T Nation

The Doctrine of the Wife

Too long to post:

http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/LEONJ/v3ch2-nonduality.html

If you thought the Surrendered Wife concept, wait `til you read this one:

[i]5. The Four-Step Conjoining Process

Conjugial love grows spiritually when the couple repeatedly goes through the following four steps on a daily and hourly basis (based on CL 293-294):

Step 1: The wife acts. She reveals her affections to her husband in the form of a direct request or an implied request, either in word, gesture, facial expression, or mere expectation.

Step 2: The husband receives. He wills himself to love her affection, which is within the request, and by this, he receives it, that is, conjoins his cognitions to it. Her affection now is as-if his own. He chooses to act from his wife’s will.

Step 3: The husband acts out. He says one or more of these four things: Yes. O.K. That’s right. I will, (and equivalents).

Step 4: The wife reacts. She feels his reaction of conjunction as her bosom delight.[/i]

Recipe for disaster. Watch the Outlaw Biker sweep up the woman faster than you can say Pussywhipped.

What’s your point? I don’t get what you are getting at.

[quote]JPBear wrote:
What’s your point? I don’t get what you are getting at.[/quote]

Honestly, I was going to say the same thing about the text of the author. I doubt his suggestion of having a surrendered male works in real life, especially with 2 high-T people. The author`s view of Life is theoretical. Too much for me. Sometimes, it gave me the impression I was reading cult material.

Ultimately, this stuff could be interpreted as humorous, i.e. not to be taken seriously.

[quote]MrChill wrote:
Too long to post:

http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/LEONJ/v3ch2-nonduality.html
[/quote]

Y’know, I read some of that, & it seemed like English.
But it didn’t make any sense to me?

[quote]MrChill wrote:

Honestly, I was going to say the same thing about the text of the author. I doubt his suggestion of having a surrendered male works in real life, especially with 2 high-T people. The author`s view of Life is theoretical. Too much for me. Sometimes, it gave me the impression I was reading cult material.

Ultimately, this stuff could be interpreted as humorous, i.e. not to be taken seriously.[/quote]

Okay, I didn’t really pick up on the surrendered male thing.

I agree that whatever this person was trying to say, he did it in the most complicated, unclear way possible.

Doctrine of the wife?

Aren’t these enough:

1 Peter 3:1 “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;”

1 Timothy 2:11-12 “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Colossians 3:18 “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.”

Ephesians 5:22-24 “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

Corinthians 14:34-35 “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Submit. Shut up. Simple enough…

One thing to keep in mind is that, that was written during a time when women were just property with no right to anything. For a woman to enter a Church was unfathomable and propably case for her death. When Cristianity was founded, it was so revolutionary becuase it allowed women into church as equals.

The obvious hurdle would be the mindset of the male population of the time. They would surely balk and be uneasy about this, even though they would have been followers of the new religion (Christianity). Those texts could have easily been written the way they were written in order to be a stepping stone and to appease the simpler minds. The minds that need to feel they still have “some” controll and superiority.

The word “submit” would IMO nicely appease any insecure simpleton and help him move past his looking down on women.

The Church lives in the time it lives in. Those are ancient texts, not be used literally today. They were revolutionary back then, today they are a historical relic to be studied and understood in the proper context of time, social climate etc etc…

[quote]Hidngod wrote:
MrChill wrote:
Too long to post:

http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/LEONJ/v3ch2-nonduality.html

Y’know, I read some of that, & it seemed like English.
But it didn’t make any sense to me?[/quote]

Agreed. Cliff Notes of this with links to additional details would have been a good start. Too much stuff, no bullets, and too abstract, IMO.

[quote]Gregus wrote:
One thing to keep in mind is that, that was written during a time when women were just property with no right to anything. For a woman to enter a Church was unfathomable and propably case for her death. When Cristianity was founded, it was so revolutionary becuase it allowed women into church as equals. [/quote]

Can you name all those great equal women from the beginning of the church? Other than Mary.

So they buy the “Word of God” only if it doesn’t inconvenience them to much in their current social mores? Things haven’t changed much, have they?

Was there such a number of simpletons adhering to the religion that the main Rule Book had to be “fudged” for them?

If you believe the Bible to be the word of God, then you’d follow what it says, even if it went against your personal feelings.

Unfortunately, a lot of people disagree with you.

Is it the inspired word of God or not? If God could not inspire timeless teachings that would transcend culture and time; then how are those writings distinguised from those made up by a bunch of old guys writing down rules they agree with?

[quote]Gregus wrote:
One thing to keep in mind is that, that was written during a time when women were just property with no right to anything. For a woman to enter a Church was unfathomable and propably case for her death. When Cristianity was founded, it was so revolutionary becuase it allowed women into church as equals.

The obvious hurdle would be the mindset of the male population of the time. They would surely balk and be uneasy about this, even though they would have been followers of the new religion (Christianity). Those texts could have easily been written the way they were written in order to be a stepping stone and to appease the simpler minds. The minds that need to feel they still have “some” controll and superiority.

The word “submit” would IMO nicely appease any insecure simpleton and help him move past his looking down on women.

The Church lives in the time it lives in. Those are ancient texts, not be used literally today. They were revolutionary back then, today they are a historical relic to be studied and understood in the proper context of time, social climate etc etc…[/quote]

You could not be more wrong.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Doctrine of the wife?

Aren’t these enough:

1 Peter 3:1 “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;”

1 Timothy 2:11-12 “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Colossians 3:18 “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.”

Ephesians 5:22-24 “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

Corinthians 14:34-35 “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Submit. Shut up. Simple enough…

[/quote]

These verses are so clear. We cannot throw them out because we do not like them.

As a fairly new believer, the whole area of submitting to my husband has been brought to my attention by God. I have to admit, it has been a difficult thing for me to figure out and put into practice.

Here are some of the most helpful insights I have gained so far:

  • A wife must submit to her husband in all things because that is what Jesus commands her to do. Not because she hopes her husband will treat her better in return, and not for fear of making him mad. Only because of her obedience to the commands of God.

  • The submission must be inward, which will be evidenced through a joyful obedience.

  • The Bible tells us that husbands and wives are playing distinct roles. The husband is playing the role of Christ, and is therefore commanded to love his wife so much he would die for her. The wife is playing the role of the church, in that she will joyfully submit in all things to her husband.

  • A wife does not have to obey her husband when he is telling her to do something that is in direct conflict with the word of God.

  • Everyone is in submission to someone or something. If you are not saved, you are a slave to sin. If you are saved you are a slave to God. The Bible instructs the Christian to be in submission to governing authorities, wives to husbands, children to parents and slaves to masters.

  • Learning to submit to your earthly authority figures will help you as you learn to submit to the Lord.

JP bear.

You’re interpretation is very level headed. I think people forget the fact that it’s about trust and love.

When two become one, it’s the greatest gift. Thank you for pointing out that a husband is commanded to love his wife like Jesus loved us and in turn his wife loves him and listens to what he says, for he will never do anything to harm her.

Instead people get hung up on things like this in such a literal sense. They read the word “submit” or “obey” and immediately scoff like someone is being told to be a slave or something.

I find that in the dynamics of the interaction between men and women it makes for a really nice relationship when the Wife knows and i mean really knows her Husband loves her enough to die for her. it builds such security and warmth in women to know they are loved and appreciated so much. They happily do anything their husband wishes. And when she does, her husband’s character is fortified and his commitement and love grows deeper and deeper with every passing moment.

In today’s age of misstrust it seems like outdated concepts because poeple can’t get past the choice of words.

Those passages tell us to work as a team. Maybe religion could benefit from having a politically correct version of the bible?

[quote]JPBear wrote:
Gregus wrote:
One thing to keep in mind is that, that was written during a time when women were just property with no right to anything. For a woman to enter a Church was unfathomable and propably case for her death. When Cristianity was founded, it was so revolutionary becuase it allowed women into church as equals.

