Published Authors

A place for budding and experienced authors to share ideas about publishing and marketing books
 
HomeHome  GalleryGallery  FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister  Log in  Featured MembersFeatured Members  ArticlesArticles  

Share | 
 

 Huckabee's perspective on women

Go down 
AuthorMessage
alj
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 9633
Registration date : 2008-12-05
Age : 75
Location : San Antonio

PostSubject: Huckabee's perspective on women   Fri Jan 24, 2014 12:13 pm

Quote :
"[Democrats have made women believe] they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of government."

Mike Huckabee

Just curious, but in what world is this an OK stand for anybody to take??


Last edited by alj on Sun Jan 26, 2014 4:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
http://www.annjoiner.com
Domenic Pappalardo
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 2557
Registration date : 2009-04-27

PostSubject: Re: Huckabee's perspective on women   Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:35 am

He could have been speaking about a group of people rather than all women in general. You just can’t say this group, or that without having it explode right under you.



Here in California we have a problem with a group who are illegal. Our state law is: “If you have children under the school age, the schools MUST PAY FOR CHILD CARE DURING THE SCHOOL DAY.” Many in this group just keep having babies, and stay home with their children…a women with three kids under school age can earn up to $5,000 a month. It is the main reason our schools are broke.



You can’t force women to take protection. Kids also get sick, and hospitals have to give them care…it is why hospitals are closing…it is driving them broke. When their men work, they don’t pay tax on their income. All this money has to come out of some bodies pocket…guess who’s?



The children of illegal people under our constitution are not American citizens…but for some reason they are treated as such.



I am not against people coming to America…but there are millions of people trying to enter the legal way, and have been waiting ten to twenty years. We seem to reward those who break our laws. Do that in their country, and you go to prison.



So I say, “Yes, there is a problem with many women…the man was just trying to do something without being hung.”
Back to top Go down
alice
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 15666
Registration date : 2008-10-22
Age : 71
Location : Redmond, WA

PostSubject: Re: Huckabee's perspective on women   Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:39 pm

I could do without Huckabee.
Back to top Go down
http://www.freewebs.com/acrooker/
Domenic Pappalardo
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 2557
Registration date : 2009-04-27

PostSubject: Re: Huckabee's perspective on women   Sun Feb 02, 2014 1:55 pm

It has always been a mans world. Still is. Even in the Bible...it won't change. Men, and women think very differently. Women want men to think like women...it will never happen. They can pass all the laws they want in an effort to make men, and women the same...it will never be. Women are designed to be in subjection to their man. Note: I said man, not men.
Back to top Go down
Betty Fasig
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 4331
Registration date : 2008-06-12
Age : 75
Location : Duette, Florida

PostSubject: Re: Huckabee's perspective on women   Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:18 pm

Dom, 
What trash you can put down.  If you are single, I can understand why.  

The Bible is an old work of fiction.  It is too bad that it has scared so many people.  It's purpose is to control the population and keep people from killing each other.  It is somewhat successful in that endeavor, but it has destroyed more peoples lives than it has redeemed.  Fear-mongering at it's best.
Men and women have the same goal.  To find love, to raise children, to find a meaningful reason for living.  Religion and death do not have much to do with living.  Religion is a prostitution of living.  It sucks the joy out of life.  Religions concur that people should not have joy in living.   They need to suffer for stuff they never did.  That is control by the churches.  I discard that in my life.  I live in joy with nature without the evil Bible.  It is that to me. There is no devil except in your mind.  There is no God except in your mind.  
Love, Betty
Back to top Go down
http://woofferwood.webs.com/
alj
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 9633
Registration date : 2008-12-05
Age : 75
Location : San Antonio

PostSubject: Re: Huckabee's perspective on women   Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:28 pm

I agree with Betty.

