Women aren't second-class believers

No where in the Bible does it say we should not do those things.

I don't recall a verse where Jesus says to not brush one's teeth after eating.

 

Did you not claim that perhaps we should not brush our teeth?

 

OK,

If you want to pick nits have at it.

In any case, where in the Bible does Jesus say we are to avoid (oral) medical care?

 

The closest thing that I can get for that is a combination of the turn the other cheek idea and Paul's statement that the man is the head of the family.

If the wife has the husband arrested, then the wife is usurping authority over her husband.


What scripture do you base your views on going to the dentist?

 

If the husband raises his hand to his wife, the wife should not only call the police and arrest him, she should divorce him, for abuse is a form of abandonment.

 

Once again, an opion based on social values, but devoid of biblical suport.

 

A man raising his hand to a wife is not an opinion, it's abuse, plain and simple. There's not biblical allowance for a spouse to inflict one's hand upon the other.

Divorce for abandonment is not opinion, it's biblically correct.

 

Yes, I agree that it is abuse and pain. I would just like the see the scripture that backs up your position that this is grounds for divorce.

There's one for adultry, but there isn't one for physical abuse. Do you believe Jesus wasn't aware of this problem?

 

In most states, the wife will not have the option of pressing or dropping charges. The state picks up the charge and prosecutes. The victim is merely calling the police for protection. This in no way usurps the husband's authority.

If the woman goes to seek medical help, the medical facility is obligated by law to report the incident.

He can also rot in jail. God ordains the government to punish violent behavior just as he ordains the church to teach moral behavior.

 

I disagree. She is knowingly having him thrown in jail and out of the house. This is usurping authority.

 

The New Testament condones suffering for the sake of righteousness, but it does not condone suffering for the sake of suffering. A wife (or husband for that matter) who is suffering abuse using some type of extremist prooftexting of Ephesians 5 or Colossians 3 is, at best, practicing asceticism.

Is having someone arrested really usurping their authority? It is not a divorce, she is not leaving him. The counselling that is usually required afterwards may bring him back into balance and open the door for him to be saved. That's the entire goal of Paul's instructions of wives not leaving unbelieving husbands, is it not?

The husband is obviously not applying Scriptural mandates to the marriage covenant. Is this how Christ "loves the church?" Ephesians 5:25

Yes, Jesus Christ told us to turn the other cheek. He also told the disciples in Luke 22:36 to buy a sword. Self-defense is Biblically justifiable and permissable.

 

1 Corinthians 6
19Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

 

If you'll look back at my reasoning, I'm not basing this purely on Paul's writing. It is an overall view taking into account what Jesus said.

Pacificists are looked at for being strange. People think they are crazy for letting themselves be abused and for getting walked all over by other people.

I'm just not so sure that they are wrong.

Are they being taken out of the house by force? Who initiated this force?

You may argue that the man has given up his right to authority once he reveals himself to be in rebellion to God. Yet that arguement is no where stated in the Bible. Do you really believe that those who wrote the books of the Bible were ignorant of this problem?

I really do believe that our societal values have worked its ways into the very core of beliefs. I'm not so sure this is such a good thing.

Too bad that this really don't apply. It has to do with how we live our lives, not what others do to us.

 

The abuser.

 

The abuser. </font>[/QUOTE]So now you agree that someone else makes another person do something. That is usually the defense the abuser uses.

Taking your quote in context, it is plain to see that it has nothing to do with self defense. I am rather disappointed in you Clint.

 

Ah, but the authority of the state has made laws against assault. Remember, according to Romans 13 they are there to punish the wicked. Before any assault were there laws broken? If so, the state decides justice.

Taking your quote in context, it is plain to see that it has nothing to do with self defense. I am rather disappointed in you Clint. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, I hate to think that you are disappointed, Nils!

The Passage is in the context of Christ sending his disciples out on mission as the time of Gathsemane was near and dangers were soon to be at hand. Why else, besides self-defense, would they need that sword? If you see another interpretation for the purchase of a sword, please tell me what it may be. It certainly was not for the use of offensive measures. That's why one would suffice.

 

Yes, I never said the state didn't have the right to make the arrest. I'm just concerned about who makes the call and why.

Why would 2 swords be enough to save them? They were out numbered and not very well practiced with swords. Unless of course they received training not mentioned in scripture.

Do you really believe that 2 swords could protect them?

I don't know why Jesus told them to get the swords, but it certainly wasn't for self defense.