Same God or not? Facts vs. fear.

[Ombud]

So now Daesh isn't Muslim? They don't use the Quran? Have you read it? Not exerpts ... the actual text. Do Muslims (Sunni, Shite, Hezbollah, Hamas, Daesh, AL Queda) do unto others as they would have others do unto them? Obviously not

[mroped]

Do you have any idea how many versions of the Bible are in existence?
I am pretty confident that the same goes for the Quran and yes I did read a version of it! Read it not studied it.

From what I recall, the term "Daesh" is a derogatory term used for Muslims that stray from the true path of the Quran and that is why those in ISIL are called Daesh. It is not however a branch of Islam.
Neither are Hamas, Hezbollah or Al Queda! They are all extremist groups that claim to fight in the name of Islam. Again, similar to KKK or Westboro Baptist Church.

"Hamas definition. A radical Palestinian organization founded in 1987 in opposition to the moderate policies of the Palestine Liberation Organization. In a controversial move, Yasir Arafat has brought members of Hamas into positions of authority within the Palestinian Authority."

"Hezbollah definition. A radical Arabic organization that arose after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. The Hezbollah has often been accused of terrorism."

"Dec 2, 2015 - A fourth name, Daesh, is now gaining favour. It is a loose acronym of al-Dawla al-Islamiya al-Iraq al-Sham (Arabic for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) but sounds like the Arabic words Daes ("one who crushes something underfoot") and Dahes ("one who sows discord")."

1. a radical Sunni Muslim organization dedicated to the elimination of a Western presence in Arab countries and militantly opposed to Western foreign policy: founded by Osama bin Laden in 1988. Origin of al-Qaeda Expand. Arabic. < Arabic al-qa'ida, literally, the base.

so as you can see, those that study the Islamic world tried to make that clear. It is for us those are not part of that world to see and understand that they are not one and the same with Islam! Unfortunately very few do!

[mroped]

And why oh why do you mix extremist movement that uses military action with a religion?
Would it be fair to say that when U.S. invaded Vietnam or Iraq, Christianity invaded Islam?
I believe not because that is the case of a country invading another one.

In the case of ISIL or the others is an extremist movement that has nothing to do with the base religion anymore that are doing horrible things around the world based on someone's personal feelings and pride.
Much like the invasion of Vietnam or Iraq!

[Ombud]

So what you're saying is the version of Islam practiced in the Middle East is out of the Middle Ages (women's rights, forced organ donation, the right to form an independent thought without losing one's head) whereas the version practiced elsewhere isn't? And they're not based on the same Quran? Some are based on the version of it that you read?

And that's what's so great about this country .... I can disagree with you and keep my head / body parts

[mroped]

Be as it may, or you think about it, it appears that is hard for you to comprehend that other religions beside Christianity have their own nut cases.
Case in point: Timothy McVeigh.
Did he represent ALL Christians American or did he do it on his own?
Almost 150 casualties mostly children. Does that make all Christians child killers or just McVeigh a nut case?

And as far as the Quran that I read, part of it was very much similar to the Old Testament so yes there are some things like" a woman should be subservient to the man" or that one is allowed to have slaves and have multiple mistresses.
Dont forget that Ishmael the first born of Abraham was the son of a mistress/slave.
Or maybe you choose to deny the existence of that part of the Bible.

Are the modern Muslims still clinging to some old customs promoted by the Quran?
Yes but they are evolving and in time they will be in lockstep with everybody.
Islam as a religion is a bit over 500 years younger than Christianity. That puts them in about the year of 1500 of their evolution. Where was Christianity 500 years ago?
Did women have rights? We're the masses asked what they think?

[Virgil Showlion]

Where was Christianity 500 years ago? Did women have rights?

They weren't being systematically raped and murdered, if that's what you mean. They could work, conduct business, commute freely, hold titles. They weren't ashamed to be women.

[Deleted]

Dec 28, 2015 9:49:39 GMT -5 Ombud said:

So what you're saying is the version of Islam practiced in the Middle East is out of the Middle Ages (women's rights, forced organ donation, the right to form an independent thought without losing one's head) whereas the version practiced elsewhere isn't? And they're not based on the same Quran? Some are based on the version of it that you read?

And that's what's so great about this country .... I can disagree with you and keep my head / body parts

Look for pictures of women in Iran in the 1970s... Before we helped set them back yet again...

[Deleted]

Dec 28, 2015 11:14:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Where was Christianity 500 years ago? Did women have rights?

They weren't being systematically raped and murdered, if that's what you mean. They could work, conduct business, commute freely, hold titles. They weren't ashamed to be women.

Seriously? You don't have to look back even that far to find examples of women being denigrated by Christianity. 

Of of the top of my head lets go Magdelan Laundries, let's talk about being unclean after childbirth, particularly after a girl birth, and not allowed in church or buried consecrated if bleeding, too soon after childbirth, about being blamed for rape or molestation, etc. the hole keeping women subservient was part of them not having a vote, seeing them as inferior to men...

heck, just read a piece written by Carter in 2009 about quitting Southern Baptist because they continue to contribute to contribute to the inequality of women.

[mroped]

Let's agree to disagree on the issue. I'm not gonna change your mind and I'm not trying too, I'm just trying to explain that some general ideas and beliefs are flawed.
Anyhow, right or wrong, you are entitled to your beliefs!

I, was born in a very conservative Christian community. There was just one church in town and everyone belonged to that church. So conservative that even Catholics were considered too liberal. That is the Orthodox Church in its glory.
As a young child, I was taught that Christians are the "good guys" because we believe in Jesus and he is our Savior, blah,blah,blah!
That those people that we call Muslims are evil, they are pagans because they don't accept Jesus Christ but instead they push this guy they call Mohammed and they call him a prophet. Sometimes they were even playing the role of boogeyman: "if you don't behave, I'll give you to those Muslim people and you'll have to wear a turban for the rest of your life and pants that look like a dress and funny pointy shoes!"
And The child would turn docile!
But one day, April 9th 1974 to be more exact, I turned 6!

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 28, 2015 11:46:27 GMT -5 oped said:

Dec 28, 2015 11:14:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

They weren't being systematically raped and murdered, if that's what you mean. They could work, conduct business, commute freely, hold titles. They weren't ashamed to be women.

Seriously? You don't have to look back even that far to find examples of women being denigrated by Christianity. 

Of of the top of my head lets go Magdelan Laundries, let's talk about being unclean after childbirth, particularly after a girl birth, and not allowed in church or buried consecrated if bleeding, too soon after childbirth, about being blamed for rape or molestation, etc. the hole keeping women subservient was part of them not having a vote, seeing them as inferior to men...

heck, just read a piece written by Carter in 2009 about quitting Southern Baptist because they continue to contribute to contribute to the inequality of women.

The uncleanliness after childbirth was an issue of physiology and hygiene. It wasn't inherently denigrating. Men who experienced nocturnal emissions, handled corpses, or suffered various contagions were also considered unclean. People dealt with it.

The Bible does require that the husband love the wife and the wife to be subservient to the husband. It doesn't say the woman is inferior, and in fact Genesis indicates that woman is "comparable to" man; the two simply have different roles. God created us with the intention that the genders serve diverse roles. The biblical family--a father as the head of the household who gives his life for the wife, a compassionate mother who is subservient to her husband, together rearing Godly offspring--is symbolic of the marriage between Christ (the husband) and the Church (the bride) rearing Godly offspring. Many scriptures make this plain.

For those who prefer to erase any distinction between the roles of men and women, which is what many consider "equality", you're right: the Bible is not your friend. "Equality" per this definition leads to systemic failure. You get worsening strife, contention, divorce, dysfunction, misery, and eventually complete moral abandon.

As for women "being blamed for rape or molestation", Old Testament law and testimonies make it clear when the man is at fault and when both the man and woman are at fault. The conditions are very reasonable. If Christendom decided to ignore these laws in the 16th century, that's their problem.

[Ombud]

Dec 28, 2015 12:48:29 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

As for women "being blamed for rape or molestation", Old Testament law and testimonies make it clear when the man is at fault and when both the man and woman are at fault. The conditions are very reasonable. If Christendom decided to ignore these laws in the 16th century, that's their problem.

So Muslim Middle East has progressed to where we were 500 years ago? Or earlier? I kinda don't think they're smack dab in the middle of Renaissance thinking

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 28, 2015 13:10:16 GMT -5 Ombud said:

Dec 28, 2015 12:48:29 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

As for women "being blamed for rape or molestation", Old Testament law and testimonies make it clear when the man is at fault and when both the man and woman are at fault. The conditions are very reasonable. If Christendom decided to ignore these laws in the 16th century, that's their problem.

So Muslim Middle East has progressed to where we were 500 years ago? Or earlier? I kinda don't think they're smack dab in the middle of Renaissance thinking

The whole "they're where we were 500 years ago" argument is bunkum. As much as people try to simplify the matter, there's no one spectrum of personal rights or women's rights, nor is there any linear progression along any such spectrum. There's no "Muslim Middle East" with a collective set of rights, beliefs, and values.

Yes, most Muslims share some values and beliefs in common with pre-industrial Europe, but even modern Salafism shares some values and beliefs that are more characteristic of the 19th and 20th centuries. There's no linear "evolution" of society, and there are many societies changing, not all in the same way. Trying to pin all societies on a one-dimensional spectrum is an exercise in futility. Even if there was merit to such an exercise, the spectrum wouldn't have any close correspondence to time.

You have to look at what doctrines different groups follow, what they consider to be the ideal standard of conduct, what they look to as examples, and the degree to which their actions comport with their stated beliefs. Comparative studies on culture need to be specific and granular. "They're where we were 500 years ago" need not apply.

[mroped]

Is the argument "they are 500 years behind" bunkum as some call it?
Sure but so is the "why aren't they more like us" question.
Diferent culture, Diferent traditions.
For the same reason that most Christians believe that their religion is the right one!
why do Christians go to church on Sunday when according to the Bible they should do that on Saturday and work on Sunday?

Are some of their practices wrong or outdated? Maybe, but by who's standards.

Women rights, equality and the whole cohort of things that the advanced/modern society affords its members today are universally accepted as "the right way".
However there are within this societies those that still believe otherwise, those that still believe that women are not equal to men, that whites are superior and let's not forget that "Christians are better!"
this is the thing you see: we live in a diverse world and if we all would be in lock step with each other and agree on all issues then everything would be peachy...and boring!
To combat boredom, the same God that created Christianity, the perfect religion and a couple less perfect ones, created the "not so good" one too.
Without further ado, I give you Islam: the religion that some consider evil for a reason that they can't explain

[swamp]

Dec 28, 2015 12:48:29 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 28, 2015 11:46:27 GMT -5 oped said:

Seriously? You don't have to look back even that far to find examples of women being denigrated by Christianity. 

Of of the top of my head lets go Magdelan Laundries, let's talk about being unclean after childbirth, particularly after a girl birth, and not allowed in church or buried consecrated if bleeding, too soon after childbirth, about being blamed for rape or molestation, etc. the hole keeping women subservient was part of them not having a vote, seeing them as inferior to men...

heck, just read a piece written by Carter in 2009 about quitting Southern Baptist because they continue to contribute to contribute to the inequality of women.

The uncleanliness after childbirth was an issue of physiology and hygiene. It wasn't inherently denigrating. Men who experienced nocturnal emissions, handled corpses, or suffered various contagions were also considered unclean. People dealt with it.

The Bible does require that the husband love the wife and the wife to be subservient to the husband. It doesn't say the woman is inferior, and in fact Genesis indicates that woman is "comparable to" man; the two simply have different roles. God created us with the intention that the genders serve diverse roles. The biblical family--a father as the head of the household who gives his life for the wife, a compassionate mother who is subservient to her husband, together rearing Godly offspring--is symbolic of the marriage between Christ (the husband) and the Church (the bride) rearing Godly offspring. Many scriptures make this plain.

For those who prefer to erase any distinction between the roles of men and women, which is what many consider "equality", you're right: the Bible is not your friend. "Equality" per this definition leads to systemic failure. You get worsening strife, contention, divorce, dysfunction, misery, and eventually complete moral abandon.

As for women "being blamed for rape or molestation", Old Testament law and testimonies make it clear when the man is at fault and when both the man and woman are at fault. The conditions are very reasonable. If Christendom decided to ignore these laws in the 16th century, that's their problem.

You're splitting hairs here.     If man is the head of the household and his wife is there to be subservient, if they have a clash of opinion, the head of the household wins.   That appears that the one with the penis is automatically assumed to make the better decisions.  I don't know how things work in your house, but just because I don't have a penis doesn't mean my ability to make decisions is impaired.  DH values my opinion and concedes that I often make the better decisions, especially financial.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 28, 2015 14:47:27 GMT -5 swamp said:

Dec 28, 2015 12:48:29 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The uncleanliness after childbirth was an issue of physiology and hygiene. It wasn't inherently denigrating. Men who experienced nocturnal emissions, handled corpses, or suffered various contagions were also considered unclean. People dealt with it.

The Bible does require that the husband love the wife and the wife to be subservient to the husband. It doesn't say the woman is inferior, and in fact Genesis indicates that woman is "comparable to" man; the two simply have different roles. God created us with the intention that the genders serve diverse roles. The biblical family--a father as the head of the household who gives his life for the wife, a compassionate mother who is subservient to her husband, together rearing Godly offspring--is symbolic of the marriage between Christ (the husband) and the Church (the bride) rearing Godly offspring. Many scriptures make this plain.

For those who prefer to erase any distinction between the roles of men and women, which is what many consider "equality", you're right: the Bible is not your friend. "Equality" per this definition leads to systemic failure. You get worsening strife, contention, divorce, dysfunction, misery, and eventually complete moral abandon.

As for women "being blamed for rape or molestation", Old Testament law and testimonies make it clear when the man is at fault and when both the man and woman are at fault. The conditions are very reasonable. If Christendom decided to ignore these laws in the 16th century, that's their problem.

You're splitting hairs here.     If man is the head of the household and his wife is there to be subservient, if they have a clash of opinion, the head of the household wins.   That appears that the one with the penis is automatically assumed to make the better decisions.  I don't know how things work in your house, but just because I don't have a penis doesn't mean my ability to make decisions is impaired.  DH values my opinion and concedes that I often make the better decisions, especially financial.

Firstly, a man is not just a woman with a penis. A woman is not just a man without a penis.

Secondly, in a loving, functional marriage, the man values the advice of his mate and delegates certain responsibilities (such as finances) to her. Husband and wife negotiate, compromise, sort out responsibilities, and serve each other.

Thirdly, having a definitive head of the household fixed a priori brings swift closure to irreconcilable conflicts of opinion. The measure facilitates peace and harmony in the family. It doesn't assume that the husband's view is always superior, nor does it require it to be.

Fourthly, we've already had this debate and gotten nowhere with it.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Dec 27, 2015 15:02:27 GMT -5 Ombud said:

Dec 16, 2015 0:20:56 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Exactly, Abraham's other son. The Ishmilities were a huge tribe from the East, the same area that Job was from.

Great point, Art!

So they do not recognize Issac & Jacob?

Here's my 2c of which you are free to trash: any religion based on Do unto others as you would have others do unto you worships the same G-d but perhaps in a slightly different culture / food choice / holidays / name .... but the same precept. Guess who that leaves out? Certainly not Hindu, Christians, Jews, Environmentalists, Buddhists, Sikhs, Baha'i ....

The list of things that the Islamic religion ignores or misrepresents is very long, OB.

The truth always comes out. We have known it for years, but because of the separation of worlds it was never fully understood.

Here is a lot of reading on the topic. F.F. Bruce talks about the "Q" source here: www.bible.ca/b-new-testament-documents-f-f-bruce-ch4.htm

That Q source is expanded here: m.christianpost.com/news/quran-muhammad-oldest-islamic-text-egypt-mosque-biggest-discovery-muslim-world-153293/?m=1

And there are a couple threads in this area of the board: The Gospel of Thomas is one, and the other I can't remember at the moment.

As far as I'm concerned Jesus was known to be almost non religious. As far as I'm concerned, with all the recent archaeological finds the line of Abraham is more than a religion; it's the thing that will end religions. Then we will have no religion, the ten commandments, and one God - and I still think Jesus's birthday will be a big thing.

[Deleted]

Dec 27, 2015 11:23:29 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 27, 2015 6:33:06 GMT -5 @heart2heart said:

Very interesting read here, Virgil. May I ask who you're faith based affiliated with?

I attend services with the Living Church of God (LCG).

Their statement of beliefs can be found here.

Thank you 

[Deleted]

Whether you believe that or not V the fact remains that it is not how th position has been promoted by the church. 

[swamp]

Dec 29, 2015 7:45:41 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Thirdly, having a definitive head of the household fixed a priori brings swift closure to irreconcilable conflicts of opinion. The measure facilitates peace and harmony in the family. It doesn't assume that the husband's view is always superior, nor does it require it to be.

I like that one. I think I am going to tell DW tonight that I am now the master, and she is subservient to me when it really counts.

We will miss you. 

[swamp]

Dec 28, 2015 17:53:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 28, 2015 14:47:27 GMT -5 swamp said:

You're splitting hairs here.     If man is the head of the household and his wife is there to be subservient, if they have a clash of opinion, the head of the household wins.   That appears that the one with the penis is automatically assumed to make the better decisions.  I don't know how things work in your house, but just because I don't have a penis doesn't mean my ability to make decisions is impaired.  DH values my opinion and concedes that I often make the better decisions, especially financial.

Firstly, a man is not just a woman with a penis. A woman is not just a man without a penis.

Secondly, in a loving, functional marriage, the man values the advice of his mate and delegates certain responsibilities (such as finances) to her. Husband and wife negotiate, compromise, sort out responsibilities, and serve each other.

Thirdly, having a definitive head of the household fixed a priori brings swift closure to irreconcilable conflicts of opinion. The measure facilitates peace and harmony in the family. It doesn't assume that the husband's view is always superior, nor does it require it to be.

Fourthly, we've already had this debate and gotten nowhere with it.

It it promtoes peace and harmony y because you get your way.  How would you feel of all disputes went against your wishes?  

And while you may be a wonderful man and consider your wife's wishes to be utmost importance, not all guys are so caring. 

[mmhmm]

Dec 29, 2015 7:45:41 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Thirdly, having a definitive head of the household fixed a priori brings swift closure to irreconcilable conflicts of opinion. The measure facilitates peace and harmony in the family. It doesn't assume that the husband's view is always superior, nor does it require it to be.

I like that one. I think I am going to tell DW tonight that I am now the master, and she is subservient to me when it really counts.

Yeah, dem. That sounds like a great plan! Do let us know how it works out - surely they'll have internet wherever you end up after she wallops you a good one! 

[Deleted]

[mmhmm]

Dec 29, 2015 9:27:23 GMT -5 oped said:

I lived in Iran (Abadan, to be precise) in the 70s. The difference, then to now, is like night and day.

[Deleted]

It's honestly why we need to be hyper vigilant even here about allowing religion to play any part in government. I can tell you that when women in Iran won the right to vote in the 60s they never envisioned the future they have... Just because we've come so far doesn't mean it can't be taken away. I will fight with all I have to stop the religious right from seting back our progress here. 

It's awful how much of a role we played in regime change there  

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 29, 2015 8:22:56 GMT -5 swamp said:

Dec 28, 2015 17:53:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Firstly, a man is not just a woman with a penis. A woman is not just a man without a penis.

Secondly, in a loving, functional marriage, the man values the advice of his mate and delegates certain responsibilities (such as finances) to her. Husband and wife negotiate, compromise, sort out responsibilities, and serve each other.

Thirdly, having a definitive head of the household fixed a priori brings swift closure to irreconcilable conflicts of opinion. The measure facilitates peace and harmony in the family. It doesn't assume that the husband's view is always superior, nor does it require it to be.

Fourthly, we've already had this debate and gotten nowhere with it.

It it promtoes peace and harmony y because you get your way.  How would you feel of all disputes went against your wishes?  

And while you may be a wonderful man and consider your wife's wishes to be utmost importance, not all guys are so caring. 

The most relevant scripture is "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord." (Ephesians 5:22, AKJV)

The clause "as to the Lord" emphasizes the fact that by submitting to her husband, a wife is honouring God by following His instruction. If she's a Christian woman living in faith and obedience to God, she demonstrates her love for Him and for her husband through submission, even if her husband is an imperfect man. It may be trying at times, but she has faith in her Creator and His word, to obey Him, and that He knows what's best for her.

For many of you reading this, you have no faith in God or faith in His word. The Bible is all archaic nonsense, and a woman is foolish to submit herself to her husband when she could be striving to assert herself in a more competitive, combative and "equal" relationship. Hence it's no mystery why you can't fathom a woman at peace living in subjection to her husband. As for me, I know a great many women who are zealous in the faith, who know God and His Christ, who obey God's commandments without qualm or resentfulness, and who reap the benefits of a Godly marriage. Their attitude is no mystery to me either.

[swamp]

I get why some women want to live that way, but i don't want to, so why is out attitude a mystery to you?

Also, it's very condescending to think that since your marriage is what you consider "Godly" that it is better than a non Christian marriage.       

And BTW, I don't think the Bible is archaic nonsense, I think it is an important part in the formation of western culture, and you need to know it to understand how history evolved. Other than the Golden Rule, I just don't think it's a manual for life.

[swamp]

Dec 29, 2015 10:10:58 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Religion had its place in times when civilization was less "organized", or immediately controlled with gendarmes. As a carrot/ stick rewards system it was a crude way to help keep the unwashed masses in line, and from killing each other. Far from perfect, but better than anarchy. 

Of course when it interfered with the machinations of Kings then changes had to be made.  And then presto, we had new religion that allowed kings to do as they needed.  I am speaking here of course about formation of the Anglican Church.

And here we have an example of the role of religion the evolution of culture and government.  Thank you, Dem.

[swamp]

Dec 29, 2015 11:00:11 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Secondly, in a loving, functional marriage, the man values the advice of his mate and delegates certain responsibilities (such as finances) to her. Husband and wife negotiate, compromise, sort out responsibilities, and serve each other.

Virgil I think you are better off emphasizing point two.  In my experience most successful marriages fall somewhere within these parameters, minus that word "delegate".

Some people are recessive, and some are dominant, and this occurs naturally and harmoniously in marriages as well.  Often (but certainly not always) the male tends to be the more dominant partner, and the marriage functions well with this dynamic.  Often one dominates some things, and the other dominates others. However, even if a partner is dominant , there is always give and take in a healthy marriage- negotiation and compromise as you say. 

Some marriages function with one partner dominating and overpowering the other emotionally (and/ or physically) and this may seem peaceful to the outside world, but I think few here would consider that good or healthy, even when the dominated partner seems content.

Your wife is a very lucky woman.

[ArchietheDragon]

Dec 29, 2015 11:15:19 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Your wife is a very lucky woman.

Thank you Swamp. that is a very nice thing to say.  But I assure you, I am a very lucky man.

of course you are.   You were born with a penis. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 29, 2015 11:00:11 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Secondly, in a loving, functional marriage, the man values the advice of his mate and delegates certain responsibilities (such as finances) to her. Husband and wife negotiate, compromise, sort out responsibilities, and serve each other.

Virgil I think you are better off emphasizing point two.  In my experience most successful marriages fall somewhere within these parameters, minus that word "delegate".

Some people are recessive, and some are dominant, and this occurs naturally and harmoniously in marriages as well.  Often (but certainly not always) the male tends to be the more dominant partner, and the marriage functions well with this dynamic.  Often one dominates some things, and the other dominates others. However, even if a partner is dominant , there is always give and take in a healthy marriage- negotiation and compromise as you say. 

Some marriages function with one partner dominating and overpowering the other emotionally (and/ or physically) and this may seem peaceful to the outside world, but I think few here would consider that good or healthy, even when the dominated partner seems content.

That would depend a great deal on the specific meaning of "dominating and overpowering".

We've already had this debate. Let's summarize what we can agree on.

We agree that negotiation and compromise need to happen. We agree that a loving husband mustn't conduct himself like a tyrant, and we agree that both husband and wife will suffer grave unhappiness if he does.

Ideally a marriage will run into few impasses where negotiation and compromise fail to bring about a resolution. In the event such an impasse is reached, this is how God instructs Christians to resolve it. I've seen how it works; I've seen how the west's ideas work; I've seen how Islamic ideas work. I'll take Christian way hands down. If Mrs. Virgil was here, she'd tell you the same thing.