If you want to find a Higher Source; if you want to find a meaning and purpose for your life,you will not get there through your mind - or through religion.  All the study in the world won't take you there, Domenic.  You will have to let go and trust in what your heart tells you.  Spitituality speaks through the heart.
Back to top Go down
http://www.annjoiner.com
Betty Fasig
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 4331
Registration date : 2008-06-12
Age : 75
Location : Duette, Florida

PostSubject: Re: Huckabee's perspective on women   Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:48 pm

Amen.
Back to top Go down
http://woofferwood.webs.com/
alice
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 15666
Registration date : 2008-10-22
Age : 71
Location : Redmond, WA

PostSubject: Re: Huckabee's perspective on women   Sun Feb 02, 2014 5:36 pm

Domenic Pappalardo wrote:
It has always been a mans world. Still is. Even in the Bible...it won't change. Men, and women think very differently. Women want men to think like women...it will never happen. They can pass all the laws they want in an effort to make men, and women the same...it will never be. Women are designed to be in subjection to their man. Note: I said man, not men.

Dom,

Are you trying to start a war?    lol!
Back to top Go down
http://www.freewebs.com/acrooker/
Domenic Pappalardo
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 2557
Registration date : 2009-04-27

PostSubject: Re: Huckabee's perspective on women   Sun Feb 02, 2014 7:27 pm

I did not make things as they are...but I see them as they are. I care not if people believe in God, or his written word. I believe in the Bible, and God. I do not follow any religion,
. I agree with Betty, religion is a whore, a thing of Satan Nor. I am in no any position to change this world. I do not defend God...he will do that himself. I start no war. I did not attack anybody.
It seems those who do not believe in God, and his Bible are always the ones who attack. 
When his son Jesus comes, those who slander God won't have to explain their position...he already knows it...your war is with him.
Back to top Go down
alj
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 9633
Registration date : 2008-12-05
Age : 75
Location : San Antonio

PostSubject: Re: Huckabee's perspective on women   Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:14 am

Problems always arrive when people literalize the symbol. When the mythological stories are read as literal history and scientific fact, the true message is lost. The Bible is a book of symbolic metaphors for concepts that are unexplainable in words. To read them literally limits the God that they represent and the vital messages are lost.

This is especially true when the Book is used to judge and condemn other people.
Back to top Go down
http://www.annjoiner.com
Domenic Pappalardo
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 2557
Registration date : 2009-04-27

PostSubject: Re: Huckabee's perspective on women   Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:14 am

alj wrote:
Problems always arrive when people literalize the symbol.  When the mythological stories are read as literal history and scientific fact, the true message is lost.  The Bible is a book of symbolic metaphors for concepts that are unexplainable in words. To read them literally limits the God that they represent and the vital messages are lost.

This is especially true when the Book is used to judge and condemn other people.


Most people know very little about the Bible. There are no mythological stories in the Bible.

Yes there are some things in symbolic writing, such as the dividing of the goats, and the sheep. Men of science are surprised that many of their modern day finding are in the Bible, written over two thousand years ago. Archeologist have been using the Bible to find lost cities.

Within its pages are many prophesies. All have come true, and there are just a few left.

No one can, or should condemn anybody…only God can do that.

Most people follow the sayings of men, who can prove nothing of what they have said.

As to what you, or others believe about God. It is your own business. Nobody is attacking you. Why do you attack those who believe, is it to bolster up your own belief in no God?
Back to top Go down
alice
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 15666
Registration date : 2008-10-22
Age : 71
Location : Redmond, WA

PostSubject: Re: Huckabee's perspective on women   Mon Feb 03, 2014 8:04 am

Dom,
I don't see where anyone is attacking anyone. We are merely discussing. Not agreeing is hardly an attack.
Back to top Go down
http://www.freewebs.com/acrooker/
alj
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 9633
Registration date : 2008-12-05
Age : 75
Location : San Antonio

PostSubject: Re: Huckabee's perspective on women   Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:22 am

Domenic Pappalardo wrote:
alj wrote:
Problems always arrive when people literalize the symbol.  When the mythological stories are read as literal history and scientific fact, the true message is lost.  The Bible is a book of symbolic metaphors for concepts that are unexplainable in words. To read them literally limits the God that they represent and the vital messages are lost.

This is especially true when the Book is used to judge and condemn other people.

There are no mythological stories in the Bible.

Some people know very little about mythology.  Mythology is the collected stories of a group or culture.  As such, the Judeo/Christian stories are mythological stories.

