PDA

View Full Version : Huckabee: MAKE ME A SANDWICH AND SUCK MAH WANG, WOMAN!


Thig Lyfe
12-10-2007, 11:38 PM
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/10/12517/525/811/420237

Huckabee: women's role in marriage is to "graciously submit"
by 4fx
Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 10:15:38 AM PST

Huckabee's opinion on gay marriage is out there, but we should also be publicizing Huckabee's opinions on heterosexual marriage. Specifically, what he believes about a women's role in a marriage.

In August of 1998, Huckabee was one of 131 signatories to a full page USA Today Ad which declared: "I affirm the statement on the family issued by the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention." What was in the family statement from the SBC? "A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ."

The ad wasn't just a blanket, "we support the SBC statement," but rather highlighted details. The ad Huckabee signed specifically said of the SBC family statement: "You are right because you called wives to graciously submit to their husband's sacrificial leadership."

Add "graciously submit" to his "Take back the nation for Christ" statement, and if the media does its job, he's well on his way to being toast.


-----

He's done. Thankfully.

wazu
12-10-2007, 11:42 PM
So what's wrong with that?

Thig Lyfe
12-10-2007, 11:47 PM
So what's wrong with that?

His mindset is stuck in the 50's. A candidate who doesn't consider marriage to be an equal partnership is both unelectable and a moron.

wazu
12-10-2007, 11:59 PM
His mindset is stuck in the 50's. A candidate who doesn't consider marriage to be an equal partnership is both unelectable and a moron.

Are you insane? This probably gives his poll numbers a boost. Now all he needs to do is come out and declare that all homosexuals will burn in a fiery pit and he'll be the next Republican nominee.

wazu
12-11-2007, 12:07 AM
Oh, and by the way - I've been at weddings where that "submit" line was quoted before the entire congregation to nobody's objection. Rest assured, it's still alive and well in the bible belt.

Thig Lyfe
12-11-2007, 12:33 AM
Are you insane? This probably gives his poll numbers a boost. Now all he needs to do is come out and declare that all homosexuals will burn in a fiery pit and he'll be the next Republican nominee.

Nobody wins by appealing only to his or her base.

ClevelandBronco
12-11-2007, 02:30 AM
At the same time a wife is called to submit, a husband is called to sacrifice himself for the sake of his wife.

It was a radical declaration of the worth of women when it was spoken, and IMO it remains so, perhaps now more than ever.

When an assclown such as Travis Henry can have nine kids with nine different women without widespread societal revulsion it's worth wondering what we should still see as "alive and well" in the original message.

BTW: Another absolute asshole named Derrick Thomas led a similar life.

His death may have been unfortunate for the Chiefs, but it was beneficial for some women he may have otherwise met, as well as for society at large.

Taco John
12-11-2007, 03:07 AM
If you want to go after Huckabee, your going to get a lot more traction with his poor judgement (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/12/05/huffpo-dumonds-other-rape-victims-told-huckabee-he-was-dangerous-before-he-was-paroled/), soft on crime record (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/12/05/huckabee-granted-more-clemencies-than-six-neighboring-states-combined/), Clintonian flip-flopping (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/12/04/war-questions-for-mike-huckabee/), weak grasp of foriegn affairs (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/12/05/huckabee-missed-the-nie-brouhaha/), gutless position on standing up to illegal immigration (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/30/huckabee-i-cant-compromise-on-scholarships-for-illegals-because-my-soul-will-not-let-me/), and of course, his sudden miraculous position against taxes (http://www.taxhikemike.com) now that he's running for president.

Going after his Christianity isn't going to get you very far.

Mr. Kotter
12-11-2007, 07:33 AM
...."A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ."

..."You are right because you called wives to graciously submit to their husband's sacrificial leadership."...

Conscientious Christians understand the meaning of what is stated here....even if you, obviously, do not.

However, in fairness unless you are well-versed in Christian study one could easily mistake such exhortations to be chauvinistic and advocating subjugation of women. I'll assume that is the case here with you, because, they are not.

Submitting to headship....or leadership, as the church submits to Christ, is not about dominance and oppression. It is about shared, but distinct, responsibilities. Equality is about fairness, not duplicity. Equality is not about being the same, it's about recognizing our unique talents and gifts. Equality isn't about uniform standards for women and men, it's about mutual respect.

I sense that you are not capable of understanding the distinction, at this point in your life.

BucEyedPea
12-11-2007, 07:34 AM
His mindset is stuck in the 50's. A candidate who doesn't consider marriage to be an equal partnership is both unelectable and a moron.
I don't see what one's personal and religious views on marriage have to do with the role of the president anyway. Does the Constitution call for that somewhere?

Anyhow, that's what Christians believe too. I would think that will enamour them to him. I mean he is trying to win the Republican nomination not the party of alternative and feminist families nomination. :p

banyon
12-11-2007, 08:24 AM
Nobody wins by appealing only to his or her base.

Bush made similar statements to these.

Mr. Kotter
12-11-2007, 09:08 AM
Bush made similar statements to these.

Yup. You understand the context of them, don't you? :shrug:

banyon
12-11-2007, 09:13 AM
Yup. You understand the context of them, don't you? :shrug:

Sure, it's the traditional southern view of marriage.

It used to be widely held everywhere, but on the Frontier out here, women had to be more independent. Then of course, we had the sixties, etc. A lot of people think this is an unreasonable view these days because it evokes servitude, but there is room to disagree that you have to interpret it that harshly.

Taco John
12-11-2007, 09:17 AM
Sure, it's the traditional southern view of marriage.

It used to be widely held everywhere, but on the Frontier out here, women had to be more independent. Then of course, we had the sixties, etc. A lot of people think this is an unreasonable view these days because it evokes servitude, but there is room to disagree that you have to interpret it that harshly.



