Submissiveness

[Fishnbread]

Please answer the question Johnv?

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Fishnbread:
No Im sorry I Am Blessed 16 but. this forum is on one debate. The title is called submissiveness not open forum. And the reason why he said to submit rather than obey is that, to obey you don't have to agree with the orders given you just have follow them.

So you're saying that submit means you have to agree?

 

[Fishnbread]

I don't mean to be a thorne Marcia. But would you care to prove me wrong?

 

[Timtoolman]

Originally posted by Fishnbread:
Ok I can answer that for all of you right now. YES she should obey him and yes she should submit. It is unbiblical for her not to submit and obey him. the word submit means to surrender to. you can not submit to your husband if you do not obey him. Is it voluntary? YES. will God punish you if you disobey for no Godly reason? YES.

For rebellion is as the sin of witchcaft.

Seems all too clear. But then you have to deal with the flesh. That tends to make it not so clear fish. You are very correct though. And it beats me how people can clintonize the word of God to uphold their rebellion. It all depends what is is?

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

I already asked him that Marcia and got no answer...

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Fishnbread:
Please answer the question Johnv?

I did already. The husband's spiritual role of headship is not akin to the husband having the power to tell his spouse what to do arbitrarily. A husband who tells his spouse that she may not vote does not have the scriptural authority to do so.

 

[Fishnbread]

Sorry I Am Blessed 16. I will answer the question. Yes Submit does mean to agree with in this case.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Fishnbread:
Marcia the subject of this debate is submissiveness of a wife to her husband it is not about the flaws in male leadership,it is not about the roles people play in a marriage, and it is not about abusive husbands, it is about submissiveness. I don't mean to sound rude but if you want to talk about something else other than that. prohaps you should start your own debate.

P.S I request that you correct me if I am wrong.

1. I've answered the original question at least twice.

2. I never said anything about abusive husbands.

3. I responded to other points brought up by various posters.

4. I will post anything I consider relevant.

5. I pointed out how God uses the word "obey" for children but not for wives as it seemed to me some people were talking as though the husband-wife relationship is the same as the parent-child relationship. It is not.

 

[Timtoolman]

[/qb][/QUOTE]So you're saying that submit means you have to agree? [/QB][/QUOTE]

NO, can you submit without obeying?!

 

[Timtoolman]

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Fishnbread:
I don't mean to be a thorne Marcia. But would you care to prove me wrong?

Prove you wrong about what? Please clarify.

 

[Fishnbread]

Johnv God said the husband is the head of the wife. He did not say in case of voting thou mayest not obey thy husband.

Correct your flaw.

 

[Fishnbread]

Sure Marcia I would be delighted to explain. I said would you mind proving to me that when I said submit meant to agree that i was wrong.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Fishnbread:
Johnv God said the husband is the head of the wife. He did not say in case of voting thou mayest not obey thy husband.

Correct your flaw.

The flaw is on you, actually, since I've refuted (with scripture) every scriptural arguement you've thrown up on this board. You've refused to even acknowlege any of my posts regarding scripture. You're at this point simply repeating yourself, but without scriptural support.

You're engaging in the KJVO tactic of "prove to me that scripture says it's kay to have multiple translations", when it's the KJVO whose job it is to provide scriptural support for his assertion.

 

[Fishnbread]

Johnv why are you getting personal?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Fishnbread:
Johnv why are you getting personal?

Perhaps you might want to actually discuss the topic. And perhaps you could do it without repeating yourself this time.

 

[Fishnbread]

Im sorry john maybe I got out of hand. I do think that husbands should not be unreasonable with there leadership. but I also think that if asked not to vote by her husband a woman should not vote, not because her husband's judgement is correct but because she does not want to be commiting rebellion.

Im sorry for mixing my own personal feelings into this debate.

I ask your forgivness?

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Fishnbread:
Sure Marcia I would be delighted to explain. I said would you mind proving to me that when I said submit meant to agree that i was wrong.

I still don't understand. Your sentence does not makes sense to me.

 

[Fishnbread]

Marcia what Im trying to say is: am I wrong for saying that when Bible said submit it meant agree with authority.

P.S I don't think I can break it down any more than that.

sorry!

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Fishnbread:
Marcia what Im trying to say is: am I wrong for saying that when Bible said submit it meant agree with authority.

P.S I don't think I can break it down any more than that.

sorry!

Thanks for clarifying.

I would not say that "submit" to a husband means to agree with his authority -- it means to let him lead and respect him as the spiritual head, and to not fight him. But that is different from obedience to authority. Can a wife disagree with her husband's desire and not be in rebellion? Yes. That is why the word is "submit" and not "obey."