There is a tendency for religious groups to deny this, saying that all other mythologies are false, while the Judeo/Christian stories are true, but by definition, the stories constitute a mythology.  The Bible itself is, then, a collection of mythological stories.
Back to top Go down
http://www.annjoiner.com
Domenic Pappalardo
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 2557
Registration date : 2009-04-27

PostSubject: Re: Huckabee's perspective on women   Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:56 pm

Betty Fasig wrote:
Dom, 
What trash you can put down.  If you are single, I can understand why.  

The Bible is an old work of fiction.  It is too bad that it has scared so many people.  It's purpose is to control the population and keep people from killing each other.  It is somewhat successful in that endeavor, but it has destroyed more peoples lives than it has redeemed.  Fear-mongering at it's best.
Men and women have the same goal.  To find love, to raise children, to find a meaningful reason for living.  Religion and death do not have much to do with living.  Religion is a prostitution of living.  It sucks the joy out of life.  Religions concur that people should not have joy in living.   They need to suffer for stuff they never did.  That is control by the churches.  I discard that in my life.  I live in joy with nature without the evil Bible.  It is that to me. There is no devil except in your mind.  There is no God except in your mind.  
Love, Betty
Alice, I would take this as an attack. I didn't think Betty was like that.

Alj, if you knew the Bible, you would know it is not a collection of mythological stories. It is a book that has been proven out. You believe you have it all figured out. The truth is, your lost out in left field. As to my being a part of any religion...I am not. It is easy to prove religions false, not the Bible.
Back to top Go down
alj
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 9633
Registration date : 2008-12-05
Age : 75
Location : San Antonio

PostSubject: Re: Huckabee's perspective on women   Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:48 am

Mythological stories are not lies.  They are collective dreams, no more a lie than an individual's dreams, which are of a different kind of reality than our daytime reality.  Like dreams, they have multiple levels, and can be interpreted in many ways.  Myths and dreams consist of symbols.  The symbols in a dream can be either personal or universal; most often, they are both.  Universal symbols are also called archetypes, and come from a portion of our unconscious that is collective - a part of our human DNA.

If one were to dream of being butterfly, for instance, the real, daytime individual would not actually be a scientific butterfly in a waking sense.  But that doesn't mean the dream was not real or true.  A butterfly begins life as a caterpillar that seals itself inside a cocoon and undergoes a radical change while it is hidden away, and comes out a very different creature - a changed being.  What is important for the dreamer is not the insect itself in either form.  What is important for the dreamer is the concept of change.  The dream might be telling the dreamer of a change that involves a new phase of that dreamer's life.  In that sense, the butterfly is an archetype.  Mythical stories have archetypal themes and characters which are the same across cultures and time.  They are "real" as symbols.  They are not factual in a scientific sense.  To understand the meaning of a symbol, you need to recognize the metaphor.

Think of the New Testament parables.  They were clearly intended to be heard in a symbolic way.  The disciples did not understand them until Jesus interpreted the symbols for them. The parables are symbols in themselves, as stories whoes meaning goes beyond and beneath the surface.

It is easy for such a symbol to be misinterpreted, especially if it is misunderstood to be factual history.  When that happens, the myth loses its value, especially for future generations of people who live in a different world than the worlds of the past.  They become, at best, irrelevant.  At worst, they are turned into manipulations of control, and as judgments on those who see things differently from the rest of the group, as happens so often in religions.  

The Bible stories are real, and contain many historical facts, but the importance of the contents do not lie in the history, but in the dream that the history symbolizes.  It is the dream that is still valuable today, and the dream needs to be reinterpreted over time, since reality changes over time, and as "dream," it speaks to each individual in a different way.

I am not trying to convince anyone of the validity of what I have written here.  If you read it, take it for what it is worth to any or each of you as individuals.

I am familiar with the Bible, as a student.  I have studied it, both in it's traditional forms and versions, and with many of the older texts that went into its compilations.  It is a deep and complicated body of writings.  I do not claim to know it.  I continue to learn more about it, but much of it is beyond my limited, human understanding. I am simply relating my individual perspective, which is limited by my own personal experience.

We can only know our own perspectives, but when we get together with open minds and share those perspectives, we might broaden our points of view.

To share a different perspective is not an attack.  It may appear so to one whose mind is is intent on finding a single perspective, believing that only one limited perspective can be valid for everybody, in all times and places.

That, to my mind, is what causes wars - seeing difference as a threat or an attack.

Just me.
Back to top Go down
http://www.annjoiner.com
dkchristi
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 8594
Registration date : 2008-12-29
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Huckabee's perspective on women   Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:43 am

Beautiful writing in this thread, strong expression of individual beliefs.  The personal attacks don't contribute much, but the discussion is rich.  I highly recommend a little book The Four Agreements by Dom Luis.  I know some of you are familiar with it.  Keeping its agreements in mind helps discussions stay on topic.  I find Betty's perspective very close to many people who live close to nature and understand its universal life force, unfettered by religious beliefs anywhere in the world, creations of man.  Ann, your mythological research brings a learned point of view.  I would comment on others too but my time is limited.  I do know that holding onto a system of beliefs without allowing anyone to disagree is a comfort to some people and they will defend those ideas like a caged animal.  They become threatened and aggressive the more they are challenged. For others, a discussion is intellectually rewarding and opens their minds to the possibility of new thoughts and beliefs.  I love to listen to Science Fridays on NPR.  They always have something from the sciences, including theology, that makes me say "Wow!  I know nothing!  There is so much to learn yet in this lifetime and so little time devoted to that learning."
Back to top Go down
http://www.dkchristi.webs.com
alj
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 9633
Registration date : 2008-12-05
Age : 75
Location : San Antonio

PostSubject: Re: Huckabee's perspective on women   Tue Feb 04, 2014 8:00 am

DK wrote:
I find Betty's perspective very close to many people who live close to nature and understand its universal life force, unfettered by religious beliefs anywhere in the world, creations of man.

Hey DK.  Your analysis of Betty's post is as spot on as the post itself.  It also points out that we have not strayed away from the point of the OP as some readers might think.

What is going on here is not an attack on the Bible so much as an attack on women, first from Huckabee's comments on women's bodies, and again with Domenic's perspective on women as being subjective to men:

Quote :
Even in the Bible...it won't change. Men, and women think very differently. Women want men to think like women...it will never happen. They can pass all the laws they want in an effort to make men, and women the same...it will never be. Women are designed to be in subjection to their man.

This interpretation of Paul's comments in the letters of the New Testament is extremely patriarchal.

Betty's response is, as you said, that of "nature and... its universal life force, unfettered by religious beliefs anywhere in the world, creations of man."  And Nature as a universal life force is always represented as a woman:  The Great Earth Mother.

The power of the Feminine is on the rise, and for many men, this is seen as a loss of power for the Masculine forces.

Domenic is correct when he says that men and women are different.  Women today are not trying to be like men. Quite the opposite, they are saying that the Feminine is as vital to the survival of the world as the Masculine.  They are pointing out that the world needs both perspectives, in balance.

I am not the only one to say that the answer to Campbell's question:  "What is the new mythology to be, the mythology of this unified earth as of one harmonious being?"  (The Inner Reaches of Outer Space)" is the same as Edward F. Edinger's answer in The Creation of Consciousness:  Jung's "union of opposites," symbolized by a Sacred Marriage of the Masculine and Feminine elements.  Not either one or the other, but both, in equal power is the answer to our current dilemma, which has come about because we have no viable mythology.  The old one has been perverted into a history and a rule book.

For Mike Huckabee and so many of his contemporaries, women are objects that ought to be kept under control by men, as he clearly said in the speech quoted in the OP.  It seems to me that this thread and all of the comments bear out this dilemma from one perspective or the other.

And this post is not an attack on men, either as individuals or a group. It is simply a statement on the need for balance. If we can express our perspectives openly, we might find a way to incorporate the basics into a larger whole, but only if the need to control is set aside so that we can work together.

Again - that's just my view.
Back to top Go down
http://www.annjoiner.com
Domenic Pappalardo
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 2557
Registration date : 2009-04-27

PostSubject: Re: Huckabee's perspective on women   Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:10 am

For many years I have tested what I believe is truth. I have also tested what I have learned.
Do I follow the teaching of my father because he is my father, or because what he passed on to me has been proven?
Today women do not want to be in subjection to a husband, and most men feel they are master over the women. Below is how subjection is given in the Bible. As you will see, people have twisted the word subjection, and given it a face that is not from Gods written word.

