. When a wife needs to go against her husband (like allowing herself to be raped like in the legal case you mentioned), it should be pretty clear what's right and wrong. I don't really understand the need to bring up such rare exceptions as the basis for your original statement on submission in regards to the NYC Pastor's post, since the list he mentioned didn't really seem to go against your position, but he is pretty extreme in some things (e.g. hell for dead babies and remarriage being an ongoing adultery), so maybe I missed something. I disagree that “as unto the Lord†or “as you do to the Lord†in Ephesians 5:22 has the same meaning as “as is fit (or is pleasing) to the Lord†as mentioned in Colossians 3, but this nuance is basically irrelevant, since you could take Ephesians 5:22 out completely, and you would still have the scriptures following it, which state for wives to submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ. I'm still unclear over whether you think wives are only required to submit to husbands who are behaving in a Christ-like manner. We certainly agree that husbands should behave in a Christ-like manner, that this is the responsbility of husbands as Ephesians 5 clearly points out, and that the Bible doesn't provide any avenue for a husband to rightly lead in a way that isn't Christ-like, but is leading in a Christ-like manner the “qualifier†you mentioned in order for wives to have to submit? If so, I would again ask if husbands only have to love their wives if their wives are submissive.
  3. The Bible & Wifely Submission

    'tis the bearded, I've asked you several questions, which you never addressed, so I'm not really inclined to answer any more of yours until you do.
  4. The Bible & Wifely Submission

    I still do oppose your statement. You were arguing concerning what scripture states, not what my imagination can concoct. Ephesians 5:24 is a scripture, and it states the opposite of what you did. Our imaginations, including mine, can certainly come up with scenarios in which a woman would commit a greater evil by obeying her husband than by disobeying, but why are we so concerned about exceptions that we can dream up when the writers of the Bible obviously weren't, seeing as how they didn't even get into those? Moreover, why are we so quick to emphasize exceptions before emphasizing the rule, which is so readily disregarded in modern western society? No, rebellion doesn't necessarily require knowing that you are being disobedient. To give an example, are we not all in rebellion against God before we come to Him through His Son? An atheist would likely claim that he couldn't possibly be in rebellion against something he doesn't even believe in, but would such an argument be valid, or would the atheist be in rebellion against God whether he knows it or not? If a wife had a perfect of understanding God's moral law, then I would agree with you, but who has such an understanding? Only God has a perfect understanding of what's right and wrong, and he's the one who put the husband as the head of the wife, as pointed out in Ephesians five. Certainly, each person has to be convinced in his own mind concerning right and wrong, but I can't agree that just because someone's conscience supposedly tells her to disobey her husband that she's morally justified in doing so, since as we know, we can be deceived and still have to be held accountable for our disobedience. Remember that Eve was deceived but was still held accountable for it.
  5. The Bible & Wifely Submission

    Your statement was that there are "qualifiers" in Ephesians chapter five. Are you saying a husband has to be Christ-like in order for it to be necessary that his wife to submit to him? If so, how do you explain 1 Peter 3:1? Unbelieving husbands or ones who are disobedient to the word are going in the opposite direction of being Christ-like, and yet wives are still told to submit to them in that passage. Besides, there are no qualifiers in Ephesians five. There, husbands are told to love their wives as Christ loved the church, and wives are told to be subject to their husbands as the church is subject to Christ. There is no qualifier for a wife to submit or be subject to her husband "IF" he's being enough like Christ (in her view). Would we argue that husbands only have to love their wives if their wives are being submissive? In answer to your questions, if a husband is telling his wife to stop praying, worship the devil, have an abortion, etc, then sure, she's much better off going against her husband on those things, but for the far likelier circumstance of her simply not liking the way he's leading or thinks he's not worthy of being followed, especially since she doesn't respect him or his leadership, then she'd simply better be right if she chooses not to submit on certain things. If she goes against her husband on a certain matter, and she's wrong, then she's in rebellion against what God has commanded.
  6. NYC pastor's list of men/women to avoid marrying

    There are no exceptions mentioned there, though, and in fact, I don't know of any exceptions mentioned in anywhere in scripture, do you? As far as I can figure, the last part of this sentence actually works to disprove the first part. That is, is the church not subject to Christ in absolutely everything? Are there exceptions to being in subjection to Christ? Yes, being in submission and subjection to Christ is not optional if one is truly interested in serving God. Since the Christ/church model is the one we're given, we have no reason to believe that it's optional for marriage either (again, if one is truly interested in serving God and doing what's right).
  7. NYC pastor's list of men/women to avoid marrying

    Yes, I read your post, 'tis the bearded one. My statements here were not really meant to evaluate the possible exceptions to Ephesians 5:24 or to discuss the broader doctrine of submission. There are other threads for that, as you pointed out. My point is simply that there being exceptions to an instruction doesn't mean the instruction isn't in there. For instance, the Israelites were commanded not to kill, and yet, as we know, God also commanded them to kill people quite frequently, but we can't accurately say there's no commandment not to kill. As for Eph 5:24, there is the commandment that wives be subject to their husbands in everything. What "everything" entails is a matter for each person's heart, but the scripture states what it states, and I think we should be wary of reading our interpretation into the wording, since some people may not know the Bible as well as others. Rather, people should be directed to what scripture actually states first, and then they can be "convinced in their own minds" (Romans 14:5) from there.
  8. NYC pastor's list of men/women to avoid marrying

    'tis the bearded, your statement was that there was no command in scripture for wives to follow their husbands as leaders in everything, but there is such a scripture almost verbatim. Wives are also told in scripture to submit to their husbands even if their husbands are nonbelievers who are obviously not always going to do everything right or act the way they should. What people choose to do with these scriptures is certainly up to them, but it's inaccurate to say they're not there.
  9. NYC pastor's list of men/women to avoid marrying

    Yeah, I remember when this blog post was making the rounds a while back. There are some good ideas in it, but it's not exhaustive and nor does all of what's in it apply to Christianity. Maybe the "older woman" part applies to statistics, but statistics are not Christianity. 'Tis the Bearded One said it best above about a man's age and being a leader. I somewhat agree with the blogger about marrying the feminist, although if she's just the kind of "feminist" who is against arranged child marriages and the poor treatment of women in other countries, particularly those in the Middle East, then that's a differently story. Something else to note about this blogger is that in addition to his views on divorce with which I mostly disagree, he also believes that dead babies go to Hell (or at least he did when I read this blog post of his months ago). He has a strange take on certain parts of scripture, which kind of hurts his credibility some in my eyes.
  10. NYC pastor's list of men/women to avoid marrying

    It doesn't? "Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be subject to their own husbands in everything." - Eph 5:24
  11. Yeah, his intentions are probably good, but his words indicate he falls into the "women good, men bad" camp (or "girls good, boys bad" here I guess). It's that same old attitude that says that if a guy sins / does wrong, it's because he's inherently bad, but if a girl sins / does wrong, it's because she was pressured into it by a guy. Some people, especially men, don't want to talk about the fact that women want to sin, too, because that's too controversial. Nevertheless, he did have good things to say about the type of bonding process that should only be shared between spouses. He should focus on that.
  12. That's good insight, BeautifullyBookish. I'll have to pay more attention to how long the hugs last compared with other people, because I can usually tell when a woman is just being friendly or is interested in more. For instance, with plenty of other girls, including other ones in that friend circle, I can pretty definitively say that those are just friendly hugs I get (or think I can), but with the specific girl I mentioned above, I have no idea, and that's mostly due to two reasons, which seem to conflict: her eyes and her behavior. In fact, I think her eyes and not just that they're pretty but the way she looked at me was largely what brought on my attraction for her. That is, on occasion, we'll have brief moments where she'll stare into my eyes and grin for no apparent reason (i.e. no joke has been told or anything). It usually occurs right before or after a hug. It happened again recently right after we hugged. By the way, she was the one who started initiating the hugging between us, although either one of us might initiate it now, or it might just kind of happen simultaneously. Her behavior on the other hand would lead me to believe she's not interested, because she sometimes (usually?) seems like she's not that into the conversation, but it's such a tough call to make. I've thought about mentioning to one of her friends or sisters that it seems like "'Jessica' doesn't care too much for me, because she won't talk to me," but I thought we were supposed to have gotten past juvenile nonsense like this by now! Heck, I'm talking about hugging like I'm in middle school, not middle age. Oh, well. Like Lloyd Christmas said (or very poorly tried to say), "I feel like...a school boy again."
  13. OP, are you talking about new people you're trying to meet or people you know already, too?
  14. They're called women...kidding...totally kidding...well...mostly kidding. Anyway, what you described is the reason I almost never PM people online, including people I know in person already. In my experience, there just seems to be something about online messages that cause people to care less about responding to you, so I say, why make the effort?
  15. Seriously, though, I think a better question concerns how in control you are over your own life. Personally, I realized how adversely I let other people's decisions affect my life and decided I didn't want to let that happen anymore or at least as much. I've grown so weary of hoping a certain person would like me or that a certain employer would give me a certain job or a raise or whatever. I've been reassessing what it means to be confident, since I've often been rather skeptical concerning whether confidence is as big of an attractive trait as is typically claimed. After all, a woman who isn't attracted to you in any way isn't in my experience typically going to suddenly find you attractive, simply because you have the "confidence" to ask her out. However, I think I've come to the conclusion that truly effective confidence, the kind that is going to be attractive, is concerned with simply being adaptable in life and being confident that things do work together for those who love God. Also, we have to use the gifts God instilled in us, or else we're not going to feel that sense of accomplishment that we need to feel truly confident in life in general. Therefore, you have to ask yourself if you really feel in control of your life. I believe women want a man who is able (or at least appears able) to take on the future challenges that life is going to bring when a marriage and family come along. There are likely going to be a lot of tough and uncertain times in a family, including problems related to illness, finances, teenage rebellion, etc. I know that some (most?) women may not actually think that far ahead consciously, although they definitely should be thinking about these things regarding the men they choose to date and marry, but regardless, I think women still largely desire a man who appears in control of his own life, even for reasons the women may not fully understand themselves. A good indicator of how you're going to handle those future challenges will be evident in how you handle the challenges you face now, so how well do you handle those challenges? Are you in control of your life as much as you could be? Are you using the gifts God gave you to the extent that you could be? I'd say these are a few questions every man should answer for himself if he's looking to attract a wife (or just a friend whose has the potential to be more).