The obvious hurdle would be the mindset of the male population of the time. They would surely balk and be uneasy about this, even though they would have been followers of the new religion (Christianity). Those texts could have easily been written the way they were written in order to be a stepping stone and to appease the simpler minds. The minds that need to feel they still have “some” controll and superiority.

The word “submit” would IMO nicely appease any insecure simpleton and help him move past his looking down on women.

The Church lives in the time it lives in. Those are ancient texts, not be used literally today. They were revolutionary back then, today they are a historical relic to be studied and understood in the proper context of time, social climate etc etc…

You could not be more wrong.[/quote]

Perhaps in my haste i am wrong. PErhaps i came to wrong conclusions. Would not be the first time. I’m man enough to admit it.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Gregus wrote:
One thing to keep in mind is that, that was written during a time when women were just property with no right to anything. For a woman to enter a Church was unfathomable and propably case for her death. When Cristianity was founded, it was so revolutionary becuase it allowed women into church as equals.

Can you name all those great equal women from the beginning of the church? Other than Mary.

The obvious hurdle would be the mindset of the male population of the time. They would surely balk and be uneasy about this, even though they would have been followers of the new religion (Christianity). Those texts could have easily been written the way they were written in order to be a stepping stone and to appease the simpler minds. The minds that need to feel they still have “some” controll and superiority.

So they buy the “Word of God” only if it doesn’t inconvenience them to much in their current social mores? Things haven’t changed much, have they?

The word “submit” would IMO nicely appease any insecure simpleton and help him move past his looking down on women.

Was there such a number of simpletons adhering to the religion that the main Rule Book had to be “fudged” for them?

If you believe the Bible to be the word of God, then you’d follow what it says, even if it went against your personal feelings.

The Church lives in the time it lives in. Those are ancient texts, not be used literally today.

Unfortunately, a lot of people disagree with you.

They were revolutionary back then, today they are a historical relic to be studied and understood in the proper context of time, social climate etc etc…

Is it the inspired word of God or not? If God could not inspire timeless teachings that would transcend culture and time; then how are those writings distinguised from those made up by a bunch of old guys writing down rules they agree with?
[/quote]

You know pookie, perhaps my post was all wrong. In todays day and age of political correctness, womens liberation etc… These words sound harsh and have a conitation of someone having to be slave or something.

But in the end it onle tells the husband to love his wife and vice versa.

Gregus,

Thanks for being so willing to admit you may have been wrong. That is so uncommon these days.

Since I became a born again believer my entire worldview has been turned upside down. Man’s truth is not God’s truth.

“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.” Isaiah 59:9

[quote]Gregus wrote:
You know pookie, perhaps my post was all wrong. In todays day and age of political correctness, womens liberation etc… These words sound harsh and have a conitation of someone having to be slave or something.[/quote]

I think your post was perfectly ok, and that the Bible is wrong. It reflects the times it was written in. We don’t see the Bible the same way, so I don’t think that my view of it is available to you.

Really? It think that’s what you’d like them to say, but they don’t. Why else would JPbear mention, about those verses, that she must accept them even if she doesn’t like them?

What’s not to like about “the husband must love his wife and vice versa?” But that’s not what the verses say; while they tell the husband to love his wife, they tell the wife to submit to her husband in all things and to keep silent. That “vice versa” is pretty lopsided.

[quote]JPBear wrote:
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.” Isaiah 59:9
[/quote]

Yeah, don’t forget, if one of your kids ever mouths off to you:

Exodus 21:17 “And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.”

Yeah, it’s tough. But God’s ways are higher than your ways, so…

Pookie,

How many times, and in how many ways has this been explained to you?

There are different types of laws in the Old Testament. Some were civil laws, as the one you mentioned above, some pertained to the old covenant, and some were moral. Only the moral laws still stand.

Let me know if there is any way I can make this clearer to you so you can stop making yourself look ignorant.

[quote]JPBear wrote:
Gregus,

Thanks for being so willing to admit you may have been wrong. That is so uncommon these days.

Since I became a born again believer my entire worldview has been turned upside down. Man’s truth is not God’s truth.

“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.” Isaiah 59:9
[/quote]

Thank you.