Domenic

WHAT DOES "SUBJECTION" MEAN?
292.     This and our next chapter should be studied with both an Authorized and Revised Version at hand. Two words are constantly confused in reference to woman's duties, "subjection" and "obedience.” But these words do not in the original Greek cover the same scope of meaning, although sometimes subjection may go all the lengths of blind obedience. The verb "to be in subjection" is from hupo, meaning "next after" or "under, " and tasso, "I arrange," and means "to arrange after" or to "arrange under, "--as soldiers are arranged, file after file, or under a captain. The noun "subjection" is not found (in Classical Greek) outside the N. T. and we are left to infer that it was coined to describe a relation peculiar to believers. Had the word merely meant "obedience," such an invention would have been needless. The verb itself is comparatively rare outside the Bible. The A.V. often translates it as "obey" and "submit," but the R.V.carefully translates these words as "subjection" and "be in subjection" wherever they occur, distinguishing them in sense from "obedience.” See the difference between the A.V. and R.V.at 1 Corinthians 14:34; Titus 2:5, etc. 
293.     The true sense of the word describes the Christian grace of yielding one's preferences to another, where principle is not involved, rather than asserting one's rights. Schleusner's Greek-Latin Lexicon to the Septuagint declares that this verb does not always "convey the thought of servile subjection.” Jesus, as a boy, was "subject to His parents,” yet we know that He did not even consult them when He was "about His Father's business," (Luke 2:49, 51).
294.     Two men cannot be long in partnership in business unless willing to be "in subjection" to each other. They must yield preferences; they must "in honor prefer one another;" they must harmonize their views, one to the other, or else they will soon be obliged to separate. They cannot better the situation if a question arises and one assumes the right to command the other. To obey orders like this is not "subjection" but servility, and man refuses to be servile, for that would be degrading to character. This indicates the difference in sense between the two words, as applied to the relation of believers. In 1 Corinthians 15:28 we are told of a time when Christ will become "subject" to His Father. But we certainly know that Christ will never be less than equal with the father in the Godhead. There was a time when, as Son of man, for our sakes, "He took on Him the form of a servant,” but since then, "God hath highly exalted Him," and He will never again become reduced in rank, nor will He ever pass under the Father's coercion. This word speaks of loving harmony, not of impassable ranks, superior and inferior.
295.     That "to be in subjection" does not mean "to obey" necessarily, is shown because the Apostles, who so plainly taught "subjection" to the "higher powers," Romans 13:1,5; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13, were constantly getting into difficulty with these same powers through disobeying them. The Apostles were not guilty of the inconsistency of teaching one thing and practicing another. When they could harmonize their conduct with human laws and not injure their work, they did so. But this very Peter who commanded, "Be subject to every ordinance of man,” when brought to account for a manifest disobedience to the commands of the rulers of Israel, answered merely: "We ought to obey God rather than men" (See Acts 5:29). If "subjection" meant always all that "obedience" means, no monstrous tyrant could ever be dethroned by righteous revolution on the part of Christian citizens. Disobedience to human rule may become one's highest duty to God and our fellow-beings. "Subjection" would teach a humble, a conciliatory spirit, not a servile one.
296.     In Ephesians 5:21, the Apostle says, in exhortation to all believers, without regard to sex, "Subjecting yourselves one to another in the  fear of Christ" (R. V.).  Peter says to all believers, without regard to sex, "Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility,” 1 Peter 5:5. These passages clearly enjoin "subjection upon men, yet all feel instinctively that they cannot mean that men must pass under the arbitrary control of each other when they become Christians.
