Women aren't second-class believers

[Eladar]

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.

 

[Abiyah]

Eladar --

I think it would be a good idea to take this whole
thread off the public board, to the members only
board. SInce Baptists are writing here as well,
this could be a good solution to this whole thread.

The way you mince words, turn what people say
into something they never either wrote or intended,
and your attitudes are astounding and should not
be on a public board intended to be used by
believers. And my attitude toward you right now is
just as bad.

Perhaps they will do it, since Baptists are writing
here as well.

 

[Eladar]

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

 

[Abiyah]

Eladar --

When you "get" your "teeth cleaned," if they are
only brushing them, you need a new hygienist.

:-D

I don't know -- this is starting to be fun!

 

[Eladar]

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?

 

[Abiyah]

Me? The nit-picker? Oookeee!

Where did He say not to call the police or to help
the abused?

 

[Eladar]

Where did He say not to call the police or to help
the abused?

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?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Eladar:
If the wife has the husband arrested, then the wife is usurping authority over her husband.

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.

 

[Eladar]

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.

 

[Johnv]

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.

 

[Eladar]

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.

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?

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Originally posted by Eladar:
If the wife has the husband arrested, then the wife is usurping authority over her husband.

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.

Romans 13

1Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience

Vengence belongs to the Lord. Your husband can burn in hell.

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

 

[Eladar]

The victim is merely calling the police for protection. This in no way usurps the husband's authority.

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

 

[Clint Kritzer]

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.

 

[Clint Kritzer]

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.

 

[Eladar]

who is suffering abuse using some type of extremist prooftexting of Ephesians 5 or Colossians 3 is, at best, practicing asceticism.

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.

Is having someone arrested really usurping their authority?

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.

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

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

 

[Clint Kritzer]

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

The abuser.

 

[Eladar]

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Are they being out of the house by force? Who initiated this force?

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

He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'[2] ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."
38The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"That is enough," he replied.

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.

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Originally posted by Eladar:
So now you agree that someone else makes another person do something. That is usually the defense the abuser uses.

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.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'[2] ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."
38The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"That is enough," he replied.

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.

 

[Eladar]

Ah, but the authority of the state has made laws against assault. Remember, according to Romans 13 they are there to punish the wicked.

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.

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?

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.