Christian Forums

Quote from: Hehealedme on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 13:57:51

Quote from: grace on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 13:53:49

Quote from: Hehealedme on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 13:37:44
You know what he told me the day he left?...he said, ''if you want to be a b**ch, try and get my military pension''...

He used to say to his friends, in front of me, that if he ever divorced, he would never give half of his military pension to his wife...

Follow what God is telling you to do....He will never fail you!

Something is telling me to not let my husband get away with all of this lying and manipulation...but how do I know if this is coming from God or not?!??...I Don't Know!!!...

Anytime you feel the unction to stand up against sin...  You can trust that.  The word is sound in that area.  We are to stand up and speak against sin.  Read about John the Baptist... he shouted out against sin. 

About the pension... If you were married to him for 10 years of his active duty career, and he retired with 20 years in the military... you are entitled to that, and you can ask for it.  And I would.  He is a bully, and someone has to kncok a bully down before he will stop.  He's being dumb too... you won't get it all, and there is no guarantee you will get half, but you can get some of it, a pension part for you for being there on the homefront, raising the kids so he could be in the military. 

If you had walked away, left the home, and the kids for him to take care of... he would have had to get out to take care of it all. Your being a good wife propelled his career...  you are entitled to that pension.  He doesn't have to like it, but it's true.

.

Your exhusband  is a thief... if he lied to get a pension he had not earned, he is ripping off the tax payers who pay that to him. 

I think we pay enough empty pledges to people who are ripping us off now...   to be paying them to those who were supposed to be our protection from "enemies foreign and domestic"...  What a jerk.

Quote from: Hehealedme on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 14:18:53

Quote from: grace on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 13:59:29

Quote from: Hehealedme on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 13:57:51

Quote from: grace on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 13:53:49

Quote from: Hehealedme on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 13:37:44
You know what he told me the day he left?...he said, ''if you want to be a b**ch, try and get my military pension''...

He used to say to his friends, in front of me, that if he ever divorced, he would never give half of his military pension to his wife...

Follow what God is telling you to do....He will never fail you!

Something is telling me to not let my husband get away with all of this lying and manipulation...but how do I know if this is coming from God or not?!??...I Don't Know!!!...

Do you have peace about this decision?

When I took those few pictures back in 2005, I had no intention whatsoever to use them against my husband in a near or far future...but at the same time, I didn't agree with what he wanted to do to obtain that medical pension...I knew that his reasons weren't right...

The day I took those pictures, my husband told me, ''make sure that the military don't ever get their hands on these pictures or I might not get that medical pension!''...
A year later, he told me that he would need to go to court and swear on the Bible to tell the truth and nothing but the truth...
I then asked him, ''But P*****, you don't even believe that the Bible is inspired by God to men. How then can you swear on the Bible?''...
His answer was, ''I want that money and I am willing to do whatever is possible to obtain it''...

I do not want to use these as a revenge. It has nothing to do with revenge. I know that this is what my husband will think...
It has to do with what is right...
Do I have peace?...hard to say at this point...
The people I have talked to about this so far say that I should definitely show those pictures...
I insist on saying.....I do not want to use these pictures as a revenge...the whole thing just makes me want to throw up...

I sent you a pm!

.

Quote from: Hehealedme on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 14:38:14
The problem is that I have a special income every month coming in...it is part of a heritage that an uncle left me...my husband said to the court that I have inherited the whole amount which is another lie...to get the full both my parents would have to be dead but they are both alive...

He said in court that it wouldn't be fair to him if I was to get half of his pension because he would be left poor and I would be rich...but if he had stayed with me, he would have benefited of the full amount, I would have gladly left him everything if I was to die before him...
He wants the whole cake and eat it too!!!...

Please do not take this the wrong way, but you need to be very careful and go to the Lord in prayer over this situation with your husband.. You are allowing bitterness to take hold of you.. At least, it appears that way...

There is nothing wrong with having what you are owed or deserve... However, if your wants and desires are turning into bitterness, better to let it go for a while... Let the Lord work in this situation. As Mystery Man said, God WILL NOT let you down...

He will reap what he has sowed. Believe me... God did not say , "Some of the time you reap what you sow"... God's word says in Galations 6:7-8

7Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature[a]will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

But it also says this in verse 9;
9Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.

Remember this... You can't plant "bad" seeds and grow "good" fruit.... Not possible... So, rest assured, God will have the last say in the matter.. But do not let this thing turn to bitterness.. And if it has, turn it over to the Lord and walk away for a while.

Why is it so hard for traditionalists to acknowledge in one sentence and with one breath that we all are called to be in submission to each other, that husband and wife are truly one, and that none is "head over" the other. It's danced around, scenarios of almost mutual submission are described, but they choke when it comes to actually saying it or when it comes to actually living as being truly one.

Quote from: phoebe on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 14:53:34
Why is it so hard for traditionalists to acknowledge in one sentence and with one breath that we all are called to be in submission to each other, that husband and wife are truly one, and that none is "head over" the other. It's danced around, scenarios of almost mutual submission are described, but they choke when it comes to actually saying it or when it comes to actually living as being truly one.

You can't be one and have two heads.. I know that was said earlier by another poster, but it still rings true.. What you are saying is that there is no "head" or "leader". That just can't be and that is not biblical. Someone HAS to be in a position to make the decision... What if the two of you do not agree? What happens then? Will you pray about it then cede to his authority? Will he cede to yours? Or will something totally different be done so as neither one "submitted"? It is a play on words in my opinion.

Again, I ask you to show me in scripture where it says that a husband is to submit to his wife...

Please... I have not been able to locate this in the scriptures.. I checked all of the translated versions on biblegateway.com... Couldn't find it..

And what to you consider a traditionalist?

Quote from: phoebe on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 14:53:34
Why is it so hard for traditionalists to acknowledge in one sentence and with one breath that we all are called to be in submission to each other, that husband and wife are truly one, and that none is "head over" the other. It's danced around, scenarios of almost mutual submission are described, but they choke when it comes to actually saying it or when it comes to actually living as being truly one.

Are we one as Christ and God? I believe Christ was in submission to God.

Are we one as Christ and the church...I believe the church is to submit to Christ.

It could be turned around why do the ones that do not want to accept submission choke on what the word says.

The only way as I said earlier that I can agree with mutual submission is...both husband and wife submitting to Christ. By their submission they accept the roles that He set out for their better....

Quote from: Hehealedme on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 14:38:14
The problem is that I have a special income every month coming in...it is part of a heritage that an uncle left me...my husband said to the court that I have inherited the whole amount which is another lie...to get the full both my parents would have to be dead but they are both alive...

He said in court that it wouldn't be fair to him if I was to get half of his pension because he would be left poor and I would be rich...but if he had stayed with me, he would have benefited of the full amount, I would have gladly left him everything if I was to die before him...

He wants the whole cake and eat it too!!!...

Why didn't you bring forth documents to prove he was lying about it?  That was a simple fix that someone overlooked.  Any inheritance can be proven. 

Quote from: Mac on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 15:01:47

Quote from: phoebe on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 14:53:34
Why is it so hard for traditionalists to acknowledge in one sentence and with one breath that we all are called to be in submission to each other, that husband and wife are truly one, and that none is "head over" the other. It's danced around, scenarios of almost mutual submission are described, but they choke when it comes to actually saying it or when it comes to actually living as being truly one.

You can't be one and have two heads.. I know that was said earlier by another poster, but it still rings true.. What you are saying is that there is no "head" or "leader". That just can't be and that is not biblical. Someone HAS to be in a position to make the decision... What if the two of you do not agree? What happens then? Will you pray about it then cede to his authority? Will he cede to yours? Or will something totally different be done so as neither one "submitted"? It is a play on words in my opinion.

Again, I ask you to show me in scripture where it says that a husband is to submit to his wife...

Please... I have not been able to locate this in the scriptures.. I checked all of the translated versions on biblegateway.com... Couldn't find it..

And what to you consider a traditionalist?

It's covered under "Submitting yourselves one to another" in Eph 5:21 (husbands are not excluded from this - btw, it does not say 'Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. ' It says, "wives, with your own husbands, as with the Lord.") and under "Likewise" in Col 3:19.

Quote from: phoebe on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 17:23:35

Quote from: Mac on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 15:01:47

Quote from: phoebe on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 14:53:34
Why is it so hard for traditionalists to acknowledge in one sentence and with one breath that we all are called to be in submission to each other, that husband and wife are truly one, and that none is "head over" the other. It's danced around, scenarios of almost mutual submission are described, but they choke when it comes to actually saying it or when it comes to actually living as being truly one.

You can't be one and have two heads.. I know that was said earlier by another poster, but it still rings true.. What you are saying is that there is no "head" or "leader". That just can't be and that is not biblical. Someone HAS to be in a position to make the decision... What if the two of you do not agree? What happens then? Will you pray about it then cede to his authority? Will he cede to yours? Or will something totally different be done so as neither one "submitted"? It is a play on words in my opinion.

Again, I ask you to show me in scripture where it says that a husband is to submit to his wife...

Please... I have not been able to locate this in the scriptures.. I checked all of the translated versions on biblegateway.com... Couldn't find it..

And what to you consider a traditionalist?

It's covered under "Submitting yourselves one to another" in Eph 5:21 (husbands are not excluded from this - btw, it does not say 'Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. ' It says, "wives, with your own husbands, as with the Lord.") and under "Likewise" in Col 3:19.

If it is like you say it contradicts other scriptures.... You need to read down the whole chapter of Eph. and Col. We are to get in the order that God put us...husband the head.

Hupotasso: 5293 uJpotavssw Hupotasso (hoop-ot-as'-so);
Word Origin: Greek, Verb
from (5259) and (5021)

to arrange under, to subordinate
to subject, put in subjection
to subject one's self, obey
to submit to one's control
to yield to one's admonition or advice
to obey, be subject
A Greek military term meaning "to arrange [troop divisions] in amilitary fashion under the command of a leader". In non-military use,it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assumingresponsibility, and carrying a burden".
KJV Word Count (Hupotasso #5293) put under  6
be subject unto  6
be subject to  5
submit (one's) self unto  5
submit (one's) self to  3
be in subjection unto  2
put in subjection under  1
miscellaneous  12

Quote from: phoebe on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 17:23:35

Quote from: Mac on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 15:01:47

Quote from: phoebe on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 14:53:34
Why is it so hard for traditionalists to acknowledge in one sentence and with one breath that we all are called to be in submission to each other, that husband and wife are truly one, and that none is "head over" the other. It's danced around, scenarios of almost mutual submission are described, but they choke when it comes to actually saying it or when it comes to actually living as being truly one.

You can't be one and have two heads.. I know that was said earlier by another poster, but it still rings true.. What you are saying is that there is no "head" or "leader". That just can't be and that is not biblical. Someone HAS to be in a position to make the decision... What if the two of you do not agree? What happens then? Will you pray about it then cede to his authority? Will he cede to yours? Or will something totally different be done so as neither one "submitted"? It is a play on words in my opinion.

Again, I ask you to show me in scripture where it says that a husband is to submit to his wife...

Please... I have not been able to locate this in the scriptures.. I checked all of the translated versions on biblegateway.com... Couldn't find it..

And what to you consider a traditionalist?

It's covered under "Submitting yourselves one to another" in Eph 5:21 (husbands are not excluded from this - btw, it does not say 'Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. ' It says, "wives, with your own husbands, as with the Lord.") and under "Likewise" in Col 3:19.

Ephesians 5:22 - 33 read logically does not say what you suggest.  In fact it says the opposite .

So I wonder why you deny the very words in these verses ?  What purpose or motive do you have to deny these words within these verses ?

Quote from: Mystery Man on Mon Feb 02, 2009 - 22:12:03

Quote from: HRoberson on Mon Feb 02, 2009 - 21:49:21

Quote from: Mystery Man on Mon Feb 02, 2009 - 21:18:36

Quote from: WileyClarkson on Mon Feb 02, 2009 - 20:52:03

QuoteNo man wants to be in "controll".  God designed man to make descisions that effect the relatinship between husband and wife.  It is built into our being to be responsible .  Not only for our wife, but our whole household.  It is within the being of a woman to submit to the man's design to make those hard descisions.  A man wants his wife's input and suggestions.   But a man's being starts to tremble when his wife or any woman tries to usurp any authority over any man = married or unmarried. 

What a crock!  That is about as big an assumption as any I have seen so far!  My marriage has based on mutual submission since day one, and in the 1970's CoC, that was an unheard of view!  We make decissions together that will effect us together.  When only one is effected, the other has input but the one that is directly effected makes the decission (job decissions, serious health problems, etc).  When making decissions for children, we trusted each other to make them when ever necessary because we were usually not together at those times.  In emergencies, my wife has the same decission authority that I do and can make them wisely, and at times, better than I can, depending on the circumstances!   If you want to say YOU start to tremble when a woman/wife makes a decission, that's fine with me.  Go ahead and tremble and feel threatened!  BUT DON'T INCLUDE ME.  Speak only for youself!

I believe that almost all marriages that survive more than 20 years in this day and age can also be traced to the basic fundemental principle in the marriage of mutual submission.  My wife and I will hit the 35 years together mark in less than two weeks, and that doesn't count the 2 year engagement we had.  The marriages that I have seen have the toughest time surviving among my friends in and out of the church are those where the husband had the male in control mind set because God made men that way!  I have seen alot of divorces in my life, and this one factor was present in the majority of the divorces.

QuoteIf a woman joins the Army, wants equal rights, and is on the battlefield...i sure hope 50 guys wouldn't go try to help her. She forfeited "chivalry" back at home when she enlisted, she is now another number. If I had to choose between my best friend and a female in the field of battle...I'm grabbing my best friend. For 1) My best friend is stronger and would be more valuable in the field and 2) She doesn't get to pull the chivalry card out after waiving a feminism flag her entire life.

So you would let a fellow officer die or have to save herself just because she is a woman or what if she was the only help you could get in that fire fight?  What if your best friend all of a sudden turned sour on you and ran, what then?
You apparently feel that women are not qualified to fight for their country, even though women have fought in every war the US has ever been in!  You also don't seem to think they should be helped by the men if a tough situation.  What if a man is in the same situation?  Or better yet, what if the man in that situation had only women to help him, should he allow them to save his butt?  I carry a gun for a living and have done so for 25 years.  I have worked with some very qualified women that I absolutely trust to cover my backside in a fire fight, some of them a whole lot more than some of the squirrly men I have had to work with.

    

There is no such thing as mutual submission in my marriage.  I have been married for almost 38 years.

My wife submits to me, I do not submit to her.  I most definetly allow here to express herself and explain whatever it is that is on her mind.  I take everything she says seriously and consider it with the utmost respect and consideration.  And she looks forward to my final decision.  If she seems to disagree with it.  I ask her what is bothering her, so that I can review once again.  Maybe I misunderstood something or didn't get the whole picture as she might not have explained herself as clearly as I needed her too.  I want to know her heart on every matter.  But the last decision is still mine as the head of the household.  And I know this, and take this responsiblity very seriously.

Re-read what you posted.

You will find considerable mutual submission.

none whatsoever !

Then, I suspect you don't quite grasp the discussion.

Quote from: grace on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 17:38:09

Quote from: phoebe on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 17:23:35

Quote from: Mac on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 15:01:47

Quote from: phoebe on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 14:53:34
Why is it so hard for traditionalists to acknowledge in one sentence and with one breath that we all are called to be in submission to each other, that husband and wife are truly one, and that none is "head over" the other. It's danced around, scenarios of almost mutual submission are described, but they choke when it comes to actually saying it or when it comes to actually living as being truly one.

You can't be one and have two heads.. I know that was said earlier by another poster, but it still rings true.. What you are saying is that there is no "head" or "leader". That just can't be and that is not biblical. Someone HAS to be in a position to make the decision... What if the two of you do not agree? What happens then? Will you pray about it then cede to his authority? Will he cede to yours? Or will something totally different be done so as neither one "submitted"? It is a play on words in my opinion.

Again, I ask you to show me in scripture where it says that a husband is to submit to his wife...

Please... I have not been able to locate this in the scriptures.. I checked all of the translated versions on biblegateway.com... Couldn't find it..

And what to you consider a traditionalist?

It's covered under "Submitting yourselves one to another" in Eph 5:21 (husbands are not excluded from this - btw, it does not say 'Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. ' It says, "wives, with your own husbands, as with the Lord.") and under "Likewise" in Col 3:19.

If it is like you say it contradicts other scriptures.... You need to read down the whole chapter of Eph. and Col. We are to get in the order that God put us...husband the head.

Hupotasso: 5293 uJpotavssw Hupotasso (hoop-ot-as'-so);
Word Origin: Greek, Verb
from (5259) and (5021)

to arrange under, to subordinate
to subject, put in subjection
to subject one's self, obey
to submit to one's control
to yield to one's admonition or advice
to obey, be subject
A Greek military term meaning "to arrange [troop divisions] in amilitary fashion under the command of a leader". In non-military use,it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assumingresponsibility, and carrying a burden".
KJV Word Count (Hupotasso #5293) put under  6
be subject unto  6
be subject to  5
submit (one's) self unto  5
submit (one's) self to  3
be in subjection unto  2
put in subjection under  1
miscellaneous  12

It is NOT an imperative. The verb is "be filled", not "submit". In this case, the word is a participle. It is correctly translated "[submitting] to one another" 

Quote from: HRoberson on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 17:53:47

Quote from: Mystery Man on Mon Feb 02, 2009 - 22:12:03

Quote from: HRoberson on Mon Feb 02, 2009 - 21:49:21

Quote from: Mystery Man on Mon Feb 02, 2009 - 21:18:36

Quote from: WileyClarkson on Mon Feb 02, 2009 - 20:52:03

QuoteNo man wants to be in "controll".  God designed man to make descisions that effect the relatinship between husband and wife.  It is built into our being to be responsible .  Not only for our wife, but our whole household.  It is within the being of a woman to submit to the man's design to make those hard descisions.  A man wants his wife's input and suggestions.   But a man's being starts to tremble when his wife or any woman tries to usurp any authority over any man = married or unmarried. 

What a crock!  That is about as big an assumption as any I have seen so far!  My marriage has based on mutual submission since day one, and in the 1970's CoC, that was an unheard of view!  We make decissions together that will effect us together.  When only one is effected, the other has input but the one that is directly effected makes the decission (job decissions, serious health problems, etc).  When making decissions for children, we trusted each other to make them when ever necessary because we were usually not together at those times.  In emergencies, my wife has the same decission authority that I do and can make them wisely, and at times, better than I can, depending on the circumstances!   If you want to say YOU start to tremble when a woman/wife makes a decission, that's fine with me.  Go ahead and tremble and feel threatened!  BUT DON'T INCLUDE ME.  Speak only for youself!

I believe that almost all marriages that survive more than 20 years in this day and age can also be traced to the basic fundemental principle in the marriage of mutual submission.  My wife and I will hit the 35 years together mark in less than two weeks, and that doesn't count the 2 year engagement we had.  The marriages that I have seen have the toughest time surviving among my friends in and out of the church are those where the husband had the male in control mind set because God made men that way!  I have seen alot of divorces in my life, and this one factor was present in the majority of the divorces.

QuoteIf a woman joins the Army, wants equal rights, and is on the battlefield...i sure hope 50 guys wouldn't go try to help her. She forfeited "chivalry" back at home when she enlisted, she is now another number. If I had to choose between my best friend and a female in the field of battle...I'm grabbing my best friend. For 1) My best friend is stronger and would be more valuable in the field and 2) She doesn't get to pull the chivalry card out after waiving a feminism flag her entire life.

So you would let a fellow officer die or have to save herself just because she is a woman or what if she was the only help you could get in that fire fight?  What if your best friend all of a sudden turned sour on you and ran, what then?
You apparently feel that women are not qualified to fight for their country, even though women have fought in every war the US has ever been in!  You also don't seem to think they should be helped by the men if a tough situation.  What if a man is in the same situation?  Or better yet, what if the man in that situation had only women to help him, should he allow them to save his butt?  I carry a gun for a living and have done so for 25 years.  I have worked with some very qualified women that I absolutely trust to cover my backside in a fire fight, some of them a whole lot more than some of the squirrly men I have had to work with.

    

There is no such thing as mutual submission in my marriage.  I have been married for almost 38 years.

My wife submits to me, I do not submit to her.  I most definetly allow here to express herself and explain whatever it is that is on her mind.  I take everything she says seriously and consider it with the utmost respect and consideration.  And she looks forward to my final decision.  If she seems to disagree with it.  I ask her what is bothering her, so that I can review once again.  Maybe I misunderstood something or didn't get the whole picture as she might not have explained herself as clearly as I needed her too.  I want to know her heart on every matter.  But the last decision is still mine as the head of the household.  And I know this, and take this responsiblity very seriously.

Re-read what you posted.

You will find considerable mutual submission.

none whatsoever !

Then, I suspect you don't quite grasp the discussion.

LOL, I think i do.  In fact , I know I do.  

Everyone that is in Christ is suppose to submit unto each other. This is because in Christ there is neither male nor female In Christ.   But not in a marriage !  The man is the head , as Christ is the head of the Church.

The man is the head of the woman, Christ is the head of the man, and God is the head of Christ.

Simple !

Then they are not one, which would be in direct conflict with Gen.2 and Eph 5.

Quote from: phoebe on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 14:53:34
Why is it so hard for traditionalists to acknowledge in one sentence and with one breath that we all are called to be in submission to each other, that husband and wife are truly one, and that none is "head over" the other. It's danced around, scenarios of almost mutual submission are described, but they choke when it comes to actually saying it or when it comes to actually living as being truly one.

How can you say that one isnt the head  when that is exactly what paul DOES say.Are we to ignore what the Bible says then? The husband is the head , that is what it says and it seems clear.

Quote from: grace on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 15:01:58

Quote from: phoebe on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 14:53:34
Why is it so hard for traditionalists to acknowledge in one sentence and with one breath that we all are called to be in submission to each other, that husband and wife are truly one, and that none is "head over" the other. It's danced around, scenarios of almost mutual submission are described, but they choke when it comes to actually saying it or when it comes to actually living as being truly one.

Are we one as Christ and God? I believe Christ was in submission to God.

Are we one as Christ and the church...I believe the church is to submit to Christ.

It could be turned around why do the ones that do not want to accept submission choke on what the word says.

The only way as I said earlier that I can agree with mutual submission is...both husband and wife submitting to Christ. By their submission they accept the roles that He set out for their better....

You put that well Grace. if both husband and wife are submitting to Christ, they will want to obey the roles that He gives both of us within marriage. We do these things for Him as well as for our marriages.
Even if I dont like the 'thought' of submission, I still want to do it becuase God tells me to and I trust God 100%.Not many people are naturally submissive I dont think and we do like to do things our own way,but it is not what God tells us to do.

Quote from: phoebe on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 17:23:35
It's covered under "Submitting yourselves one to another" in Eph 5:21 (husbands are not excluded from this - btw, it does not say 'Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. ' It says, "wives, with your own husbands, as with the Lord.") and under "Likewise" in Col 3:19.

I am sorry, but that is not the way I read scripture... You have picked one verse and excluded the totality of the remaining verses.. Verse 21 is instruction for Christians and how they are to live among other Christians. Verses 22 through 33 deal specifically with marriage... More yet, Husbands and Wives...

This is what Ephesians says:

21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Wives and Husbands
22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,
27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church—
30for we are members of his body.
31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."
32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.
33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

As far as Colossians, again you have read something that is not in any translation I have seen.. Here is what the NIV says:

18Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
19Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.
20Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.
21Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged.
22Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.
23Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men,
24since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism.

Again, I just do not see how you draw your conclusions phoebe. This is not the first time you and I have traded post.. We did this same thing a little over a year ago... I know what you feel and just like then, you can't back up your claims with legitimate scripture..

I have seen the links you have posted that lead to the "equality" site. You wave your fist in the air about us not getting it when you belong to a group that denounces "traditional" doctrines... In truth, you disagree with any and all ideas that a husband has authority over his home. That includes his wife... Yes, they should mutually submit to the Lord as a couple, but according to scripture, the husband will be held accountable to the Lord for his spiritual leadership of the family or lack of. Not the wife.

I am not trying to pick a fight with you and I honestly appreciate your position and correspondence on this topic. But you read a translation of the bible I have never seen, and honestly, wouldn't want to...

That was a good read Mac.  Nice.   

.

It doesn't look fair from your post...but when I was reading this I thought of Joseph right away. How he suffered...how he punished for doing what was right. But in the end God caused it all for his good. Keep your head up, and continue doing what you know is right with God. Job also is an example....in the end he got double blessings.

Quote from: Mac on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 18:24:53

Quote from: phoebe on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 17:23:35
It's covered under "Submitting yourselves one to another" in Eph 5:21 (husbands are not excluded from this - btw, it does not say 'Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. ' It says, "wives, with your own husbands, as with the Lord.") and under "Likewise" in Col 3:19.

I am sorry, but that is not the way I read scripture... You have picked one verse and excluded the totality of the remaining verses.. Verse 21 is instruction for Christians and how they are to live among other Christians. Verses 22 through 33 deal specifically with marriage... More yet, Husbands and Wives...

This is what Ephesians says:

21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Wives and Husbands
22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,
27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church—
30for we are members of his body.
31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."
32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.
33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

As far as Colossians, again you have read something that is not in any translation I have seen.. Here is what the NIV says:

18Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
19Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.
20Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.
21Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged.
22Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.
23Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men,
24since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism.

Again, I just do not see how you draw your conclusions phoebe. This is not the first time you and I have traded post.. We did this same thing a little over a year ago... I know what you feel and just like then, you can't back up your claims with legitimate scripture..

I have seen the links you have posted that lead to the "equality" site. You wave your fist in the air about us not getting it when you belong to a group that denounces "traditional" doctrines... In truth, you disagree with any and all ideas that a husband has authority over his home. That includes his wife... Yes, they should mutually submit to the Lord as a couple, but according to scripture, the husband will be held accountable to the Lord for his spiritual leadership of the family or lack of. Not the wife.

I am not trying to pick a fight with you and I honestly appreciate your position and correspondence on this topic. But you read a translation of the bible I have never seen, and honestly, wouldn't want to...

Quote"You wave your fist in the air about us not getting it when you belong to a group that denounces "traditional" doctrines..."

Nice. See what I mean? The attitude. The site I linked is not a feminist site. I don't do feminism. And I never "wave my fist in the air". I stand firm and I am not silent. So sue me.

IF you will go back through my posts on this thread, you will see how I fought to keep the whole passage in context.

Also, if you will check the greek, you will see that "wives submit to your husbands" is not in Eph.5. "submit" just ain't there. It was added by some early translators. Check it out for yourself. It only says "wives, to your husbands, as to the Lord" A number of translations have it correctly. King James was the one who "added to", and others translated from KJV, so the error perpetuated itself. KJ was a misogynist. Imagine that.

Quote"the husband will be held accountable to the Lord for his spiritual leadership of the family or lack of. Not the wife."

Show me the money.

Quote from: phoebe on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 22:47:58

Quote from: Mac on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 18:24:53

Quote from: phoebe on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 17:23:35
It's covered under "Submitting yourselves one to another" in Eph 5:21 (husbands are not excluded from this - btw, it does not say 'Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. ' It says, "wives, with your own husbands, as with the Lord.") and under "Likewise" in Col 3:19.

I am sorry, but that is not the way I read scripture... You have picked one verse and excluded the totality of the remaining verses.. Verse 21 is instruction for Christians and how they are to live among other Christians. Verses 22 through 33 deal specifically with marriage... More yet, Husbands and Wives...

This is what Ephesians says:

21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Wives and Husbands
22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,
27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church—
30for we are members of his body.
31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."
32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.
33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

As far as Colossians, again you have read something that is not in any translation I have seen.. Here is what the NIV says:

18Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
19Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.
20Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.
21Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged.
22Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.
23Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men,
24since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism.

Again, I just do not see how you draw your conclusions phoebe. This is not the first time you and I have traded post.. We did this same thing a little over a year ago... I know what you feel and just like then, you can't back up your claims with legitimate scripture..

I have seen the links you have posted that lead to the "equality" site. You wave your fist in the air about us not getting it when you belong to a group that denounces "traditional" doctrines... In truth, you disagree with any and all ideas that a husband has authority over his home. That includes his wife... Yes, they should mutually submit to the Lord as a couple, but according to scripture, the husband will be held accountable to the Lord for his spiritual leadership of the family or lack of. Not the wife.

I am not trying to pick a fight with you and I honestly appreciate your position and correspondence on this topic. But you read a translation of the bible I have never seen, and honestly, wouldn't want to...

Quote"You wave your fist in the air about us not getting it when you belong to a group that denounces "traditional" doctrines..."

Nice. See what I mean? The attitude. The site I linked is not a feminist site. I don't do feminism. And I never "wave my fist in the air". I stand firm and I am not silent. So sue me.

IF you will go back through my posts on this thread, you will see how I fought to keep the whole passage in context.

Also, if you will check the greek, you will see that "wives submit to your husbands" is not in Eph.5. "submit" just ain't there. It was added by some early translators. Check it out for yourself. It only says "wives, to your husbands, as to the Lord" A number of translations have it correctly. King James was the one who "added to", and others translated from KJV, so the error perpetuated itself. KJ was a misogynist. Imagine that.

Quote"the husband will be held accountable to the Lord for his spiritual leadership of the family or lack of. Not the wife."

Show me the money.

KJ was a -- Woman hater ?   

Let me put my VHS on replay back to the 16th century.  I got to see this for myself. KJ a woman hater.  LOL - and no commercials, isn't that great.

Is there a movie coming out soon that will show us that KJ was a woman hater ?

Quote from: phoebe on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 22:47:58

Quote"the husband will be held accountable to the Lord for his spiritual leadership of the family or lack of. Not the wife."

Show me the money.

The fall is that event in the Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve disobeyed the command of God and ate of The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen. 2 and 3). Since Adam represented all of mankind, when He sinned, all of mankind fell with Him (Rom. 5:12). Adam was held responible for all mankind....why wasn't Eve if they shared the headship?

Quote from: grace on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 09:28:10

Quote from: phoebe on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 22:47:58

Quote"the husband will be held accountable to the Lord for his spiritual leadership of the family or lack of. Not the wife."

Show me the money.

The fall is that event in the Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve disobeyed the command of God and ate of The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen. 2 and 3). Since Adam represented all of mankind, when He sinned, all of mankind fell with Him (Rom. 5:12). Adam was held responible for all mankind....why wasn't Eve if they shared the headship?

Because we are responsible for our individual actions. Adam alone, pre-woman, was given the responsibility of protecting Garden. He didn't. He was responsible for his own actions. That failure let in evil. Ultimately, the fall of all mankind. Eve had her own consequences. Adam was not living with Eve as one, he apparently did not trust her with the instructions from God as God gave them. He seemed to have felt the need to embellish those instruction in order to control her actions.

Do the homework, Man. KJ was a misogynist.


(Paul was not.)

Quote from: phoebe on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 10:55:57

Quote from: grace on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 09:28:10

Quote from: phoebe on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 22:47:58

Quote"the husband will be held accountable to the Lord for his spiritual leadership of the family or lack of. Not the wife."

Show me the money.

The fall is that event in the Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve disobeyed the command of God and ate of The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen. 2 and 3). Since Adam represented all of mankind, when He sinned, all of mankind fell with Him (Rom. 5:12). Adam was held responible for all mankind....why wasn't Eve if they shared the headship?

Because we are responsible for our individual actions. Adam alone, pre-woman, was given the responsibility of protecting Garden. He didn't. He was responsible for his own actions. That failure let in evil. Ultimately, the fall of all mankind. Eve had her own consequences. Adam was not living with Eve as one, he apparently did not trust her with the instructions from God as God gave them. He seemed to have felt the need to embellish those instruction in order to control her actions.

If we are accountable for our own actions..which to agree I believe this. Why are we held accountable for what Adam did? No! The resposiblilty was given to Adam. He is the one recorded that sin entered the world.

This is getting funny now! You say they were not one? I believe Gen. 3:6 shows that they were there together in the garden....they both took of the tree..look like they were one to me. If Adam and Eve were mutual..wouldn't God give her the same instructions as Adam? Did God give more importance to Adam than Eve?

"He seemed to have felt the need to embellish those instruction in order to control her actions."  What are you saying here?

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 18:18:23

Quote from: phoebe on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 14:53:34
Why is it so hard for traditionalists to acknowledge in one sentence and with one breath that we all are called to be in submission to each other, that husband and wife are truly one, and that none is "head over" the other. It's danced around, scenarios of almost mutual submission are described, but they choke when it comes to actually saying it or when it comes to actually living as being truly one.

How can you say that one isnt the head  when that is exactly what paul DOES say.Are we to ignore what the Bible says then? The husband is the head , that is what it says and it seems clear.

Paul says he is the kephale, the source of. Not as "head" OVER something, but as in the source of something. Man (Adam) was the SOURCE OF woman (Eve).

Quote from: grace on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 11:12:19
Why are we held accountable for what Adam did?

We aren't. Adam's act of disobedience is not written in my Book of Life entry. The result of his act, forever changed humanity.

Here's another way to look at it. If your parent had an STD, and you receive it from birth...are you paying the consequences of them making love...or the result of making love? Was it sex that condemned you, or the STD?

Quote from: grace on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 11:12:19

Quote from: phoebe on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 10:55:57

Quote from: grace on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 09:28:10

Quote from: phoebe on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 22:47:58

Quote"the husband will be held accountable to the Lord for his spiritual leadership of the family or lack of. Not the wife."

Show me the money.

The fall is that event in the Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve disobeyed the command of God and ate of The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen. 2 and 3). Since Adam represented all of mankind, when He sinned, all of mankind fell with Him (Rom. 5:12). Adam was held responible for all mankind....why wasn't Eve if they shared the headship?

Because we are responsible for our individual actions. Adam alone, pre-woman, was given the responsibility of protecting Garden. He didn't. He was responsible for his own actions. That failure let in evil. Ultimately, the fall of all mankind. Eve had her own consequences. Adam was not living with Eve as one, he apparently did not trust her with the instructions from God as God gave them. He seemed to have felt the need to embellish those instruction in order to control her actions.

If we are accountable for our own actions..which to agree I believe this. Why are we held accountable for what Adam did? No! The resposiblilty was given to Adam. He is the one recorded that sin entered the world.

This is getting funny now! You say they were not one? I believe Gen. 3:6 shows that they were there together in the garden....they both took of the tree..look like they were one to me. If Adam and Eve were mutual..wouldn't God give her the same instructions as Adam? Did God give more importance to Adam than Eve?

"He seemed to have felt the need to embellish those instruction in order to control her actions."  What are you saying here?

I'm saying that in ch. 2 God gives th man instructions not to eat of that tree. God makes woman. In ch. 3, the woman says they were told not to even touch it. Draw your own conclusions that the man is innocent in this if you must. First, the man didn't protect the Garden. He let evil enter. Then it seems that he told the woman that if they touched it they would die. Not what God had said! If the woman had outright lied about this, knowing that was not the instruction, I believe God would have treated her the same as the man. But he did not. He gave her a promise of redemption.

Don't blow it off. Think about it. Study those first few chapters in Genesis deeply.

Quote from: phoebe on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 12:07:28

Quote from: grace on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 11:12:19

Quote from: phoebe on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 10:55:57

Quote from: grace on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 09:28:10

Quote from: phoebe on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 22:47:58

Quote"the husband will be held accountable to the Lord for his spiritual leadership of the family or lack of. Not the wife."

Show me the money.

The fall is that event in the Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve disobeyed the command of God and ate of The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen. 2 and 3). Since Adam represented all of mankind, when He sinned, all of mankind fell with Him (Rom. 5:12). Adam was held responible for all mankind....why wasn't Eve if they shared the headship?

Because we are responsible for our individual actions. Adam alone, pre-woman, was given the responsibility of protecting Garden. He didn't. He was responsible for his own actions. That failure let in evil. Ultimately, the fall of all mankind. Eve had her own consequences. Adam was not living with Eve as one, he apparently did not trust her with the instructions from God as God gave them. He seemed to have felt the need to embellish those instruction in order to control her actions.

If we are accountable for our own actions..which to agree I believe this. Why are we held accountable for what Adam did? No! The resposiblilty was given to Adam. He is the one recorded that sin entered the world.

This is getting funny now! You say they were not one? I believe Gen. 3:6 shows that they were there together in the garden....they both took of the tree..look like they were one to me. If Adam and Eve were mutual..wouldn't God give her the same instructions as Adam? Did God give more importance to Adam than Eve?

"He seemed to have felt the need to embellish those instruction in order to control her actions."  What are you saying here?

I'm saying that in ch. 2 God gives th man instructions not to eat of that tree. God makes woman. In ch. 3, the woman says they were told not to even touch it. Draw your own conclusions that the man is innocent in this if you must. First, the man didn't protect the Garden. He let evil enter. Then it seems that he told the woman that if they touched it they would die. Not what God had said! If the woman had outright lied about this, knowing that was not the instruction, I believe God would have treated her the same as the man. But he did not. He gave her a promise of redemption.

Don't blow it off. Think about it. Study those first few chapters in Genesis deeply.

This is where you get in trouble with your journey Phoebe.  Your suggesting that Adam told the woman that they were not to touch the fruit.  Your "adding" to scripture, to justify your beliefs.  It is the very same thing that the woman did when she became decieved !  Adam said no such thing about touching, to his woman !  The woman did not hear this from Adam !  She manufactured it in her conversation with the serpent.  She is guilty of adding or changing the very words of God.

Quote from: phoebe on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 12:07:28

Quote from: grace on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 11:12:19

Quote from: phoebe on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 10:55:57

Quote from: grace on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 09:28:10

Quote from: phoebe on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 22:47:58

Quote"the husband will be held accountable to the Lord for his spiritual leadership of the family or lack of. Not the wife."

Show me the money.

The fall is that event in the Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve disobeyed the command of God and ate of The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen. 2 and 3). Since Adam represented all of mankind, when He sinned, all of mankind fell with Him (Rom. 5:12). Adam was held responible for all mankind....why wasn't Eve if they shared the headship?

Because we are responsible for our individual actions. Adam alone, pre-woman, was given the responsibility of protecting Garden. He didn't. He was responsible for his own actions. That failure let in evil. Ultimately, the fall of all mankind. Eve had her own consequences. Adam was not living with Eve as one, he apparently did not trust her with the instructions from God as God gave them. He seemed to have felt the need to embellish those instruction in order to control her actions.

If we are accountable for our own actions..which to agree I believe this. Why are we held accountable for what Adam did? No! The resposiblilty was given to Adam. He is the one recorded that sin entered the world.

This is getting funny now! You say they were not one? I believe Gen. 3:6 shows that they were there together in the garden....they both took of the tree..look like they were one to me. If Adam and Eve were mutual..wouldn't God give her the same instructions as Adam? Did God give more importance to Adam than Eve?

"He seemed to have felt the need to embellish those instruction in order to control her actions."  What are you saying here?

I'm saying that in ch. 2 God gives th man instructions not to eat of that tree. God makes woman. In ch. 3, the woman says they were told not to even touch it. Draw your own conclusions that the man is innocent in this if you must. First, the man didn't protect the Garden. He let evil enter. Then it seems that he told the woman that if they touched it they would die. Not what God had said! If the woman had outright lied about this, knowing that was not the instruction, I believe God would have treated her the same as the man. But he did not. He gave her a promise of redemption.

Don't blow it off. Think about it. Study those first few chapters in Genesis deeply.

These two threads are getting confusing...I can not remember where I said what.


I am not blowing anything off! You simply ignore scripture...

Gen. 3:16.....he shall rule over thee

I Timothy 2 :12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.  But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.  For Adam was first formed, then Eve;
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.  and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression:

Ephesians 5  
21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.  
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.  Wives, [be in subjection] unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 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.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.  

I Corinthians 11  
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.  

I am sorry but...to rule over and be a head is the same...it is authority over the woman (A loving authority, but still yet...Authority). Submitting to each other is submitting to what God set out for them..The husband is to carry out his role (as God set up, not me) and the wife carry out her role (again as God set out, not me)

Quote from: grace on Mon Feb 02, 2009 - 14:57:07

Quote from: His Princess on Mon Feb 02, 2009 - 14:41:22

Quote from: chosenone on Mon Feb 02, 2009 - 14:11:05

Quote from: grace on Mon Feb 02, 2009 - 13:28:53

Quote from: phoebe on Mon Feb 02, 2009 - 13:14:00
Thanks for clarifying.

I don't see submitting as a "work", but maybe that's because I don't understand it in the same way as you. I see it as an honor and privilege, one that sometimes comes with a painful price, but the satisfaction is that it is for the good of someone I love and respect. That someone in my life does the same for me. I don't believe it is loving or for the good of my husband to make him be the sole responsible person for the well-being of our family and home. Tough decisions should be equally shared so that should the burden of failure come, it doesn't fall on the shoulders of one.  That is a huge and unfair burden to place on another. (I believe this would decrease the divorce rate in huge numbers.) God gave us each other in this intimate relationship of oneness for a reason.

I also believe it works the same way within the church Body. I believe we would have far fewer church splits if we functioned in this way.

I do believe in discussing things with your husband, I believe the wife has a lot of input in the marriage. Many of the men that have shared their testamonies of them listening to their wives shows how God said to ...love them with understanding. But I did not make the man the head....God did!

If you read my other post, I mentioned that if submission is not done out of the right spirit it is of no positive affect on the marriage.

Are you saying that by submitting there is not action taken?

Submission, far from being at all weak, takes a lot of strength, especially if the wife who is doing the submitting is a very strong women. I am strong, I have had to be to get through some of ther awful life events that I have had to face, so being submissive isnt always easy but God has doen a lot of work in me and I know enough to know that Gods way is ALWAYS the best and is always for our good.
I have known women who are quite weak emotionally , but are very bossy and domineering with their husbands, I guess it is out of fear and insecurity that they do this. if they trusted God and their husbands they wouldnt be afraid of not being in control.

Yes, chosenone, I agree with you completely.  People have the wrong idea of this, they think the wife sits in the corner like a doormat while her husband struts around issuing edicts and such....it's so not like that at all!  I, too, am very strong willed by nature.  But I've found that when I "let go" and just relax about everything and look to my husband's leadership, I feel such PEACE, the peace that passes all understanding.  It's really wonderful.  Of course, I am blessed with a husband who is wonderful to me.  He is so sweet it would be like a crime against nature (in my mind) to not submit to him!  He thoroughly deserves all of my love and respect.

I know that wives are still supposed to submit to their husbands even if they're not Christians; I don't know how they do that, but I know there are many women in that situation.

In the last five years, there was only one instance where something came up that we couldn't agree on together.  This was a situation where there was no way you could compromise -- it either had to go one way or the other.  I really, really wanted my way on this one and we debated it for like three days.  At that point, I realized that I really needed to let this one go.  So the next day I told my husband that even though I still felt the same way about the issue at hand, that I was going to step back and let him make the decision and that I would completely support whatever he decided without any kind of bad attitude.  In the end, he did decide to go the way I wanted to, but of course I didn't know that at the time. 

This is a wonderful example of submitting to your husbands lead.  Even if he went the other way with his decision... You showed a perfect picture of how it should be done.

Thanks, Grace!  And I agree with you, too, Mystery Man.