🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <61g8vn$4jr@xochi.tezcat.com>,
Daniel B. Holzman <holzman@xochi.tezcat.com> wrote:
>In article <61dror$2f2$6@gail.ripco.com>,
>John Paulus <shadowm@ripco.com> wrote:
>>Last Friday night on Nightline, Patricia Ireland (President of the National
>>Organization of Women) challenged Steve Chavis (is he related to Benjamin
>>Chavis?), spokesperson for Promise Keepers, to sign a document essentially
>>promising not to dominate/hurt women & gays.
>
>[...]
>
>>The document should include how, although PK believes that homosexuality is
>>wrong and against God's plan for sexuality, it is no worse than the sins
>>which each PK struggles with himself.  
>
>It should do nothing of the sort.
>
>If the PKs want to impress their critics, they'll promise not to
>dominate/hurt women and gays unconditionally, rather than taking it as
>yet another opportunity to remind everyone that they're
>anti-homosexuality.  We already know they are.

If the PKs live to the quote which you supplied, then they have already done
this with regards to women (let's leave the gay issue out of it for now --
that's a separate debate than the one which Patricia Ireland has tried to
start)

The issue and charge was whether PKers want to and in fact do demand 
submission of their wives in an *unequal* relationship.

>>In regards to women, they should express their belief in Ephesians 5:21-30,
>>and how men must be like Jesus in terms of holiness, and that no authority
>>can be expected without it.
>
>005:021 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. 
>005:022 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the
>Lord. 

A wife is called to submit to her husband by this passage. You are correct.

>005:023 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. 
>005:024 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives
>be to their own husbands in every thing. 
>005:025 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church,
>and gave himself for it; 

A husband is called to submit himself to his wife. This obligation is
specifically stated to persist even *to the point of his own death* in 
this regard.

Sounds rather like an equal commitment to me.  5:25, of course, is the part 
of the scripture that the feminists conveniently leave out of the discussion,
likely because they closed their Bibles immediately upon reading 5:22 and 
never completed actually reading the passage.

>005:026 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water
>by the word, 
>005:027 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having
>spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be
>holy and without blemish. 
>005:028 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that
>loveth his wife loveth himself. 
>005:029 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and
>cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 
>005:030 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 
>005:031 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall
>be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 

Husband and wife are called to be as *one* person, not two, and in that 
one person to submit to *one another* in the fear of God.  They are called
to do this by submitting their pride and will to *each other*, not only
from one side, but from both.

>I'm sorry, but the PKs can either promise not to dominate their wives, OR
>they can endorse Ephesians 5:22-30.  (Ephesians 5:21 is a part of a
>different sentence.)  Ephesians 5:22-24 is quite explicit that this is
>not a partnership of equals, but a hierarchical relationship wherein the
>husband is the head of the wife.  Exhorting the husband not to abuse this
>power does not change the nature of the relationship.
>-- 
>Daniel B. Holzman -- Love does not subtract, it multiplies. -- All acts of love 
On the contrary.  It is not a partnership at all.  It is a combining which
leaves you not with a partnership (which can be broken) but with *one
person* when you are finished with it -- which cannot be separated.

Now you can argue that this is unrealistic, wrong, or whatever.  But the
words in the scripture are clear on this point -- it is not a matter of
hierarchy, or of dominance.  It is a matter of joining two people together
to become one, and further, that in doing so BOTH parties submit to the
other even to their respective deaths.  This point is specifically made 
and underscored so that there is no way to misinterpret what is required.

What greater sacrifice and submission can you point to which can be made
than this?

Thank you for quoting the *WHOLE* passage Dan; you and I appear to disagree
about what it says, even though I believe the passage is self-evident and
written in clear language. 

But you *are* honest enough to provide the entire text, where many others
stop immediately after 5:22.

Now we can debate whether or not the Bible is the word of God, or which God
we're referring to, or whether there is one God, two Gods, or 4,000 Gods.
We can also debate the merits of one particular faith over another if you'd
like.  

All of that is a valid intellectual exercise, but irrelavent to the point 
at hand.

--
-- 
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
http://www.mcs.net/~karl     | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
			     | NEW! K56Flex modem support is now available
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| 56kbps DIGITAL ISDN DOV on analog lines!
Fax:   [+1 312 803-4929]     | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal