There are. Because it is not enough for the woman to submit. There is also the part of her husband - he has to love his wife like Christ loves his Church (up to the point that he is willing to give his life for her). As Ptak said (he's making surprisingly lot of sense recently)...
At the same time love your wife without the limitations
.
Can you please expand?
No, sorry. I'm done explaining things on the Internet. I can give sound advice every now and then, but couldn't be arsed trying to persuade people. Been there done that. You can take my advice or not, your choice. Follow your female intuition. Do you want to fully submit to the man who loves you with all his heart? Yes or no? Your choice.
skip the theology as I couldn't care less about that
Perhaps that's the problem. Whoever ignores the commands of God does so at their own peril.
Why? Do you believe that FAA testing requirements are different for black people?
Dear Feniks, are you for real? Let's assume Three candidates trying to get admitted to a prestigious university.
Black scores 75 and is enthusiastically admitted. White scores 100 and passes, by the skin of his teeth Asian scores 110 and is rejected Do you detect slight imbalance?
Yes, and I get your point, but I was referring to FAA testing requirements in that the final examinations are going to be the same for everyone or do you seriously think that the FAA is going to breach safety standards in order for black people to qualify as pilots?
I'm asking you if you think that the FAA lowers its safety standards and passing grades for black people training to become pilots. I'm not asking about the fairness of DEI that got them onto the course in the first place. All who get accepted still have to prove ability.
FAA is going to breach safety standards in order for black people to qualify as..
Oh yeas. if you protest your carrier might be over, no promotion in current lifetime. Do you comprehend political pressures and demands for numerical equality. Do you know the existing systems of benefits provided to residents of certain area codes. mostly a ghetto area If you try to protest, you will be branded a racist, because race in not used, as a criterion, just an area code.
Are you saying then, that in order not to be seen as racist, the FAA allows black pilots to qualify and fly commercial aircraft when they're not good enough?
seriously think that the FAA is going to breach safety standards
Where does this infinite belief in the FAA come from? Do you live in the United States? I thought you were British?
The FAA is a shambles, as anyone who has spent any time reading American newspapers would know.
Scandal upon scandal. From letting Boeing "self certify" the quality of their 737 Maxes (to disastrous results), to being chronically understaffed of air traffic controllers - leading to constant delays and malfunction at US airports.
I'm not saying the FAA is letting under qualified black pilots be certified - but they are definitely not an example of a well run government agency.
Torq and I have been down this route before though and will probably end up going round in circles if I take it further.
There is a question I will put to him at some point though.
I thought you were British?
I am.
Where does this infinite belief in the FAA come from
They are the government agency that authorises pilots to fly after they pass their exams, are they not? I can't believe they'd let anyone fly that wasn't up to the job.
The FAA is a shambles, a
I'm not saying the FAA is letting under qualified black pilots be certified -
I don't know how much of a shambles the organisation is, although I did read about the air traffic control problems, but that doesn't mean that it's allowing under qualified pilots to fly. That would never fly if you pardon the pun, they would leave themselves open to multiple lawsuits if accidents happened as a result of lowering standards.
the final examinations are going to be the same for everyone
Not true, just ask Trump, Bush and a host of other sons of rich men. If the hysteria about DEI were matched with a similar level of hysteria about nepotism I may take their paper thin arguments seriously. The various corruption indices all codified by white, western rich men point towards classic back scratching or as they like to say lubricants of business. The only difference is that corruption is much more sophisticated and celebrated in the west.
Yer man Kirk was a not very well known individual trying to monetise his grift. The only sick pups are those attempting to elevate this man to sainthood thus benefiting from his terrible murder.
There is no point trying to argue about female emancipation with people who believe in the supernatural.
@mafketis You have exactly zero evidence to make that statement. Arday was hounded to death in a racist witch-hunt
So you believe he had a brain tumor removed that also affected his memory a week before his doctoral defense? that he was non-verbal until he was 11?
You don't care about the massive plagiarism? What about the people threatening him who managed to avoid being seen by everyone else in the universe?
I'm not glad that he's dead but he was clearly not qualified, he was most likely a genial fabulist (aka bs artists) who was in the right place and right time in an environment starved for black achievement... he probably might have been able to be a credible high school teacher or whatever they have in the UK instead of community colleges but as a professor at Cambridge?
If he killed himself, that's on him first and foremost and then on those who put him in a position he was in now way qualified for.
@mafketis Again, you have no evidence for what you are saying save for posts on social media, mix those with some biographical details and it amounts to nothing. He was selected by an American racist with an axe to grind and lots of people jumped on the bandwagon.
Do you want to fully submit to the man who loves you with all his..
No. Man who would love me with all his heart wouldn't want me to submit as he would respect me to treat me as his equal.
therefore has no place in discussion?
It has, between believers. To me it's completely irrelevant. That's why I wasn't interested in that part. Someone who is interested in it can ask him about that part.
In the Bible, e.g.: Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18, Titus 2:4-5, 1 Corinthians 11:3.
Torq and I have been down this route before
Yes. As far as I remember, I explained the words of God to you but back then you weren't quite ready to accept the Truth yet.
love me with all his heart wouldn't want me to submit as he would respect me to treat me as his equal
*sighs*
Yes, he would love you with all his heart. Yes, he would want you to submit to him. Yes, he would respect you. No! He would NOT treat you as his equal. That is a preposterous proposition.
It's as if I expected Jesus Christ to treat me as his equal. Can you see how ridiculous it is?
Yes, Christ loves me (He gave His life for me on the cross). Yes, he wants me to submit to him as his Lord and Saviour. Yes, he respects me and my freedom to either accept or reject him. No! He does NOT treat me like his equal. Because I am NOT his equal.
God is to man what man is to woman. Of course, the distance is not so vast between men and women as between God and men but it is only a question of scale not of principle. In principle, in terms of hierarchy, men are above women. Not 'better than women', mind you, nor 'more important than women', merely above in the order of creation (1 Corinthians 11:8-9).
The word of God is infallible and the Bible is the word of God: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
And God knows best.
There is a question I will put to him at some point though.
Ask the question and I'll try to answer it tomorrow to the best of my knowledge but remember that وَفَوْقَ كُلِّ ذِي عِلْمٍ عَلِيمٌ (Qur'an 12:76).
I will pray to God I don't believe in that such love will never find me. Can you however understand that to non believers that whole argument is pointless so we are back to square one?
Well THAT sounds bardzo gay. God wants to **** me, is that what you're saying? Jehova, the first incredibly closeted homoseksualist.
merely above in the order of creation
We humans are all just over-evolved apes cursed with the ability to think, on a rapidly dying planet we ourselves doomed. The idea that any supreme being (if there is one) prizes either of our biological genders over another, or indeed over any other creature is anthropocentric egotism.
follow the feminist idiocy, and you will be ultimately miserable deep inside.
When I asked who said that you answered "God", which is what Bobko picked up on.
Your views on women and a career align with those of Charlie Kirk, you've made no secret of the fact that you think that women should be traditional housewives at home looking after the family which is fine if that is what they want, but.....
You've also mentioned on the forum that you have teenage children ( son and daughter ).
What I wanted to ask is what are you going to say to your daughter if she decides she wants a career? Say she wants to go to university to study to be a doctor or a vet? Are you going to say no or that's fine but once you're married and have kids you have to give that up? At the same time your son can chose whatever he wants to do and that's perfectly ok? I'm genuinely curious as to how you will handle this.
Your views on women and a career align with those of Charlie Kirk
I'm not quite sure what the views of Charlie Kirk were (I am not very much into American culture or political scene) but I think that the situation in which a man provides for his family and the woman stays at home with their children is the ideal one but not the only possible.
A woman can pursue a successful career - as a doctor, lawyer, or scientist - and still choose to submit to her husband within her marriage. Professional ambition and marital submission are by no means mutually exclusive. I hope it answers your question.
not quite sure what the views of Charlie Kirk were
Kind of American fundie conservative (but not nearly as firebreathing as some like to pretend).
His manner in person was also very mild and not some ranting freak.
There are now far more... reactionary people taking his place like Joel Webbon who thinks wives should have "a sense of fear, and trembling, and awe" toward their husbands and doesn't think women should be able to vote. He also claims that interracial marriages are not God's plan.
Joshua Haymes has similar ideas.
Kill the moderate and watch his place be taken by worse.... same as it ever was.
and still choose to submit to her husband within her marriage.
People can choose anything, however a marriage or other long-term relationship ideally involves both parties putting teh other first. No reason for it to be gendered and every reason for the rotten way women have so often been treated by men (and sometimes still are) to be slung out in the dustbin of history.
His manner in person was also very mild and not some ranting freak.
Yet he did stadium tours.
Kill the moderate and watch his place be taken by worse.... same as it ever..
The internet, or rather the way bad actors use it, has much to blame for this.
He also claims that interracial marriages are not God's plan.
If interracial marriages were not God's plan, it would be impossible for babies to be born in such marriages. If a man and a woman from different races love each other and God blesses their love with a child, then we need no other better sign that it was God's plan to happen.
No reason for it to be gendered
There is a very good reason for it to be gendered, namely - God commands it (see #646 for biblical references).
We mustn't, however, forget that a man loving his wife with all his heart (like Jesus loves his Church) is the indispensable condition for the submission of his wife to him. There's no way around it. Therefore, I suppose, with careful exegesis we might well come to a conclusion quite close to your...
both parties putting teh other first
... quite close indeed. With the reservation that, at the end of the day, woman has to submit to her loving husband because that's what God commands.
I think the misunderstanding stems from the fact that some women regard submitting to their husbands as, in some sense, detrimental to them. But there is nothing inherently detrimental about it, just as there is nothing detrimental about a man submitting to God. The underlying principle is the same: submission does not diminish one's dignity or worth - rather, it is a proper ordering of authority and responsibility.
The reason why we have so many miserable, lonely and heartbroken women and men today is that biblical understanding of marriage and submission has, in fact, been - as you put it "slung out in the dustbin of history". Feminism, which is based on the claim that women are equal to men in every aspect is the main culprit here. It destroyed the traditional family values and is to blame for all the mental retardation that we observe today - from red-pill and MGTOW ideologies, female hypergamy and male sexual nihilism to hookup culture, serial monogamy, casual divorce, fatherlessness, pornography, the commodification of sex, and the growing inability of men and women to form stable, lifelong marriages.
There are always consequences of ignoring God's commands. The very consequences that I mentioned in my previous post and that we observe all around the world today.
why use the outdated and unpleasant American term "mental retardation"?
It's a figure of speech; rather a useful and broadly applicable one, which is why I use it to describe many aspects of m*d*rnity (I've replaced some of the letters with asterisks because I consider the word obscene).