297.     In Philippians 4:3 the Apostle Paul says: "I entreat thee . . . help those women who laboured with me in the Gospel.” We know, from Romans 16:1-2, that Phoebe had labored with the Apostle, in certain ways of helping. In Romans 16:3 Priscilla is called by Paul "my helper," ("fellow-helper," R. V.); at verse 12, Tryphena and Tryphosa are mentioned as women "who labored in the Lord," also Persis, who "labored much in the Lord.” These were all women; yet the Apostle, at 1 Corinthians 16:16 says: "I beseech you, brethren . . . that you submit yourselves" ("be in subjection," R.V ) . . . "to everyone that helpeth with us and laboreth.” He had just come from Corinth, where he had been laboring with Priscilla and Aquila, and there, as well as at Ephesus, whence he sent this letter to Corinth, his chief helper was Priscilla. Here then is a very clear command which at least included men, to "be in subjection," to women, who were certainly included in the body of "every one that helpeth with us and laboreth.” It seems clear that "subjection" in this case cannot mean exactly the same as "obedience.” 
298.     Yet after all this, when we come to the three instances where the Apostle exhorts wives to be in subjection to their own husbands, one is considered almost heretical who questions whether this exhortation to "wives" means absolute obedience, The word "subjection," as we have shown, has not been interpreted as obedience where the relation is that of man to man, not where the "subjection" may mean of man to woman, as in 1 Corinthians 16:16. Furthermore, each time where the relation of wives to their husbands, of children to their parents, and of servants to their masters is prescribed, a careful distinction in the use of words is made. The word "obey" is generally used for servants and always for children, but the word "subjection" always for wives.[]7] If the sense is the same, why such care in the choice of a different word? As to the duty of wives, see Ephesians 5:22; Colossians 3:18; Titus 2:5 (R.V).[]8] As to children, Ephesians 6:1; Colossians 3:20. As to servants, Ephesians 6:5; Colossians 3:22,--in the R.V.in each case. 
299.     The Old Testament sense in which "to be in subjection" is sometimes used, is highly suggestive and instructive. Psalm 62:1 reads in the English, "truly my soul waiteth upon God; from Him cometh my salvation.” At verse 5 of the same Psalm, we read: "My soul, wait thou only upon God.” In Psalm 37:7 we find the words: "Rest in the Lord and wait patiently for Him.” The words "wait" in the first passages, and the word "rest" in the last are all three represented in the Greek version by the single word hupotasso, "be in subjection," while the literal sense of the Hebrew original word is "be silent unto.” Compare this with 1 Peter 3:1,2, where wives are exhorted to win unbelieving husbands by "subjection.” Surely Peter is not here exhorting wives to blindly obey unbelievers, for if heathen, they would at once remand them back to the worship of the gods; if Jews, back to Judaism. Rather, they are to win them away from these by their "manner of life,” “without the word,"--actions speaking louder than words. "Coupled with fear,"--such fear of God as would cause these women, so gentle, quite and patient in daily life, to be as adamant in their truth to God; and the husbands so overawed by their quite maintenance of principle, whereas they are so ready to yield to their husbands when principle is not involved, that the husbands dare not try to compel their wives to violate conscience, and thus are themselves gradually led into the Christian faith.
Where “subjection” is spoken of as a woman’s duty, without further immediate specification, it has been too readily assumed that this means subjection to a husband. But many women even from Apostolic days, and certainly an increasing large proportion of women in latter days, have no husbands. In both 1 Corinthians 14:34, “let them be in subjection”; and in 1 Timothy 2:11, “learn in all subjection,” this O. T. idea of waiting on God, or the thought of a spirit of humility towards God, may be all that is intended.
Back to top Go down
alj
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 9633
Registration date : 2008-12-05
Age : 75
Location : San Antonio

PostSubject: Re: Huckabee's perspective on women   Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:30 am

Care to define the term, "subjection," briefly, in your own words, Domenic?
Back to top Go down
http://www.annjoiner.com
Domenic Pappalardo
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 2557
Registration date : 2009-04-27

PostSubject: Re: Huckabee's perspective on women   Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:34 am

alj wrote:
Care to define the term, "subjection," briefly, in your own words, Domenic?

  You were a teacher for many years...are you saying you do not understand my post? or did you not read it?
Back to top Go down
alj
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 9633
Registration date : 2008-12-05
Age : 75
Location : San Antonio

PostSubject: Re: Huckabee's perspective on women   Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:46 am

Soes that mean you can't respond to my request?
Back to top Go down
http://www.annjoiner.com
Domenic Pappalardo
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 2557
Registration date : 2009-04-27

PostSubject: Re: Huckabee's perspective on women   Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:52 pm

alj wrote:
Soes that mean you can't respond to my request?
My post on the subject is pretty clear. What part do you not understand? Or is it like always, a control thing with you?
Back to top Go down
alj
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 9633
Registration date : 2008-12-05
Age : 75
Location : San Antonio

PostSubject: Re: Huckabee's perspective on women   Wed Feb 05, 2014 2:09 pm

What is the difference between being obedient and being subjective, as you understand it.
Back to top Go down
http://www.annjoiner.com
Domenic Pappalardo
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 2557
Registration date : 2009-04-27

PostSubject: Re: Huckabee's perspective on women   Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:27 pm

alj wrote:
What is the difference between being obedient and being subjective, as you understand it.

I have always understood it as I posted it. If you missed it, here it is again;
How do you understand it?

WHAT DOES "SUBJECTION" MEAN?

292.     This and our next chapter should be studied with both an Authorized and Revised Version at hand. Two words are constantly confused in reference to woman's duties, "subjection" and "obedience.” But these words do not in the original Greek cover the same scope of meaning, although sometimes subjection may go all the lengths of blind obedience. The verb "to be in subjection" is from hupo, meaning "next after" or "under, " and tasso, "I arrange," and means "to arrange after" or to "arrange under, "--as soldiers are arranged, file after file, or under a captain. The noun "subjection" is not found (in Classical Greek) outside the N. T. and we are left to infer that it was coined to describe a relation peculiar to believers. Had the word merely meant "obedience," such an invention would have been needless. The verb itself is comparatively rare outside the Bible. The A.V. often translates it as "obey" and "submit," but the R.V.carefully translates these words as "subjection" and "be in subjection" wherever they occur, distinguishing them in sense from "obedience.” See the difference between the A.V. and R.V.at 1 Corinthians 14:34; Titus 2:5, etc. 


293.     The true sense of the word describes the Christian grace of yielding one's preferences to another, where principle is not involved, rather than asserting one's rights. Schleusner's Greek-Latin Lexicon to the Septuagint declares that this verb does not always "convey the thought of servile subjection.” Jesus, as a boy, was "subject to His parents,” yet we know that He did not even consult them when He was "about His Father's business," (Luke 2:49, 51).


294.     Two men cannot be long in partnership in business unless willing to be "in subjection" to each other. They must yield preferences; they must "in honor prefer one another;" they must harmonize their views, one to the other, or else they will soon be obliged to separate. They cannot better the situation if a question arises and one assumes the right to command the other. To obey orders like this is not "subjection" but servility, and man refuses to be servile, for that would be degrading to character. This indicates the difference in sense between the two words, as applied to the relation of believers. In 1 Corinthians 15:28 we are told of a time when Christ will become "subject" to His Father. But we certainly know that Christ will never be less than equal with the father in the Godhead. There was a time when, as Son of man, for our sakes, "He took on Him the form of a servant,” but since then, "God hath highly exalted Him," and He will never again become reduced in rank, nor will He ever pass under the Father's coercion. This word speaks of loving harmony, not of impassable ranks, superior and inferior.


295.     That "to be in subjection" does not mean "to obey" necessarily, is shown because the Apostles, who so plainly taught "subjection" to the "higher powers," Romans 13:1,5; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13, were constantly getting into difficulty with these same powers through disobeying them. The Apostles were not guilty of the inconsistency of teaching one thing and practicing another. When they could harmonize their conduct with human laws and not injure their work, they did so. But this very Peter who commanded, "Be subject to every ordinance of man,” when brought to account for a manifest disobedience to the commands of the rulers of Israel, answered merely: "We ought to obey God rather than men" (See Acts 5:29). If "subjection" meant always all that "obedience" means, no monstrous tyrant could ever be dethroned by righteous revolution on the part of Christian citizens. Disobedience to human rule may become one's highest duty to God and our fellow-beings. "Subjection" would teach a humble, a conciliatory spirit, not a servile one.


296.     In Ephesians 5:21, the Apostle says, in exhortation to all believers, without regard to sex, "Subjecting yourselves one to another in the  fear of Christ" (R. V.).  Peter says to all believers, without regard to sex, "Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility,” 1 Peter 5:5. These passages clearly enjoin "subjection upon men, yet all feel instinctively that they cannot mean that men must pass under the arbitrary control of each other when they become Christians.


297.     In Philippians 4:3 the Apostle Paul says: "I entreat thee . . . help those women who laboured with me in the Gospel.” We know, from Romans 16:1-2, that Phoebe had labored with the Apostle, in certain ways of helping. In Romans 16:3 Priscilla is called by Paul "my helper," ("fellow-helper," R. V.); at verse 12, Tryphena and Tryphosa are mentioned as women "who labored in the Lord," also Persis, who "labored much in the Lord.” These were all women; yet the Apostle, at 1 Corinthians 16:16 says: "I beseech you, brethren . . . that you submit yourselves" ("be in subjection," R.V ) . . . "to everyone that helpeth with us and laboreth.” He had just come from Corinth, where he had been laboring with Priscilla and Aquila, and there, as well as at Ephesus, whence he sent this letter to Corinth, his chief helper was Priscilla. Here then is a very clear command which at least included men, to "be in subjection," to women, who were certainly included in the body of "every one that helpeth with us and laboreth.” It seems clear that "subjection" in this case cannot mean exactly the same as "obedience.” 


298.     Yet after all this, when we come to the three instances where the Apostle exhorts wives to be in subjection to their own husbands, one is considered almost heretical who questions whether this exhortation to "wives" means absolute obedience, The word "subjection," as we have shown, has not been interpreted as obedience where the relation is that of man to man, not where the "subjection" may mean of man to woman, as in 1 Corinthians 16:16. Furthermore, each time where the relation of wives to their husbands, of children to their parents, and of servants to their masters is prescribed, a careful distinction in the use of words is made. The word "obey" is generally used for servants and always for children, but the word "subjection" always for wives.[]7] If the sense is the same, why such care in the choice of a different word? As to the duty of wives, see Ephesians 5:22; Colossians 3:18; Titus 2:5 (R.V).[]8] As to children, Ephesians 6:1; Colossians 3:20. As to servants, Ephesians 6:5; Colossians 3:22,--in the R.V.in each case. 


299.     The Old Testament sense in which "to be in subjection" is sometimes used, is highly suggestive and instructive. Psalm 62:1 reads in the English, "truly my soul waiteth upon God; from Him cometh my salvation.” At verse 5 of the same Psalm, we read: "My soul, wait thou only upon God.” In Psalm 37:7 we find the words: "Rest in the Lord and wait patiently for Him.” The words "wait" in the first passages, and the word "rest" in the last are all three represented in the Greek version by the single word hupotasso, "be in subjection," while the literal sense of the Hebrew original word is "be silent unto.” Compare this with 1 Peter 3:1,2, where wives are exhorted to win unbelieving husbands by "subjection.” Surely Peter is not here exhorting wives to blindly obey unbelievers, for if heathen, they would at once remand them back to the worship of the gods; if Jews, back to Judaism. Rather, they are to win them away from these by their "manner of life,” “without the word,"--actions speaking louder than words. "Coupled with fear,"--such fear of God as would cause these women, so gentle, quite and patient in daily life, to be as adamant in their truth to God; and the husbands so overawed by their quite maintenance of principle, whereas they are so ready to yield to their husbands when principle is not involved, that the husbands dare not try to compel their wives to violate conscience, and thus are themselves gradually led into the Christian faith.


Where “subjection” is spoken of as a woman’s duty, without further immediate specification, it has been too readily assumed that this means subjection to a husband. But many women even from Apostolic days, and certainly an increasing large proportion of women in latter days, have no husbands. In both 1 Corinthians 14:34, “let them be in subjection”; and in 1 Timothy 2:11, “learn in all subjection,” this O. T. idea of waiting on God, or the thought of a spirit of humility towards God, may be all that is intended.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Huckabee's perspective on women   

Back to top Go down
 
Huckabee's perspective on women
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Published Authors :: Society :: All Political Discussions-
Jump to: