the problem is that paul is out of line in his teaching. he's simply flat out of line. i did a little bible study on how jesus interacted with women. i'd post it all here, but it's very long. i'll post the question and the conclusion though.question conclusion if you like, i'll post the verses. but clearly paul is acting outside of the teachings of jesus when he makes his claims about women being subservient and less and quiet and such.

but why restrict it to children? my great-grandfather spanked his wife when she was bad (and i don't mean the fun way). he seriously turned her over his knee. maybe that's why the divorce rates are so high; because physical violence is your only solution to what you deem inappropriate behavior. if a man beats his wife enough he'll either kill her or she'll leave him.there are other ways to enforce consequences. spanking creates fear, it does not imbue respect. my mother was the authoritarian in my house at least with me. i only ever recall my father disciplining me once. and that was after he had his brain tumor so it could have been a fluke. do i respect my mother? no. not really. i love her, but i see her as weak and a victim. because that's how she behaves. and when she disciplined us? it was knee-jerk. no, time outs never worked on me. but maybe she should have tried something else. no pbs or reading for a period of time. that might have worked. but she spanked me (i use the word loosely. i wasn't beaten habitually, but it wasn't always on the butt.) until i was 16 or so and it didn't work either. eventually i started talking back and ignoring her. then she tried what really worked. crying. i mean. it helped me view her as a victim but at least it gave me pause. the spankings? they just made me physically violent. and i try very hard to keep it under control.try talking to your kids. just because you don't hit them doesn't make them boss. treat them like people instead of dogs that piss on your carpet. you don't have to grab them and rub their nose in it or kick them to make them stop. you just have to respect them and teach them that they have to respect others. children learn what they are taught. if you teach them through violence and fear, that's what they will learn.i don't think physical discipline should be illegal or anything. sometimes it has it's place. but it should only be a last resort and it must be so to keep its effectiveness. but there is a point at which you have to realize something important. why aren't you talking to them? do you think they're too young to understand why you don't want them to do something? guess what. they're going to have even less of an idea why you're hitting them. might as well make them touch the stove.

i didn't actually. this is a shortcoming of mine. i have no sympathy for victims who do nothing to fight their circumstances. partly because i have done so much to overcome so much and i figure anyone else can too. you clearly don't understand modern television. the father is NEVER in charge in modern television. especially not on the nanny. i once spent some time with a family that worked as you propose when my mom and dad were out of town. i spent a month or more with them. i think. it was horrible. the father had all these ridiculous rules and made them up when he decided you were doing something wrong and then spanked you. we were forewarned of our punishment and then recieved it in an hour or so. out of the moment and all hat. but once he spanked me for reading in the car around dusk because he decided i was going to ruin my eyes. worst month of my life. an idle mind is the source of scholarship. bible scholars can be so because they are not busy working. those rules are outdated methods for controlling the masses nothing more. and i resent you using them in a discussion with me about communicating with children. roles should develop according to a particular couple and the gifts god gave each individual. we have our own minds and our own souls and god has made us according to his perfect design. i am unable to submit. not because i don't want to, but because i can't. i can't imagine that god would force something like that upon me if he made me and called me 'good'.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 01-11-2006 09:54 PM

i have nothing to say. nothing except that maybe you should take your tax dollars to some other country. you are a male. you lack part of your dna. stop being bitter about it.sorry admins. completely off-topic and also terribly inappropriate. but under the circumstances, i think it's reasonably justifiable. i would suggest that what you need is The Zero Tolerance Guide to Punctuation. it might help you with your 'you're' problem.also, why is a woman's only acceptable concern some man's foul progeny? and why can't a man be concerned with his children? is he only concerned when it comes to 'just wait till your father gets home!'? an arcade? ok i did a dictionary search just to make sure there wasn't a different definition. you're really serious that being in an arcade is proof that men are better at making decisions?i should hope a woman marries a man because she wants to spend all her time with him, not to squirt out his foul progeny. my relationships are thus. i have a life; i have interests; i have desires; i have goals. if a man would like to be part of that life, then that's grand. but it will be to share my life, not to reject it. i am me first and a girlfriend/wife/whatever second. but then i have less and less desire to be a wife. estrogen doesn't affect women's brains. on the contrary, progesterone cuts the lobes of a man's brain in utero. thus the hemispheres of the man's brain are incapable of communicating with each other... much like men. i would argue that men don't ask for directions because they don't trust of desire or value the input of others. this would be well supported (anecdotally) by the prevalence of such 'shut-up-and-get-back-in-the-kitchen' leadership as you suggest is the man's job.you're really going to trust something quoted on webmd as hard science? really?why is it that people pit males and females as evolutionarily opposed to each other? we are equal, necessary halves of the same creature. we cannot be biologically successful without each other. men cannot have evolved separately in order to 'beat' women. it's the stupidest thing i've ever heard.(fixed broken link - AdminNWR)This message has been edited by AdminNWR, 01-11-2006 11:29 PM

i don't actually care what grandchildren my mother wants. i don't want to have kids. if she wants grandchildren, she can adopt them herself. no. never. his health is not endangered by the pregnancy. he has no say. he could just go impregnate some other broad. first, not all men have leadership skills. second, what? we're not even speaking the same language. and why do you keep saying things that assume that my main goal in life is to have kids? really. i'm not a baby bag with legs. stoppit.

ok, so what part of this sentence is in english, again? the right of this child to come into a household where it isn't wanted and won't be well cared for you mean? this is off-topic and really should not be discussed here. but i must say this. pregnancy is inherently life threatening... despite modern medicine. it is a risk that humans (and other apes) accept for the sake of better protection than lain eggs which are prone to breakage. by hiding the developing eggs inside the moving, self-defending female, the offspring has a better chance of survival to birth. but it is nonetheless inherently dangerous for the female. if you would like to discuss the legal inplications of roe v wade, please take it elsewhere.

why do you think we shave our legs? they really want a kinky freak in the body of a child. and with the mind of a child. little kids will do whatever they're told. i guess that's why they make great lovers.it's fun when we agree. it doesn't happen much, but boy is it fun.

while i do agree that it is unneccessary for a leader-follower relationship to be abusive, i do not agree that this is an appropriate manner for two adults involved in a sexual relationship to behave. that's called sexual servitude and it's an international crime.think about it for a moment. you know how paul says terrible things about men who are 'effeminate' and how sinful they are? why do you think it's so horrible for a man to assume the role of a woman? is it because a woman's role is an honorable one which carries with it great prestige and blessing? no. because it is the position of a sexual servant. it's disgusting and shameful. and that's why they're not allowed to speak in church (or public)... because they are servants and are not worthy of their own opinions.

thanks for the vote of confidence asshole.

Toatally uncalled for. You are suspended for a personal attack on another poster.

no. i see a loving relationship as a meeting of equals. my husband will be my friend. and like my other friends, we will share equally in decisions and ideas and time and work and chores and play. i have had this one friend for 5 years. we've both loaned each other so much that i don't know if we'll ever be even (we can't and don't bother to keep track of the numbers). but, we're even in our nature of giving to one another. we live a bit away but we trade off on visits. we buy each other meals, art supplies, books... we loan each other money when needed. we keep each other together. we discuss important things. we discuss unimportant things. we find new, exotic restaurants to go to to keep our lives interesting. that's what i see a true friendship being. and that's what a marriage should be. a true friendship. now, i have no interest in this friend of mine. i'm dating someone else who i'm thrilled with (more or less). but that is still what i base my goals on. i have no interest in letting a man run everything while i tend to my house and family. i have no interest in rotting in my house all day or working myself to death between job and kids and on top of all of that, being required to come home and 'please my man'. if that ever happens... he has a hand. but, thank god for science, it won't happen. clearly if i'm viewed as weaker then i am not getting the better deal. if you want to worry about the greater serving the weaker, you should stop worrying about your woman and start wondering why there are still starving children around the world. there's nothing wrong with serving each other. but requiring all-encompassing specific roles is not serving each other. you have a very distorted view of the world's idea of marriage. or at least of my idea of marriage. yeah except being required to be a maid on top of whatever i really want to do with my life. again, there's nothing wrong with serving one another in love. but having a man made decisions while the woman is in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant (again) is not two mature adults serving each other. it's one adult being served by a maid and a prostitute and one 'adult' being used as a maid and a baby factory for 'room and board' payment. i am not a softie. in fact. most mothers i have known are the disciplinarians. the dads were the softies. and if you think for one minute i'm going to feed my decisions through the man... when raising children, the proper way is to have a set formula for decisions. you already have rules. you make those rules clear to each other and to the children. you think about as much in advance as possible. if the child desires something and it fits within the rules, then he gets it. that's called being honest. children thrive on honesty. children raised waiting for daddy's heavy hand do not thrive. they grow up fearful and paranoid. clearly not.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 01-13-2006 09:30 AM

well clearly women work to do X and men work to do Y. minor detail. but very important to the rules. apparently. if a woman were to do Y, she would not be serving her husband. and if a man were to do X, he'd be a fag and we'd have to stone him. funny thing that standard...

i grew up in it and i can't figure it out. please explain it to us more carefully.

i get the manager thing. what i don't get is this alleged other definition for the word 'submit'.

yes but your post didn't answer my question and you're running in circles. you're using the same word submit in the relationship with god. so i'm to treat my husband like a god? what is this second definition you claim exists for submit?

maybe that's part of why men used to marry children instead of actual adult women. he's 30, she's 13... who do you think makes the decisions? maybe that's what he means by good christian marriage. the kind jesus' parents had.

yes i understand that. that's crap. maybe women mature faster than men. but not like that. it's really only a couple years difference and it's much more physical than emotional. you do know why college guys date high school girls right? because they put out more easily because they're not mature enough to know that the guys are lying to them.'nough said.