You just about got a lesson in "obvious" from Kotter, the guy who was telling us that Evangelical Christians are no longer relevant to the Republican Party nomination process...

dirk digler
12-11-2007, 09:17 AM
Conscientious Christians understand the meaning of what is stated here....even if you, obviously, do not.

However, in fairness unless you are well-versed in Christian study one could easily mistake such exhortations to be chauvinistic and advocating subjugation of women. I'll assume that is the case here with you, because, they are not.

Submitting to headship....or leadership, as the church submits to Christ, is not about dominance and oppression. It is about shared, but distinct, responsibilities. Equality is about fairness, not duplicity. Equality is not about being the same, it's about recognizing our unique talents and gifts. Equality isn't about uniform standards for women and men, it's about mutual respect.

I sense that you are not capable of understanding the distinction, at this point in your life.

So what you are saying is that your wife is the boss of your family? :)

Mr. Laz
12-11-2007, 09:17 AM
His mindset is stuck in the 50's. A candidate who doesn't consider marriage to be an equal partnership is both unelectable and a moron.
you seriously over-estimate the core of the GOP

Mr. Kotter
12-11-2007, 09:22 AM
....Sure a lot of people think this is an unreasonable view these days because it evokes servitude, but there is room to disagree that you have to interpret it that harshly.

I'd respectfully disagree. Anyone who understand the concepts in the context of Christianity knows its not about servitude or subjugation.

The only possible way it can be interpreted that way, is by people who don't understand Christianity....or by those who deliberately choose to misapply the ideas.

So what you are saying is that your wife is the boss of your family? :)

Heh. Not exactly. :p

We each have distinct and unique roles. They are both equally important.

Baby Lee
12-11-2007, 09:25 AM
Conscientious Christians understand the meaning of what is stated here....even if you, obviously, do not.

However, in fairness unless you are well-versed in Christian study one could easily mistake such exhortations to be chauvinistic and advocating subjugation of women. I'll assume that is the case here with you, because, they are not.

Submitting to headship....or leadership, as the church submits to Christ, is not about dominance and oppression. It is about shared, but distinct, responsibilities. Equality is about fairness, not duplicity. Equality is not about being the same, it's about recognizing our unique talents and gifts. Equality isn't about uniform standards for women and men, it's about mutual respect.

I sense that you are not capable of understanding the distinction, at this point in your life.
But his goes beyond the symbiosis of Jack Spratt and wife.
This is putting forth a position statement that goes WAY beyond defining a marriage as between a man and women, to advocating that ALL women behave in one manner, and all men act in another.
Marriage should be a relationship that is comfortable for THE PEOPLE IN THE MARRIAGE.
If a woman CEO marrys a mechanic, is she really supposed to come home and take a position wholly foreign to her position in her vocation? Even if the husband is ill-equipped to assume his 'ideal' position.

If a woman is an accounting ace, and the husband has the spending habits of a teenager, if she supposed to submit to his judgment over finances?

That said, at the end of the day, it's a benign statement, as there is no practicible way of enforcing it.

Mr. Kotter
12-11-2007, 09:30 AM
But his goes beyond the symbiosis of Jack Spratt and wife.
This is putting forth a position statement that goes WAY beyond defining a marriage as between a man and women, to advocating that ALL women behave in one manner, and all men act in another.
Marriage should be a relationship that is comfortable for THE PEOPLE IN THE MARRIAGE.
If a women CEO marrys a mechanic, is she really supposed to come home and take a position wholly foreign to her position in her vocation? Even if the husband is ill-equipped to assume his 'ideal' position.

That said, at the end of the day, it's a benign statement, as there is no practicible way of enforcing it.

Agreed.

However, I don't read the statement as being absolute at all though.

So, as you say it is benign, because not only is there no way to "enforce" it....it's not meant to be "enforced" in my view.

:shrug:

Baby Lee
12-11-2007, 09:38 AM
Agreed.

However, I don't read the statement as being absolute at all though.

So, as you say it is benign, because not only is there no way to "enforce" it....it's not meant to be "enforced" in my view.

:shrug:
So, the submission to Christ isn't absolute either? If I think I have better judgment than Christ on a matter I should follow my own dictates? That WAS the comparison.

Mr. Kotter
12-11-2007, 09:42 AM
So, the submission to Christ isn't absolute either? If I think I have better judgment than Christ on a matter I should follow my own dictates? That WAS the comparison.

In matters that are clear, of course Christians should submit to Christ. What of matters that are not clear though? I don't recall Him specifically addressing the issue of a CEO marrying a mechanic....or him insisting on a rigid and dogmatic interpretation of submit that equates to blind obedience.

:shrug:

Cochise
12-11-2007, 09:43 AM
I grew up in an SBC congregation, and have heard over and over that yes, the verse being referenced does petition women to submit to their husbands. But husbands are supposed to submit to their wives, too as Christ loved the church and that He is really the head of the household. Marriage seems like the one of topics that talked about more than almost any other, for right or wrong. The 'head of the household' doesn't necessarily mean authority or whatever, but that he's responsible for what goes on under the roof. It doesn't call one anyone to compromise principles or take orders, but this is one part of a sentence in an idea that encompasses both submitting to each other in a situation of great respect for each other.

What all that amounts to is little more than a point by point of what Paul wrote on the subject, so the disagreement with Huckabee should be directed vertically instead.

Cochise
12-11-2007, 09:46 AM
In matters that are clear, of course Christians should submit to Christ. What of matters that are not clear though? I don't recall Him specifically addressing the issue of a CEO marrying a mechanic....or him insisting on a rigid and dogmatic interpretation of submit that equates to blind obedience.

:shrug:

It doesn't sound like you've read any of the things that are being discussed here.

Mr. Kotter
12-11-2007, 09:48 AM
It doesn't sound like you've read any of the things that are being discussed here.

:spock:

Brock
12-11-2007, 09:50 AM
OMG, he believes the bible. How awful.

chagrin
12-11-2007, 09:51 AM
Sure, it's the traditional southern view of marriage.




Dude, it's the tradidiontal American, European, Asian, Hawaiian, Mayan, Indo-China - you name the culture, it was their view of marriage for about 1000 years. You don't really believe that some Southern guy made that up?

You are supposed to be one of the so-called enlightened ones, this is disapponting.

Taco John
12-11-2007, 09:51 AM
It doesn't sound like you've read any of the things that are being discussed here.


I'm glad I'm not the only one who was rolling my eyes...

NewChief
12-11-2007, 09:59 AM
OMG, he believes the bible. How awful.


No doubt. A preacher that follows a traditional reading of the scripture. Who would have thunk it?

Baby Lee
12-11-2007, 10:00 AM
In matters that are clear, of course Christians should submit to Christ. What of matters that are not clear though? I don't recall Him specifically addressing the issue of a CEO marrying a mechanic....or him insisting on a rigid and dogmatic interpretation of submit that equates to blind obedience.

:shrug:
Maybe you're not of the same evangelical strain, but as an outsider myself, it seems like their paradigm is, when issues arise in your life that are vexing or trying or confusing, you are to 'Let go and let God.' Seems like they even make these little wristbands with WWJD embroidered on them.
Where does that suggest that we are to submit to Christ only when he gives us a direct unambiguous commandment?

The Rick
12-11-2007, 10:00 AM
Conscientious Christians understand the meaning of what is stated here....even if you, obviously, do not.

However, in fairness unless you are well-versed in Christian study one could easily mistake such exhortations to be chauvinistic and advocating subjugation of women. I'll assume that is the case here with you, because, they are not.

Submitting to headship....or leadership, as the church submits to Christ, is not about dominance and oppression. It is about shared, but distinct, responsibilities. Equality is about fairness, not duplicity. Equality is not about being the same, it's about recognizing our unique talents and gifts. Equality isn't about uniform standards for women and men, it's about mutual respect.

I sense that you are not capable of understanding the distinction, at this point in your life.
Well said, and I would even go as far to say that if more families followed this model, we'd have far less issues with things such as teen pregnancy, violence and crime, etc.

Men are called to serve as the leaders of our families. We are to protect our families, provide for them, and assume full responsibility for the overall well-being of the family.

The example of the husband being like Christ, and the wife being like the church is a good one...probably why it's used in the Bible!

Baby Lee
12-11-2007, 10:02 AM
No doubt. A preacher that follows a traditional reading of the scripture. Who would have thunk it?
I thought he was running for president, not preacher. :shrug:

Baby Lee
12-11-2007, 10:04 AM
Well said, and I would even go as far to say that if more families followed this model, we'd have far less issues with things such as teen pregnancy, violence and crime, etc.

Men are called to serve as the leaders of our families. We are to protect our families, provide for them, and assume full responsibility for the overall well-being of the family.

The example of the husband being like Christ, and the wife being like the church is a good one...probably why it's used in the Bible!
Does your wife wear a WWTRD [what would The Rick do] wristband to remind her of her role?

NewChief
12-11-2007, 10:04 AM
I thought he was running for president, not preacher. :shrug:

So his belief system and morals established as a preacher are supposed to just go out the window once he runs for president?

Baby Lee
12-11-2007, 10:06 AM
So his belief system and morals established as a preacher are supposed to just go out the window once he runs for president?
No, but examination of what they are, and how they'd impact his agenda, is a relevant exercise for the electorate.

Brock
12-11-2007, 10:06 AM
So his belief system and morals established as a preacher are supposed to just go out the window once he runs for president?

No doubt. At least he's up front about who he is and what he believes. In this regard, anyway.

banyon
12-11-2007, 10:08 AM
Dude, it's the tradidiontal American, European, Asian, Hawaiian, Mayan, Indo-China - you name the culture, it was their view of marriage for about 1000 years. You don't really believe that some Southern guy made that up?
You are supposed to be one of the so-called enlightened ones, this is disapponting.

Of course not. I meant traditional southern in reference to the past 50 years, not the past 1000. Yes, it was the commonly held Western belief everywhere previously, I tried to highlight a few of the things that fractured that view in our history.

(remember, I am from the South and grew up in a Southern Baptist church)

NewChief
12-11-2007, 10:08 AM
No, but examination of what they are, and how they'd impact his agenda, is a relevant exercise for the electorate.

This is probably going to come as a shocker to people, but I bet he also believes that drinking alcohol is a "sin" and that the Bible is to be interpreted literally, other agreed upon beliefs of the Southern Baptist Convention.

stevieray
12-11-2007, 10:10 AM
Well said, and I would even go as far to say that if more families followed this model, we'd have far less issues with things such as teen pregnancy, violence and crime, etc.

Men are called to serve as the leaders of our families. We are to protect our families, provide for them, and assume full responsibility for the overall well-being of the family.

The example of the husband being like Christ, and the wife being like the church is a good one...probably why it's used in the Bible!

I never underestimate the power of the role of my wife...which is simply respect me, propigated by my role of simply loving her..and vice versa...

God calling woman a helper isn't derogatory... a helper is one who helps complete a task that needs finishing....even down to MaryM being the first to witness Jesus' ressurection....

Mr. Kotter
12-11-2007, 10:10 AM
Maybe you're not of the same evangelical strain, but as an outsider myself, it seems like their paradigm is, when issues arise in your life that are vexing or trying or confusing, you are to 'Let go and let God.' Seems like they even make these little wristbands with WWJD embroidered on them.
Where does that suggest that we are to submit to Christ only when he gives us a direct unambiguous commandment?

FTR, I didn't grow up as an "evangelical" either; nor do I consider modern "evangelical" Christianity (of the Robertson-Falwell-Dobson brand, at least) to be consistent with my own beliefs.

