How can you be so Sinful???? You told your husband No!!!!

@bird123 (10632)
United States
January 15, 2010 11:23pm CST
Seems like most all holy books have women as second class. Women are supposed to be submissive to their husbands. Doesn't that mean if you tell him no that you really aren't being submissive? Hmmm??? Think of all those evil, sinful women who will burn in hell. God thinks they are evil and sinful too for not abiding to the wishes of their man, Right?? Once again, let's take a few steps back and take a good look. We are all spiritual beings in our true natures. We are placed in our physical bodies after birth. Gender is a parameter of this physical world. If we weren't in our physical bodies, it would mean nothing. If gender isn't a factor in our true natures, why would God want one soul to rule over another?? HE DOESN'T!! Man has been trying to control women since the beginning of time. We just don't like being told no! What better way to control than to incorporate it into religion? If we, men have God on our sides, women can't say no. CLEARLY, THIS IS NOT GOD! Personslly, I want my women free and equal. Men might think I'm crazy. Sure, I'll get no a few more times than I want, but I'll also get much more. I'll get a partner who will freely express her ideas. I'll get a missing view from another point of view. I'll get a partner well capable of standing on her own two feet. She will learn and grow and return knowledge I would never have without such freedom. In any case, everyone who doesn't know, the very best love and relationships are given freely. God grants each and everyone of us freedom with our choices. Shouldn't we do the same?? If we are ever going to attain wisdom, we should watch the Master at work. God is Unconditional Love. In time, we will all learn that is the only way to be. So women in my life, go ahead say no. I will love you unconditionally until you can't help but choose YES!!
2 responses
• United States
16 Jan 10
I disagree on almost every level. First and foremost, being submisive doesn't make you a second class. In some cultures and/or religions, there are other factors where I would agree that they place women as a second class, and some even state this. Certainly, as an American, I do not think of senetors as a second class to regular citizens. In fact, I would think of senetors as a higher class if I were to think of it either way at all. However, a senetor is expected to be submissive to the will of the people. I hope you don't think of yourself as a higher class than the cheff that prepares your food when you go to a fancy resteraunt to eat. Still, he fixes the food you request, and is therefore submissive to your will. Submissive does not automatically mean a lower class of citizen. I teach Martial Arts, and don't think of myself as a higher class than my students, but I still expect submissiveness from them. It's the only way they'll learn. Also, submissive doesn't mean you can't say no. If you walk into a French restraunt and order a taco, he'll say no. Does this mean he's not submitting to the request of a paying customer? No, it means he's not submitting to an unreasonable request from a non-paying customer. Also, submissive does not mean you can't be free either. One of my students is free to stop taking classes whenever they like. Someone who is submissive is often expected to express their ideas. The submission of women is not about slavery. On the American frontier, there was a definate attitude of requiring women to be submisive. At the same time, there was a whole class of songs sung by men that mocked the idea of women being inferior to men. One that springs to mind was about a couple where the husband said to his wife he could do all her daily chores in an hour. So they trade chores. By the end of the song, she's relaxing about noon because the only thing left to do is the evening feeding of the cattle, and he's bearly finished cleaning up after breakfast. He then finishes the song by saying that she does more work in a day than he does in seven. Obviously, this is an exageration, but it still goes to show that women were not treated unfairly or unequal. Try reading the little house books sometime. Women were treated with a kind of reverence that few men find the energy to give them these days.
1 person likes this
@bird123 (10632)
• United States
16 Jan 10
If always being submissive doesn't mean second class, maybe men should start being the submissive ones. They say there would be fewer wars. I wouldn't call a senator submissive especially when he has the power to vote himself a raise.Sure getting elected depends on doing the will of the people but I find image counts more than actual performance. The chef isn't being submissive. Don't pay him and see what happens. Don't get me wrong. The world is getting better on freedom but women are still underpaid. Prices for women's goods are always higher. There is anything but total freedom yet. Thanks for all your comments!!
@Ravenladyj (22904)
• United States
18 Jan 10
yes most religions see women and put women at a lower class..BUT being submissive doesnt make one a lower class..thats two completely different things..YES women according to the bible should cater to their husbands at all times BUT thats not the same as being submissive necessarily...its being controled and owned which again is very much a bible thing....