Missing Boy in the N.C. Mountains Found Alive.

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen said:

Provided you believe those that follow the Muslem faith are actually following God. There are many false religons out there. IMO, the Islamic faith is one of them

Right.



I would say that any religion:



- that says that the rights of some are higher than the rights of others



- that defines that by their mere birth some can rightly command and direct others



- that assumes a hierachy among humans as somehow a divine thing



...is, by definition, a FALSE religion.



Such religions are CLEARLY defined by a subset of humans to further their cause, needs and desires....and people so WILLINGLY follow them without question.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Gavin, thanks for the link. Seems like more outdated "leadership, protection, and provision" gender bias to me.



I equate it to the continued "dumbing down" of America. Such attitudes will more than likely require that most men will seek a wife that won't threaten these notions. She typically won't be more intellectual than he, she won't have a higher professional status than he, she won't earn more than him, etc.



Then, the offspring of such pairings will see the pattern that their parents have, and the daughter will ultimately seek a mate that is a protector, and the son, someone to protect and provide for.



Throughout history mostly men in our male dominated society have been taught by the Bible, a book penned by men almost 2000 years ago when women had no rights and were clearly property. So now, when we know such things to no longer be true (women are NOT property) why shouldn't we question MORE of what man put in that book to serve his purposes?



TJR

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

I've written this response three times now!! Stupid computer!

When a Christian husband leads well and a Christian wife actively and creatively supports his lead, you don't notice who's doing what because roll play is not the main point that lingers in your mind. What you notice is what kind of fluid and God-glorifying life they forge together. When done well, it's a powerful, graceful, and intimate creation of gender harmony that is uncommon and electrifying. It makes others want to know your secret of your engaged marriage because the blessings they witness are palpable.

There are biblical texts that tell the roles of the genders, specifically Ephesians 5:22-33 and 1 Peter.



In 1 Peter, Sarah (whom the bible calls all women the daughters of Sarah) calls Abraham "lord" not in a master/slave relationship but as a means of honor and respect.

Ephesians 5:

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. (22)

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. (23)

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it (25)

So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.(28)

My wife and I are continuing a long lineage of Christian Principled, Bible centered marriages. My parents have been married for nearly 31 years. My in-laws just celebrated their 31st year. My dad’s parents are at 60+. My moms – married until the day one died. Same with my wife’s grandparents.



In fact, the genealogical records show that there is not (1) divorce in my or her family as far back as we can go. The only second marriages come from when the first spouse died.



What do all of our history and our marriage have in common? Biblically Centered roles, responsibilities and models.



The church is oft referred to as the Bride of Christ and as such, gives specific roles for each of us to follow:



Man: Provide for, Teach the Word and Teach Life to, Love, Protect, Respect

Woman: Nourish, “Raise”, Love. Support



My wife and I are equal in our relationship.

Do you feel that you moreso than your wife is better equipped or capabile of making the final decision on issues of importance in your family and if so, explain why?

My wife is the smartest woman I know and one of the smartest people I know. Not only is she a degreed engineer, but also has a background in literature. She has read more that I can only dream of. She has educated herself on things Biblical, social and parenting. She has taught me more than all my schooling has. We have been together for nearly 10 years (come November) between dating, engagement and marriage (1-1/2, 2-1/2 and 6 years respectively).



Is she capable of making the decisions? More than I am in many cases. However, I will be held responsible come the day of reckoning. Legally, my name is always before hers. Her name is not on out mortgage. Our investments are in my name. Why? I am ultimately responsible for all of these things.

2. If not, and you assume you and your wife is equally capable of making the decisions for your household, why do you think that YOU alone should have the "final say" on decisions?

This is not a “dictatorship”, but it is also not a democracy. We talk and discuss, but ultimately I am the final word. This is not the “modern” Head of Household definition, but rather the biblical definition. Our discussions are proportional to the level of the decision. Naming our son due in June is something that we have discussed long and hard. What’s for dinner? She’s the one at home, barefoot and pregnant (literal). She gets to decide that one. No one’s better, no one’s worse. We know our roles and we stick to them.



It’s not coincidence that the rate of divorce has increas

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

I equate it to the continued "dumbing down" of America. Such attitudes will more than likely require that most men will seek a wife that won't threaten these notions. She typically won't be more intellectual than he, she won't have a higher professional status than he, she won't earn more than him, etc.

Amazing since this is biblically based, which last time I checked, the Bible is a wee bit older than America.

Throughout history mostly men in our male dominated society have been taught by the Bible, a book penned by men almost 2000 years ago when women had no rights and were clearly property. So now, when we know such things to no longer be true (women are NOT property) why shouldn't we question MORE of what man put in that book to serve his purposes?

Maybe it's just me, but you say it's part of the "dumbing down" of America, then recognize that it was written 2000+ years ago. Hmmm....

Then, the offspring of such pairings will see the pattern that their parents have, and the daughter will ultimately seek a mate that is a protector, and the son, someone to protect and provide for.

And the problem with this is????



This is the traditional role of genders up until about the 1950's, which as I state above begins the trend of rising divorce rates. Coincidence?

Tom, That's where we are going to have to agree to disagree. My teaching is that there is no original sin. Why would Christ die for our sins when he is the way shower of what we have inside us to become as him and more (that is stated in the Bible). We most certainly can control how we are just by making decision or choice to keep aiming to align ourselves to hit the mark of becoming more like Christ.

The term "origional sin" is not biblical, but the concept is:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

—Romans 5:12-14, ESV

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

—Rom. 5:18-21, ESV

God bestowed a curse upon each of the active participants. First the earth is cursed with thorns. Next the serpent's physical form is altered and God sets up an eternal enmity between Eve and the serpent and all their offspring (Gen. 3:9-15).

Personally, I find that pretty definative that while not really "origional sin", we have been cursed as humans with sin brought upon us by our fore-fathers (and mothers to make some happy) and by the actions of Adam and Eve.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

R Shek,



Let me try to explain a little more about what I meant by "Dumbing Down". It isn't so much that we are getting dumber, but it is moreso that we are being "left behind" the rest of the Western world.



I talked about how in a male dominated society where the man has the vision that he has to be the protector, the provider and the leader, that it presents a disturbing dynamic.



You asked what is the problem of the dynamic that I mentioned. Well, the answer is that it keeps women oppressed and the population, as a whole, more ignorant. If men marry women that are in intellect and capability their inferior, and pass that on, and it is the widespread norm, it means that our country is lead, grown, and guided by less than 1/2 the population, and that most women never achieve anywhere near their potential.



There is this old saying: "No one of us is as strong as all of us!"



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

R Shek,



It sounds like you have a good marriage and I applaud you for that.



But you should put some of the bills in your wife's name. God forbid you get hit by a truck tomorrow, she will have a difficult time showing any kind of payment history and established credit if everything is in your name.



Regarding divorce rate, it is comforting to think that the feminist movement caused the increase in divorce, and you know what, it probably did have a major part in it...but not in a bad way, but a good way. Before it was customary for a woman to be able to provide for herself and back when divorce carried such a stigma what other options did a woman in a bad marriage have? Pretty much NONE.



So back then, if your husband beat you, or was abusive, or simply not a nice person to live with, then as a woman, you stuck it out, because you had too. Often these were very good, Christian, God fearing men. Do you think it was God's plan for women to live a miserable life as a wife trapped in a bad marriage?



Of course not.



So, yes, divorce is a big problem now. But is it a bigger problem then BAD MARRIAGES were 50 years ago? I don't know...



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Do you think it was God's plan for women to live a miserable life as a wife trapped in a bad marriage?

Nope. The head of the household should not be a tyrant. He should love his wife as his own body. If a man truly loved himself, he wouldn't treat his wife with disrespect.



As for us being behind in the western world, my homelife has nothing to do with it. I do not care who is president. Man or woman. White, black, yellow, red, pink, mauve, purple, peach, olive, silver, grey, plad, pinstripe, etc., etc., etc. Unfortunatly, not everyone feels that way. I consider women equal to me. We are all human beings and we all deserve respect, love, being treated fairly, freedom to be happy and to make themselves happy. If I go to the parts store to buy repair parts for my buddies Toyota and there is a woman behind the counter, I treat her just like I would treat a man.



In my household, I hold my wife dear and I respect her decision. If he choices are going to lead us down the wrong road, I will stand up and make the right decision. If my decision is going to lead us down the wrong road, I hope I can be humble enough to hear what she has to say and see the light, so to speak.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen says:

In my household, I hold my wife dear and I respect her decision. If he choices are going to lead us down the wrong road, I will stand up and make the right decision. If my decision is going to lead us down the wrong road, I hope I can be humble enough to hear what she has to say and see the light, so to speak.

So, what you are saying is that in the ship which is your marriage, you have your hand on the rudder. You will listen to your wife but if you THINK her direction would have you hit the rocks, you steer the way you THINK is best. Likewise, if she cautions that she thinks you are going to hit the rocks, then you will consider it, but ultimately steer where you THINK is best.



Though I will admit that will work, I submit that human nature is such that most wives in that arrangement will over time STOP cautioning and STOP providing opinion, because they will have seen from experience that their input isn't going to change the final outcome; that outcoming being that the husband ultimately does what HE THINKS is best.



Being a wife shouldn't mean having to persuade the husband that he is wrong in order for her voice to be heard.



Wouldn't it work better if you charted your course through life together, with neither of you having final say? Wouldn't you hit less rocks?



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Wouldn't it work better if you charted your course through life together, with neither of you having final say? Wouldn't you hit less rocks?

...and if we are heading for the rocks and I say left and she says right, what do we do. I guess we go straight into the rocks.



Shough I go right for fear of being a tyrant or should I be a tyrant and go left?





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

...and if we are heading for the rocks and I say left and she says right, what do we do. I guess we go straight into the rocks.

You know as well as I that the really important decisions in life don't require that type of instantaneous decisions.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Yet, you make it sound like that is what headship is all about.





Tom

 

[Gavin Allan]

Gavin, thanks for the link. Seems like more outdated "leadership, protection, and provision" gender bias to me.



I equate it to the continued "dumbing down" of America. Such attitudes will more than likely require that most men will seek a wife that won't threaten these notions. She typically won't be more intellectual than he, she won't have a higher professional status than he, she won't earn more than him, etc.



Then, the offspring of such pairings will see the pattern that their parents have, and the daughter will ultimately seek a mate that is a protector, and the son, someone to protect and provide for.



Throughout history mostly men in our male dominated society have been taught by the Bible, a book penned by men almost 2000 years ago when women had no rights and were clearly property. So now, when we know such things to no longer be true (women are NOT property) why shouldn't we question MORE of what man put in that book to serve his purposes?



TJR

The Bible is the Word of God, not that of man.



As for my wife, she is much smarter than me. She has a PhD and she makes a whole lot more money than I do. My role in the family is leadership. Her role is nurturing. We do not see this as conflict, but rather of complementary.



She put her name first on the bank accout and some of our other accounts. I don't care-- the way I see it, we are ONE UNIT, not two separate people.



As for needing credit scores, that is a horrible reason. The idea is to not have credit--not to get more.

 

[Gavin Allan]

It isn't so much that we are getting dumber, but it is moreso that we are being "left behind" the rest of the Western world.

I don't mind being left behind. Last time I checked, the Western world wasn't doing too well in matters of morals, health, religion, etc.



I don't mind being left behind the ways of the world. This is only a very temporary assignment for me, a stranger in a foreign world. I have to keep my focus on preparing to go home.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen, said: "Yet, you make it sound like that is what headship is all about."



No I don't. I never implied that you guys that take so much stock in being the "head of your households" and claim both "veto right" and "final say" are making quick, in the heat of the moment, decisions.



However, I do think (and I think this because of the admissions here) that you guys ARE saying that you have the final say, and that somehow your opinion and judgement has more weight than your wife's.



I've heard words like "responsible", and "duty", etc.



A man is not (or let me restate, SHOULD NOT BE) "responsible for his wife."



Consider this. Let's say a man's cow breaks down it's fence, goes in another man's field and destroys his crops. We all can clearly see that the man that owned the cow is responsible for the damages and owes the other man. But in this day and age, what if a man's wife damages another man's property?



That's a great question now isn't it. Sure, we can all think of married couples being sued and held liable (in civil court) over something one or the other did. The marriage bond seems to have a precendent of making both parties share guilt and blame...or has it. Clearly the man is responsible for the disgressions of the wife, but is it true the other way around?



Not traditionally. The next time you get a chance to go to a library that has old newspaper in micro-fiche, take a look at some that date back to the early 1900s. You will see personal adds like the following:

John A Smith of 100 Main St does hereby claim that his lawful wife is no longer in his house or his bed and he accepts no responsibility for her debts or misdeeds on this day, July 2nd, 1922.

These types of notices were frequent in the local papers.



But you never saw the reverse...that an estranged wife would declare no responsibility for her husband. Why, because none was ever assumed.



Women were property. The misdeeds of women, like some cattle getting out of its fence, were the responsibility of the husband.



Well, I ask you men, do we REALLY want that to continue into this day?



We can't we be our own people, responsible for ourselves?



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Gavin said:

I don't mind being left behind the ways of the world. This is only a very temporary assignment for me, a stranger in a foreign world. I have to keep my focus on preparing to go home.

Then don't be surprised when you get there if you are standing outside the gate, being slapped up side the head by that good book held in Jesus's hand as he asks:

Why did you take so much stock in this book by men, when all I ever really asked was that you love each other? Instead you used my words and twisted them into a guide book for ruling women! Okay, now let's look at what good you did...

TJR

 

[Gavin Allan]

I don't have any cattle!

 

[Tom Schindler]

That's a great question now isn't it. Sure, we can all think of married couples being sued and held liable (in civil court) over something one or the other did. The marriage bond seems to have a precendent of making both parties share guilt and blame...or has it. Clearly the man is responsible for the disgressions of the wife, but is it true the other way around?

TJR,



Have you missed one key point? Religon out of government and government out of religon.



My headship is not recognized by the government, but by Jesus Christ. If I do not lead my family, I can crash into the rocks. My wifes decision could be wrong, but it could also be right. My decision could be wrong, but it also could be right. The difference is that if I am not humble enough to listen to my wife and understand what she is saying and I lead my family into despair, I have to answer for it.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen, I didn't miss it. See my response to Gavin above. I strongly believe that it was not part of God's plan that women be subservient to men, and that instead, much of what we cling to with our gender bias comes from the Bible and was placed their by man to serve man's selfish and antiquated purposes.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

I believe that God created man first and than he created woman from man. Women were designed to be a compliment to a man. She is not inferior and not superior to man. She is the weaker vessel but that does not make her less of a person.



There are things you can do that women can't. There are things a woman can do that you can not. That doesn't make you more or less of a person. It doesn't make her more or less of a person. We have our strengths and weaknesses.



Hand your wife a blank sheet of paper and ask her to draw a bicycle. Most women are unable to do it. It doesn't mean women can not be artistic, nor does it mean that women can not mechanical engineers. It just means women are different than men are.





Tom

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

I talked about how in a male dominated society where the man has the vision that he has to be the protector, the provider and the leader, that it presents a disturbing dynamic.

100,000 years more or less of history can't be all wrong. Up until the 1940's, there was no question. So you want to compare 60 years to 100,000? Ok. That's still a 5,000:3 ratio. We can revisit this when we get to the second 100,000+ years of human history.

You asked what is the problem of the dynamic that I mentioned. Well, the answer is that it keeps women oppressed and the population, as a whole, more ignorant. If men marry women that are in intellect and capability their inferior, and pass that on, and it is the widespread norm, it means that our country is lead, grown, and guided by less than 1/2 the population, and that most women never achieve anywhere near their potential.

As Gavin said, this in not necessarily a bad thing. I'll also remind you that in much of the world, woman are still held as property or second class (see China, India, Japan, Korea, the Entier Middle East, etc). So that arguement is rather invalid. The only place that your statement holds true 100% is in Europe. Frankly, Europe has turned into a land mass with no testicles anyway.



Women still oppressed? Yep sure are. My has an engineering degree. Gavin has a PhD. We have a female Secratary of State. We have Women on the Supreme Court. Yep, they're being held back alright.

But you should put some of the bills in your wife's name. God forbid you get hit by a truck tomorrow, she will have a difficult time showing any kind of payment history and established credit if everything is in your name

.



I never said that she didn't have ANY bills in her name. Credit cards, bank statements etc. all have her name and SSN on it. If something like that were to happen for me, she wouldn't need to worry too much about payment history. I have enough insurance to pay off all the bills, send both kids to college and still have enough left for her to spend a few more years at home. At that point she would be more than set credit wise. No major bills, a house paid for, etc. No brutal "head of household" keeping her down, that would be the sweet life.

Regarding divorce rate, it is comforting to think that the feminist movement caused the increase in divorce, and you know what, it probably did have a major part in it...but not in a bad way, but a good way. Before it was customary for a woman to be able to provide for herself and back when divorce carried such a stigma what other options did a woman in a bad marriage have? Pretty much NONE.

Quite the contrary. Prior to the modern femanist movement, the requirement for a woman to work outside the home was pretty much non-existant. The incidence of domestic violence was significantly less due to the factors that the liberals often cite as the cause of such episodes (no violent video games, no violent movies, etc). If a woman worked, it was most often as a cook, cleaner, washer etc. A 30 year mortgage was never heard of.



I guess you'd like to have the Middle Eastern laws on Divorce... the man says three times with a witness "I divorce you!" and presto, taken care of. The little lady had to go back to her parents.

So, yes, divorce is a big problem now. But is it a bigger problem then BAD MARRIAGES were 50 years ago? I don't know...

I'll put money down that there were far fewer "bad" marriages years ago for many factors:

1) The parents of the two people getting married actually taught the son and daughter how to act in marriage.

2) The parents were not divorced so the kids saw how to work through problems

3) The community was involved... if a man beat his wife, often times he had a nice "speaking" to by some of the church leaders

4) People got married for love, not se