WWJD? I don't see that as a coercive or tyranical demand, but a reminder to help guide folks in their daily lives....and stayed focused on what should be their priorities in life.

But maybe that's just me... :shrug:

Baby Lee
12-11-2007, 10:12 AM
This is probably going to come as a shocker to people, but I bet he also believes that drinking alcohol is a "sin" and that the Bible is to be interpreted literally, other agreed upon beliefs of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Jaysus effin Kristos, I said I thought it was a benign pronouncement.
Sorry for noting and examining public statements made by candidates for office.

oldandslow
12-11-2007, 10:12 AM
[QUOTE=The Rick]Well said, and I would even go as far to say that if more families followed this model, we'd have far less issues with things such as teen pregnancy, violence and crime, etc.QUOTE]

Absolutely. Cause you know women commit far more violent crime and there are far more women in jail and female teens get pregnant all by themselves....

Baby Lee
12-11-2007, 10:15 AM
FTR, I didn't grow up as an "evangelical" either; nor do I consider modern "evangelical" Christianity (of the Robertson-Falwell-Dobson brand, at least) to be consistent with my own beliefs.

WWJD? I don't see that as a coercive or tyranical demand, but a reminder to help guide folks in their daily lives....and stayed focused on what should be their priorities in life.

But maybe that's just me... :shrug:
It's not about coercion or tyrrany if the submission is voluntary. My point is that the concept of WWJD is supposed to carry into all daily activities, thus the willing submission is on all aspects of life, not just those things he expressly enumerated a couple thousand years ago.
So my question is, if a wife is similarly submit, is she to voluntarily and lovingly sublimate her own discernment to the discernment of her husband at all times?

Cochise
12-11-2007, 10:20 AM
FTR, I didn't grow up as an "evangelical" either; nor do I consider modern "evangelical" Christianity (of the Robertson-Falwell-Dobson brand, at least) to be consistent with my own beliefs.


Lumping all three of these pretty widely differing people into the same pile seems to indicate that you don't know a whole lot about them... which of these do you listen to regularly? Or have specific problems with, without googling? Or is it the media portrayal of evangelicalism that keeps you at bay rather than the merits of the ethos itself...?

NewChief
12-11-2007, 10:20 AM
Jaysus effin Kristos, I said I thought it was a benign pronouncement.
Sorry for noting and examining public statements made by candidates for office.

I wasn't necessarily aiming at you. I'm just surprised that anyone would be surprised by this.

Baby Lee
12-11-2007, 10:25 AM
Lumping all three of these pretty widely differing people into the same pile seems to indicate that you don't know a whole lot about them... which of these do you listen to regularly? Or have specific problems with, without googling? Or is it the media portrayal of evangelicalism that keeps you at bay rather than the merits of the ethos itself...?
Shut the eff up Donny. ;)

Sorry, just a little Lebowski moment.

Baby Lee
12-11-2007, 10:26 AM
I wasn't necessarily aiming at you. I'm just surprised that anyone would be surprised by this.
That he's socially conservative, not necessarily surprising.
But some of the specifics might prove surprising in it's stridency.
Like if Edwards had signed a paper in the past saying all income above 200K should be taxed 100%

The Rick
12-11-2007, 10:29 AM
Does your wife wear a WWTRD [what would The Rick do] wristband to remind her of her role?
Not yet...I haven't been able to figure out a way of secretly slipping it on her wrist yet without her noticing. :p

In all seriousness though, there are two things I want to say:

1) We're not perfect with this. I would imagine that no one is. She sometimes falls short the role that God outlined for her. I certainly fail in my role as a leader way more than I should. Sometimes, I don't want to lead, and sometimes, she doesn't want to follow. That's why, for us, it's important to keep God's word a part of our everyday lives. It helps us to see more clearly.

2) I think when many see this, they greatly underestimate the role of the husband. Without the right context and mindset, the intent and message can easily be construed. For example, just take a look at the title of the thread. :shake:

God doesn't want me to blindly tell my wife what to do all of the time. That doesn't make a good CEO in the business world and it certainly doesn't make for a good marriage. A good leader receives input from those around him before making a decision. Then, as in the business world, the leader is the one held responsible for that decision. God holds me responsible for those decisions, not my wife. In other words, it's not quite the "paradise" that some want to think it is.

Finally, the one thing I've really learned recently is this: As a believer, I honor God in the way I treat my wife. God honors those who honor Him. All of that being said, how do you think I'm going to handle my role as the leader over my wife and family? :)

Mr. Kotter
12-11-2007, 10:30 AM
Lumping all three of these pretty widely differing people into the same pile seems to indicate that you don't know a whole lot about them... which of these do you listen to regularly? Or have specific problems with, without googling? Or is it the media portrayal of evangelicalism that keeps you at bay rather than the merits of the ethos itself...?

Dude, I said I'm no evangelical. What do you want from me? :shrug:

I've been around enough to know the jist of what they believe. Do I know each and every nuance and distinction? Heck no.

However, I don't think that's what we are talking about here; I don't think it's nearly as complex as you appear to want to make it.

My only real contention is men and women are different (duh!); hence we have different roles. It's not absolute, and most evangelicals I've heard or have personally discussed it with.....don't view that as a rigid or dogmatic sort of dictate, but rather as perspective that should be kept in living one's life.

It's only critics and the media who wish to paint evangelical as some sort of a pejorative that seem to buy into the caricature that the thread starter is promoting.

:shrug:

dirk digler
12-11-2007, 10:32 AM
The example of the husband being like Christ, and the wife being like the church is a good one...probably why it's used in the Bible!

So does that mean as Christ I can go in through the front door and the back door of the wife..err I mean church?

Cool.

The Rick
12-11-2007, 10:34 AM
I never underestimate the power of the role of my wife...which is simply respect me, propigated by my role of simply loving her..and vice versa...

God calling woman a helper isn't derogatory... a helper is one who helps complete a task that needs finishing....even down to MaryM being the first to witness Jesus' ressurection....
Absolutely. God gave women gifts that we, as men, don't have.

A perfect example is my wife's "intuition". That girl has this uncanny knack of just knowing right from wrong. She has "feelings" that are typically spot on. I'm sure many men have wives like this.

Mr. Kotter
12-11-2007, 10:35 AM
....So my question is, if a wife is similarly submit, is she to voluntarily and lovingly sublimate her own discernment to the discernment of her husband at all times?

Of course not--though in a perfect world she would perhaps.

I just don't see it as a one-size-fits-all solution, but I'm not a fundamentalist or literalist either. I consider it a wise perspective/guide/goal; not necessarily the inerrent Gospel.

Nightwish
12-11-2007, 10:36 AM
Conscientious Christians understand the meaning of what is stated here....even if you, obviously, do not.

However, in fairness unless you are well-versed in Christian study one could easily mistake such exhortations to be chauvinistic and advocating subjugation of women. I'll assume that is the case here with you, because, they are not.

Submitting to headship....or leadership, as the church submits to Christ, is not about dominance and oppression. It is about shared, but distinct, responsibilities. Equality is about fairness, not duplicity. Equality is not about being the same, it's about recognizing our unique talents and gifts. Equality isn't about uniform standards for women and men, it's about mutual respect.

I sense that you are not capable of understanding the distinction, at this point in your life.I think that whether SportsRacer understands the distinction is largely irrelevant. I don't dispute that what you call "Conscientious Christians" may well understand the words exactly as you describe. But the relevant question here is this - this is a voting issue, and how many of the voters out there are made up of these "Conscientious Christians." Liberal movements in Christianity to move away from such models of household have gained considerable traction in recent years, and likewise, the ranks of those that still consider the Huckabee model a viable model have thinned considerably. So rather than asking yourself if SportsRacer understands the wording as you do, you should ask how many people who will be going to the polls are aware of Huck's position on women's roles in marriage, and of those that are, how many have given those verses any depth of study, and of those that have, how many have come to the same interpretation as you, Cleveland Bronco, et al? The answer to that question is what could make or break his chances for the nomination.

Baby Lee
12-11-2007, 10:37 AM
Not yet...I haven't been able to figure out a way of secretly slipping it on her wrist yet without her noticing. :P

In all seriousness though, there are two things I want to say:

1) We're not perfect with this. I would imagine that no one is. She sometimes falls short the role that God outlined for her. I certainly fail in my role as a leader way more than I should. Sometimes, I don't want to lead, and sometimes, she doesn't want to follow. That's why, for us, it's important to keep God's word a part of our everyday lives. It helps us to see more clearly.

2) I think when many see this, they greatly underestimate the role of the husband. Without the right context and mindset, the intent and message can easily be construed. For example, just take a look at the title of the thread.

God doesn't want me to blindly tell my wife what to do all of the time. That doesn't make a good CEO in the business world and it certainly doesn't make for a good marriage. A good leader receives input from those around him before making a decision. Then, as in the business world, the leader is the one held responsible for that decision. God holds me responsible for those decisions, not my wife. In other words, it's not quite the "paradise" that some want to think it is.

Finally, the one thing I've really learned recently is this: As a believer, I honor God in the way I treat my wife. God honors those who honor Him. All of that being said, how do you think I'm going to handle my role as the leader over my wife and family? :)
I guess the crux of my concern is that, as a wife is to submit as the church submits to Christ, there is a big difference between accepting that the omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent Christ will always have discernment superior to mine, and accepting that a mortal husband will always have superior discernment to his mortal wife.

stevieray
12-11-2007, 10:38 AM
Absolutely. God gave women gifts that we, as men, don't have.

A perfect example is my wife's "intuition". That girl has this uncanny knack of just knowing right from wrong. She has "feelings" that are typically spot on. I'm sure many men have wives like this.

Exactly! 99.9 percent of the time my wife has never made a decision that has been detrimental to our family...

Cochise
12-11-2007, 10:38 AM
Of course not--though in a perfect world she would perhaps.

I just don't see it as a one-size-fits-all solution, but I'm not a fundamentalist or literalist either. I consider it a wise perspective/guide/goal; not necessarily the inerrent Gospel.

Sorry, I thought you were a mainline religious guy regarding my previous commentary. I guess if you don't believe in inerrancy though it makes sense.

Without inerrancy there's little left.. IMO, so I can understand.

The Rick
12-11-2007, 10:45 AM
I guess the crux of my concern is that, as a wife is to submit as the church submits to Christ, there is a big difference between accepting that the omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent Christ will always have discernment superior to mine, and accepting that a mortal husband will always have superior discernment to his mortal wife.
I can see where you're coming from.

I guess I don't view it as husbands are superior to their wives. I certainly don't see myself as superior to my wife. I always just view it as a situation where my role is to be held responsible or accountable. Almost more like a burden, although I'd never call God's plan a "burden".

Going back to the example of the husband being like Jesus and the wife being like the church, I would imagine that Jesus never carried Himself as being superior to anyone else. In fact, there are instances in the Bible where Jesus served others including washing their feet for them.

The Rick
12-11-2007, 11:01 AM
Exactly! 99.9 percent of the time my wife has never made a decision that has been detrimental to our family...
Yep, I'd consider myself foolish not to listen to my wife's opinion before making a decision. :)

Mr. Kotter
12-11-2007, 11:47 AM
.... Liberal movements in Christianity to move away from such models of household have gained considerable traction in recent years, and likewise, the ranks of those that still consider the Huckabee model a viable model have thinned considerably...

Actually, you'd find that membership trends during the last 20 years or so are precisely the opposite of what you are suggesting. I'll see if I can find a link that I used to illustrate that point in a previous thread....

Although I'd agree the personal philosophical and dogmatic issues have become more progressive, and less traditionally conservative.

...So rather than asking yourself if SportsRacer understands the wording as you do, you should ask how many people who will be going to the polls are aware of Huck's position on women's roles in marriage, and of those that are, how many have given those verses any depth of study, and of those that have, how many have come to the same interpretation as you, Cleveland Bronco, et al? The answer to that question is what could make or break his chances for the nomination....

If will help his chances in the Republican party; yet....as BL said, in the general election it will be likely be, largely...benign.

BucEyedPea
12-11-2007, 03:20 PM
Absolutely. God gave women gifts that we, as men, don't have.

A perfect example is my wife's "intuition". That girl has this uncanny knack of just knowing right from wrong. She has "feelings" that are typically spot on. I'm sure many men have wives like this.
Great post! I definitely believe the superiority of women's intuition over male logic.

I don't think Cleveland Bronco does though. He seems to think using "feelings" is not valid way to judge some things. :p

Now what happens if the husband becomes a felon? Or tries to do something wrong? Does the woman still have to submit?

Jilly
12-11-2007, 04:06 PM
You know, I wouldn't have a problem with the statement if I was 100% certain that those who followed Huckabee also did an exegesis of the Ephesians passage and knew the context and the power it held in that context. Unfortunately, I know that many will not understand it, take it from the context, rip it to shreds and distort it to mean what will work for them. This Scripture, while can be used for a great good, has also been used to validate domestic violence and the oppression of women in relationships of all kinds.
So if Huckabee believes this, signs a document supporting it, I hope to hell he keeps it out of the political realm and the secular world because it is dangerous and has the potential to cross a very fine line.

Jilly
12-11-2007, 04:07 PM
Yep, I'd consider myself foolish not to listen to my wife's opinion before making a decision. :)

and if your wife vehemently disagreed with you, your Lordship?

The Rick
12-11-2007, 05:42 PM
and if your wife vehemently disagreed with you, your Lordship?
Not sure what you mean exactly, but I think you're implying what would I do if my wife's opinion was WAY different than mine.

In that case, it's still up to me to make the decision and be held responsible/accountable for it. I would seek counsel from God, then go with what I felt was right...which may be what my wife feels. It all depends.

Jilly
12-11-2007, 07:25 PM
Not sure what you mean exactly, but I think you're implying what would I do if my wife's opinion was WAY different than mine.

In that case, it's still up to me to make the decision and be held responsible/accountable for it. I would seek counsel from God, then go with what I felt was right...which may be what my wife feels. It all depends.

Oh, but wouldn't you probably go with your opinion because God has deemed you the "CEO" of your marriage? Do you not realize how imbalanced that language is and that concept? CEO's get paid higher wages, they get greater benefits, they are the boss and by using that language, you've developed a kind of caste system in your own marriage. And you've definitely, although you won't admit it, based on reading your other posts, declared yourself more powerful and better equipped to make decisions.

stevieray
12-11-2007, 07:35 PM
In that case, it's still up to me to make the decision and be held responsible/accountable for it.

Yup, even though Eve sinned first, God came looking for Adam.

Ultra Peanut
12-11-2007, 07:54 PM
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/57hSqLLfOv4&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/57hSqLLfOv4&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Ultra Peanut
12-11-2007, 07:55 PM
Yup, even though Eve sinned first, God came looking for Adam.God is a woman, and actually hates men. I saw that in a book once.

Jenson71
12-11-2007, 08:10 PM
There are no such people as Adam and Eve.

banyon
12-11-2007, 08:31 PM
There are no such people as Adam and Eve.

I'm pretty sure there are:

http://www.aversion.com/bands/adamant/images/adamant.jpg

http://z.about.com/d/rap/1/0/4/D/-/-/EveHereIAm.jpg

Jenson71
12-11-2007, 08:32 PM
...as the story of the Bible illustrates.

banyon
12-11-2007, 08:37 PM
...as the story of the Bible illustrates.

How do you know that, did God lend you some omniscience? Or perhaps you have invented a time machine?

Jenson71
12-11-2007, 08:54 PM
How do you know that, did God lend you some omniscience? Or perhaps you have invented a time machine?

An understanding of history helps.

"For nearly the entire five thousand-year history of civilization, the origins, history, and functioning of the natural world were unknown to human beings. Because these things were unknown, they were matters of mystery, awe, and sometimes, fear. Our ancestors therefore regarded the world and the forces within it as the products of supernatural beings, and because they saw little or no permanent change over the course of an individual human lifetime, they tended to assume that those supernatural beings had made the world and all the things in it fundamentally as they are at the present. Myths emerged explaining the divine origins and divinely directed functioning of the world. Repeated and elaborated over thousands of years, those myths played a central role in shaping our cultural identity and our values, and because for thousands of years there was little physical mobility and therefore little interchange between human cultures, people assumed that their myths were the only ones, and therefore were true."

We know Adam and Eve as a story of myth. It is not based on reality. Looking at the evolution of mankind, we clearly understand that no man was dug up from clay in the ground and God took one of his ribs and with that, created a woman.

banyon
12-11-2007, 09:00 PM
An understanding of history helps.

"For nearly the entire five thousand-year history of civilization, the origins, history, and functioning of the natural world were unknown to human beings. Because these things were unknown, they were matters of mystery, awe, and sometimes, fear. Our ancestors therefore regarded the world and the forces within it as the products of supernatural beings, and because they saw little or no permanent change over the course of an individual human lifetime, they tended to assume that those supernatural beings had made the world and all the things in it fundamentally as they are at the present. Myths emerged explaining the divine origins and divinely directed functioning of the world. Repeated and elaborated over thousands of years, those myths played a central role in shaping our cultural identity and our values, and because for thousands of years there was little physical mobility and therefore little interchange between human cultures, people assumed that their myths were the only ones, and therefore were true."

We know Adam and Eve as a story of myth. It is not based on reality. Looking at the evolution of mankind, we clearly understand that no man was dug up from clay in the ground and God took one of his ribs and with that, created a woman.

Yes, I had a history major (among others) and did quite well with it. But thanks for the condecension nonetheless. Is it a prerequisite for atheism? Because it's really running rampant lately.

Anyway, let me ask you this: How do you know that Adam and Eve weren't the first primates that God gave human-type consciousness to?

tiptap
12-11-2007, 09:05 PM
No clay involved. No penis bone used to make Eve. Nudge it, nudge it, nudge it.

banyon
12-11-2007, 09:09 PM
No clay involved. No penis bone used to make Eve. Nudge it, nudge it, nudge it.

Not sure what you are getting at, I'm no biblical literalist.

tiptap
12-11-2007, 09:11 PM
This Christ/Church and Husband/Wife thing kind of moot. Most studies tend to find Men tend to wed Women who are not as smart as they are. In otherwords usually the man tries to find a wife that they can make decisions for.

That is the life they are looking for. For me I'd just get bored. I don't know my wife is smarter but I'm ok if she is. As far as making decisions it requires talking and figuring it out. More and better minds the better. After all I am not omnipotent even if Christ is.

banyon
12-11-2007, 09:14 PM
This Christ/Church and Husband/Wife thing kind of moot. Most studies tend to find Men tend to wed Women who are not as smart as they are. In otherwords usually the man tries to find a wife that they can make decisions for.

That is the life they are looking for. For me I'd just get bored. I don't know my wife is smarter but I'm ok if she is. As far as making decisions it requires talking and figuring it out. More and better minds the better. After all I am not omnipotent even if Christ is.

Hell, I like smart women. Then again, I'm single at 31, so maybe I do need to start looking at the dumb broads... :hmmm:

Jenson71
12-11-2007, 09:15 PM
Yes, I had a history major (among others) and did quite well with it. But thanks for the condecension nontheless. Is it a prerequisite for atheism? Because it's really running rampant lately.

Anyway, let me ask you this: How do you know that Adam and Eve weren't the first primates that God gave human-type consciousness to?

There was no implied condescension in my post, and I'm sorry you took it that way.

As to your second question - I don't think we're reading the same Bible. My Bible does not saying anything about God choosing Adam and Eve as the first primates to be given human-type consciousness. It says Adam was formed from the dust in the ground, and in order that he would not be lonely, was put into a deep sleep, removed from a rib, which was made into Eve.

This is a myth, and therefore, God looking for Adam, or holding him responsible for Eve's actions, is also a myth, and most likely represents the times in which the story generated, not our own times.

And, I'm not sure why you implied I'm an atheist? Because I think the story of Adam and Eve is a myth? I'm a proud Roman Catholic, and my post history, avator and signature all represent that.

tiptap
12-11-2007, 09:18 PM
Not sure what you are getting at, I'm no biblical literalist.

I didn't think you were a literalist but you brought up giving of counsciousness and that requires a bit of explanation before you can claim it can be isolated to give or take away to any beast.

From my opinion you have to have a density of brain material before you can have self perception. Your have to have enough neurons to allow for the manipulation of abstract symbols.

I am sure that a god active in the process is not necessary for those conditions to come about.

tiptap
12-11-2007, 09:20 PM
There was no implied condescension in my post, and I'm sorry you took it that way.

As to your second question - I don't think we're reading the same Bible. My Bible does not saying anything about God choosing Adam and Eve as the first primates to be given human-type consciousness. It says Adam was formed from the dust in the ground, and in order that he would not be lonely, was put into a deep sleep, removed from a rib, which was made into Eve.

This is a myth, and therefore, God looking for Adam, or holding him responsible for Eve's actions, is also a myth, and most likely represents the times in which the story generated, not our own times.

And, I'm not sure why you implied I'm an atheist? Because I think the story of Adam and Eve is a myth? I'm a proud Roman Catholic, and my post history, avator and signature all represent that.

Not a rib Jenson but the baculum of Adam.

Thig Lyfe
12-11-2007, 09:21 PM
If you want to go after Huckabee, your going to get a lot more traction with his poor judgement (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/12/05/huffpo-dumonds-other-rape-victims-told-huckabee-he-was-dangerous-before-he-was-paroled/), soft on crime record (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/12/05/huckabee-granted-more-clemencies-than-six-neighboring-states-combined/), Clintonian flip-flopping (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/12/04/war-questions-for-mike-huckabee/), weak grasp of foriegn affairs (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/12/05/huckabee-missed-the-nie-brouhaha/), gutless position on standing up to illegal immigration (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/30/huckabee-i-cant-compromise-on-scholarships-for-illegals-because-my-soul-will-not-let-me/), and of course, his sudden miraculous position against taxes (http://www.taxhikemike.com) now that he's running for president.

Going after his Christianity isn't going to get you very far.

Yeah, this is just one of plenty of reasons he shouldn't be elected.

I don't want to live in a theocracy.

banyon
12-11-2007, 09:23 PM
There was no implied condescension in my post, and I'm sorry you took it that way.

As to your second question - I don't think we're reading the same Bible. My Bible does not saying anything about God choosing Adam and Eve as the first primates to be given human-type consciousness. It says Adam was formed from the dust in the ground, and in order that he would not be lonely, was put into a deep sleep, removed from a rib, which was made into Eve.

This is a myth, and therefore, God looking for Adam, or holding him responsible for Eve's actions, is also a myth, and most likely represents the times in which the story generated, not our own times.

And, I'm not sure why you implied I'm an atheist? Because I think the story of Adam and Eve is a myth? I'm a proud Roman Catholic, and my post history, avator and signature all represent that.


My apologies for my bad implications. I have not treated my body as a temple tonight and had too much wine. I agree that the Adam/Eve stroy is more parable than Youtube video, but I don't know how that means that "you knoe there isn't an Adam and Eve". After all, a lot of Genesis is a genealogy of direct descendance down to David. Surely, the Catholic Church doesn't hold that the genealogy if who begat whom is BS?

banyon
12-11-2007, 09:24 PM
I didn't think you were a literalist but you brought up giving of counsciousness and that requires a bit of explanation before you can claim it can be isolated to give or take away to any beast.

From my opinion you have to have a density of brain material before you can have self perception. Your have to have enough neurons to allow for the manipulation of abstract symbols.

I am sure that a god active in the process is not necessary for those conditions to come about.

Did we replicate the process with my missing that article in OMNI?

Jenson71
12-11-2007, 09:36 PM
My apologies for my bad implications. I have not treated my body as a temple tonight and had too much wine. I agree that the Adam/Eve stroy is more parable than Youtube video, but I don't know how that means that "you knoe there isn't an Adam and Eve". After all, a lot of Genesis is a genealogy of direct descendance down to David. Surely, the Catholic Church doesn't hold that the genealogy if who begat whom is BS?

No problem, banyon. I'm not sure what the Catholic Church's position on all the genealogy listed in the Old Testament is. Myself, I think most of the Old Testament is a collection of stories, some loosely based on real people, like Moses, an illegitimate prince from the 19th Dynasty with no Israeli genealogy stemming from him, but mostly just stories with a lot of spirituality, guidance, and culture - all very important traits in themselves.

The Rick
12-12-2007, 08:43 AM
Oh, but wouldn't you probably go with your opinion because God has deemed you the "CEO" of your marriage? Do you not realize how imbalanced that language is and that concept? CEO's get paid higher wages, they get greater benefits, they are the boss and by using that language, you've developed a kind of caste system in your own marriage. And you've definitely, although you won't admit it, based on reading your other posts, declared yourself more powerful and better equipped to make decisions.
If you were able to spend a single day watching my wife and I interact with each other, you'd see that I'm certainly not the more powerful one between the two of us! :)

The Rick
12-12-2007, 08:51 AM
As far as making decisions it requires talking and figuring it out. More and better minds the better.
EXACTLY! Well said. This is the way it works for for my wife and I.

Ultimately, God holds me responsible for the decision, but the decision making is a joint effort between the two of us. It's my job, since I will be held responsible, to make sure I believe in the decision that WE'RE making. If we can't come to a decision or a compromise, we keep talking until we do.

Does that better explain myself, Jilly?

Adept Havelock
12-12-2007, 08:53 AM
How do you know that, did God lend you some omniscience? Or perhaps you have invented a time machine?


Eh, basic genetics will tell you it's a myth. No need for a time machine.

Two individuals isn't a broad enough gene pool to propagate a species.

Not even in Arkansas or West Virginia.

banyon
12-12-2007, 08:55 AM
Eh, basic genetics will tell you it's a myth. No need for a time machine.

Two individuals isn't a broad enough gene pool to propagate a species.

Not even in Arkansas or West Virginia.

You're only taking the literal approach again. I'm not.

Genesis doesn't say where Cain's wife came from, or Seth's, but there they are.

stevieray
12-12-2007, 09:30 AM
You're only taking the literal approach again. I'm not.

Genesis doesn't say where Cain's wife came from, or Seth's, but there they are.


all these billions of people...and only eight blood types..

Adept Havelock
12-12-2007, 01:59 PM
all these billions of people...and only eight blood types..


All those billions of people...yet they are all bipedal primates. Ook Ook and Merry Christmas, stevieray. ;)

BucEyedPea
12-12-2007, 02:31 PM
From my opinion you have to have a density of brain material before you can have self perception. Your have to have enough neurons to allow for the manipulation of abstract symbols.
I disagree. This is the philosophy of materialism: that we are only physical matter and nothing more. Consciousness, awareness and/or knowingness that one exists and can perceive can occur independently of the brain and also affect matter. This is what animates life and gives it life-force. When life force is gone the physical entity dies. Life force may use the brain like switchboard and the physical science of neurons etc may be observable by any scientist but they cannot conceive of a cause point unless it's a physical one.

It's either form follows funtion or function follows form.

AFAIC this seems to be the explanation behind what are deemed faith cures. Man is a complex component being with a spiritual aspect. It's the scientist that can't come to grips with such notions. I say it's a shortcoming.

BucEyedPea
12-12-2007, 02:33 PM
If you were able to spend a single day watching my wife and I interact with each other, you'd see that I'm certainly not the more powerful one between the two of us! :)
If we're smart we make it seem this way. :)

Iowanian
12-12-2007, 02:56 PM
His mindset is stuck in the 50's. A candidate who doesn't consider marriage to be an equal partnership is both unelectable and a moron.

US families would be a lot better off if MORE people had many of the family values of the 1950s.

Women deserve to be treated equally and have opportunities, but in the context of marraige, I don't think he's too far off from a larger majority than you might believe, to include significant numbers of strong women.

Twist the words how you want, but in no way is what he said derogatory towards his wife or women. Men also have a duty relating to that statement, that good family men follow.

BucEyedPea
12-12-2007, 03:06 PM
Yup! Being a kept woman rokks as far as I'm concerned. I can dig it.

Mr. Kotter
12-13-2007, 07:51 AM
Yup! Being a kept woman rokks as far as I'm concerned. I can dig it.

There is certainly nothing wrong with it, I'd say....as long as your man isn't a Neanderthal type.

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 08:56 AM
....as long as your man isn't a Neanderthal type.
Any of those left? :hmmm: