ah, so we are getting to something I'm not aware of, is Rev Moon a prophet or messenger and what you are providing us is a dissemination of his teachings?
I suggest one of the reasons why Christianity is losing the cultural war is that all those people, like yourself, who insist on inventing their own individual interpretation of what Christianity is and what its Scripture means, diffuses the original and authentic message beyond all recognition and reduces it to a matter of personal opinion.
Christianity ceases thereby to be an external and objective actuality in the minds and hearts of men, and becomes rather the reflection of one's own inner culture ... in effect ... a reflection of the cult of self.
Not until people start looking for what it is, and stop seeking to affirm what they think it is, or what they want it to be, will a true Christian culture emerge.
A culture of gift, and not one of possession, which modern culture is, and which infects all modern interpretations of Christianity.
Thomas
Christianity ceases thereby to be an external and objective actuality in the minds and hearts of men, and becomes rather the reflection of one's own inner culture ... in effect ... a reflection of the cult of self.
Not until people start looking for what it is, and stop seeking to affirm what they think it is, or what they want it to be, will a true Christian culture emerge.
A culture of gift, and not one of possession, which modern culture is, and which infects all modern interpretations of Christianity.
Thomas
S
soleil10
Guest
Wil, what I share is like everyone else. It is my personal opinion and belief.
You know my denomination. If you have a different or better opinion and belief or you think what I post is not correct just share it. I am always open to learn.
I thought that is why interfaith forum is a place of exchange
I always personnaly assum that everyone believe their faith is God's faith or their denomination is God's denomination. I do not fault anyone for that. I expect it.
Wil, you are trying to put me in one of your box or affix a label on me or find some evil motivation.
What are you afraid of ?
The point I made to C is : Do you believe that God has stopped talking during the last 2000 years ?
May be you can share your opinion about that . ?????
S
soleil10
Guest
Thomas what you ar saying is that your interpretation is the one and only and that when everyone agree with you a true Christian culture will emerge. Am I reading you right ?
I personnaly believe that while Christianity is the central religion, all main religions are from God and have a lot in common. Before the human fall, the only institution God created was the family. We should never forget that.
S
soleil10
Guest
Hoops, Seattle
I made a typo Ezeckiel 29 8-17 should be 28 verse 17.
I also want to add, the inspiration for that post is from "the master plan"
by Kevin Mc Carthy
I made a typo Ezeckiel 29 8-17 should be 28 verse 17.
I also want to add, the inspiration for that post is from "the master plan"
by Kevin Mc Carthy
No, quite the reverse.
I'm saying I follow an unbroken and Apostolic Tradition and can trace the teachings I follow — which are not my own interpretations or inventions — back to their source and origin.
I and billions like me ...
But today, the divergence from an authentic Christian culture is increasing exponentially as everyone steps up to offer their own reinterpretation of the tradition according to their own taste.
I would have thought that as a Christian, if family is that important to you, then contemplation of the Holy Family would have been central to your quest.
Certainly that subject matter has inspired saints and sages down through the ages (not to mention the arts generally) and I would have thought provided a rich seam of endeavour.
Thomas
S
soleil10
Guest
Actually Thomas if you read carefully between the line, the cental theme of my posts, including this one is the family.
In fact, the history of the world of strife sorrow and pain is one that is attribuable to the breakdown of the family, the original family, that is.
This is the perpective of the Garden of Eden story in the book of Genesis.
God was seeking to establish the prototipycal Holy family from wich was to emerge an eternal legacy leading to a world and history of peace and familyhood.
Please write a post about the Holy family of Jesus and how you think it should be contemplated and how it is a model for Christians to follow.
bob x
Well-Known Member
Obviously, the husband and wife should never have sex, and if nonetheless they have a child, he should never have sex or have children either.
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
Now according to this site, Soleil10, christiancourier.com, their interpretation of Ezekiel doesn't seem to match up with yours.
A Study of Ezekiel 28
By WAYNE JACKSON, May 1, 2006
Does Ezekiel 28:11-19 have reference to the “fall of Satan”? Is it a preview of the so-called Anti-Christ? If not, to what does it refer?
In point of fact, this segment of Ezekiel’s prophecy has reference neither to a “fall of Satan,” nor to the alleged rise of a sinister “Anti-Christ” near the conclusion of the present age — though these ideas have become popular among some evangelical writers.
Merrill Unger was a respectable scholar, but one who ventured far afield in this instance. In his book on demonology, he argued that this segment of Ezekiel’s work spoke of the ancient fall of Satan (p. 15; cf. Coffman, 285ff). Similarly, C.H. Pember, in his book Earth’s Earliest Ages, contended for this view in his defense of the “gap theory,” which was an effort to harmonize the Genesis record with secular geology.
There is a popular theory among certain dispensationalists who contend that the imagery of this segment of Ezekiel’s document previews the “Anti-Christ” (Lindsey and Carlson, pp. 41-50).
However, as Ellison observed: “Those who implicitly hold [such views] have generally little idea of how unknown [these notions are] in wider Christian circles, or of how little basis there is for [these theories] in fact” (p. 108).
An Interpretative Principle
There is an important principle of Bible interpretation that must be emphasized at the commencement of this discussion.
When there is an inspired narrative that contains a significant portion of symbolism (as several biblical books do), and there is no specific historical connection within the immediate context, the conscientious Bible student must seek to determine, on the basis of a broader context, what the background of the text may be. He is not at liberty to extract, from his own imagination, an “interpretation” that is wholly alien to the historical text, or that stands in contradiction to information found elsewhere in the sacred volume.
On the other hand, when the context specifically identifies the thrust of the symbolism, the issue is settled. And it is nothing short of exegetical criminality to substitute one’s personal “expository agenda” for that which the inspired author has stated explicitly.
Ezekiel’s View
The issue pertaining to this segment of scripture, therefore, is this: what historical significance has the prophet Ezekiel assigned to the narrative? “Moreover the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, son of man, take up a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say unto him, Thus says the Lord Jehovah?” (28:11-12; emp. added). Could a text be clearer?
By WAYNE JACKSON, May 1, 2006
Does Ezekiel 28:11-19 have reference to the “fall of Satan”? Is it a preview of the so-called Anti-Christ? If not, to what does it refer?
In point of fact, this segment of Ezekiel’s prophecy has reference neither to a “fall of Satan,” nor to the alleged rise of a sinister “Anti-Christ” near the conclusion of the present age — though these ideas have become popular among some evangelical writers.
Merrill Unger was a respectable scholar, but one who ventured far afield in this instance. In his book on demonology, he argued that this segment of Ezekiel’s work spoke of the ancient fall of Satan (p. 15; cf. Coffman, 285ff). Similarly, C.H. Pember, in his book Earth’s Earliest Ages, contended for this view in his defense of the “gap theory,” which was an effort to harmonize the Genesis record with secular geology.
There is a popular theory among certain dispensationalists who contend that the imagery of this segment of Ezekiel’s document previews the “Anti-Christ” (Lindsey and Carlson, pp. 41-50).
However, as Ellison observed: “Those who implicitly hold [such views] have generally little idea of how unknown [these notions are] in wider Christian circles, or of how little basis there is for [these theories] in fact” (p. 108).
An Interpretative Principle
There is an important principle of Bible interpretation that must be emphasized at the commencement of this discussion.
When there is an inspired narrative that contains a significant portion of symbolism (as several biblical books do), and there is no specific historical connection within the immediate context, the conscientious Bible student must seek to determine, on the basis of a broader context, what the background of the text may be. He is not at liberty to extract, from his own imagination, an “interpretation” that is wholly alien to the historical text, or that stands in contradiction to information found elsewhere in the sacred volume.
On the other hand, when the context specifically identifies the thrust of the symbolism, the issue is settled. And it is nothing short of exegetical criminality to substitute one’s personal “expository agenda” for that which the inspired author has stated explicitly.
Ezekiel’s View
The issue pertaining to this segment of scripture, therefore, is this: what historical significance has the prophet Ezekiel assigned to the narrative? “Moreover the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, son of man, take up a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say unto him, Thus says the Lord Jehovah?” (28:11-12; emp. added). Could a text be clearer?
Sloeil10, did you check out the section titled, "An Interpretative Principle"? I think that might be where you've gone astray here...
"He is not at liberty to extract, from his own imagination, an “interpretation” that is wholly alien to the historical text, or that stands in contradiction to information found elsewhere in the sacred volume."
Not bad for an atheist who never read the Bible, eh?
(heartily pats self on back)
S
soleil10
Guest
I do not see how this lenghty copy and paste has anything to do with the subject of my postNow according to this site, Soleil10, christiancourier.com, their interpretation of Ezekiel doesn't seem to match up with yours.A Study of Ezekiel 28By WAYNE JACKSON, May 1, 2006Does Ezekiel 28:11-19 have reference to the “fall of Satan”? Is it a preview of the so-called Anti-Christ? If not, to what does it refer?In point of fact, this segment of Ezekiel’s prophecy has reference neither to a “fall of Satan,” nor to the alleged rise of a sinister “Anti-Christ” near the conclusion of the present age — though these ideas have become popular among some evangelical writers.Merrill Unger was a respectable scholar, but one who ventured far afield in this instance. In his book on demonology, he argued that this segment of Ezekiel’s work spoke of the ancient fall of Satan (p. 15; cf. Coffman, 285ff). Similarly, C.H. Pember, in his book Earth’s Earliest Ages, contended for this view in his defense of the “gap theory,” which was an effort to harmonize the Genesis record with secular geology.There is a popular theory among certain dispensationalists who contend that the imagery of this segment of Ezekiel’s document previews the “Anti-Christ” (Lindsey and Carlson, pp. 41-50).However, as Ellison observed: “Those who implicitly hold [such views] have generally little idea of how unknown [these notions are] in wider Christian circles, or of how little basis there is for [these theories] in fact” (p. 108).An Interpretative PrincipleThere is an important principle of Bible interpretation that must be emphasized at the commencement of this discussion.When there is an inspired narrative that contains a significant portion of symbolism (as several biblical books do), and there is no specific historical connection within the immediate context, the conscientious Bible student must seek to determine, on the basis of a broader context, what the background of the text may be. He is not at liberty to extract, from his own imagination, an “interpretation” that is wholly alien to the historical text, or that stands in contradiction to information found elsewhere in the sacred volume.On the other hand, when the context specifically identifies the thrust of the symbolism, the issue is settled. And it is nothing short of exegetical criminality to substitute one’s personal “expository agenda” for that which the inspired author has stated explicitly.Ezekiel’s ViewThe issue pertaining to this segment of scripture, therefore, is this: what historical significance has the prophet Ezekiel assigned to the narrative? “Moreover the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, son of man, take up a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say unto him, Thus says the Lord Jehovah?” (28:11-12; emp. added). Could a text be clearer?
Sloeil10, did you check out the section titled, "An Interpretative Principle"? I think that might be where you've gone astray here..."He is not at liberty to extract, from his own imagination, an “interpretation” that is wholly alien to the historical text, or that stands in contradiction to information found elsewhere in the sacred volume."
Not bad for an atheist who never read the Bible, eh?
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
I have no idea. I'm the non-Bible-reading atheist, after all.
What AM I doing here anyway?
(pats self even more heartily on the back)
bob x
Well-Known Member
Soleil10, you are inventing a story about Lucifer in the Garden of Eden, all based on the assumption that the Ezekiel text is referring to events at the beginning of time, when Ezekiel himself is entirely explicit that he is talking about a political figure from his own time, describing him in allegorical and symbolic terms, somewhat as you might say about a contemporary politician who has fallen into scandal, "Man, you were King of the World, you were Elvis and John Wayne all wrapped into one, you were Jesus' right hand-- and now you're a piece of dog crap, lying in the gutter!"
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Soleil10, your paradigm of collective salvation via the family is inconsistant with the emphasis on individual salvation that is repeated throughout the bible. The Holy Spirit can be viewed as collective, which brings people together into a spiritual family, and is shown to be preferable to the fleshly family.
I could easily overlay an alien paradigm over the Christian one, but does it make it true if it is consistant with the Bible? How would that compare to a paradigm that isn't even consistant with the Bible?
Let's try a Buddhist paradigm:
I will overlay the idea of the Four Sublime States with the idea of God, Satan, and Lucifer:
I could easily overlay an alien paradigm over the Christian one, but does it make it true if it is consistant with the Bible? How would that compare to a paradigm that isn't even consistant with the Bible?
Let's try a Buddhist paradigm:
I will overlay the idea of the Four Sublime States with the idea of God, Satan, and Lucifer:
The four sublime states are Metta (loving kindness,) Karuna (compassion,) Mudita (sympathetic joy,) and Upekkha (equanimity.) I will call these Godly qualities.
These four sublime states have what are called near enemies and distant enemies. The distant enemies are pretty much the opposite of their sublime states and easy to see. I will call these Satanic qualities.
The Satanic qualities would then be:
Painful ill will instead of metta (loving kindness,) cruelty instead of karuna (compassion,) jealousy, envy, and resentment instead of mudita (sympatetic joy,) and craving and clinging instead of upekkha (equanimity.)
The near enemies of the four sublime states disguise themselves as the sublime states, and it takes mindfulness to guard oneself from their more subtle influence. I will call these Luciferian qualities, because they disguise themselves as an angel of light, and the need for mindfulness will fit in with your paradigm of Lucifer being a teacher (mindfulness) and a "covering cherib" (mask of godliness.)
The Luciferian qualities would then be:
Selfish affection disguising itself as metta (loving kindness,) pity disguising itself as karuna (compassion,) exuberant indulgence disguising itself as mudita (sympathetic joy,) and indifference disguising itself as upekkha (equanimity.)
I could then plug in this formula into what is written in the bible to expand this paradigm to make it believable and fully consistant with the Bible. However, would that make it true? Isn't it just an overlaying mask, a near enemy, or a Lucifarian quality? (according to the overlaying paradigm I just proposed...)These four sublime states have what are called near enemies and distant enemies. The distant enemies are pretty much the opposite of their sublime states and easy to see. I will call these Satanic qualities.
The Satanic qualities would then be:
Painful ill will instead of metta (loving kindness,) cruelty instead of karuna (compassion,) jealousy, envy, and resentment instead of mudita (sympatetic joy,) and craving and clinging instead of upekkha (equanimity.)
The near enemies of the four sublime states disguise themselves as the sublime states, and it takes mindfulness to guard oneself from their more subtle influence. I will call these Luciferian qualities, because they disguise themselves as an angel of light, and the need for mindfulness will fit in with your paradigm of Lucifer being a teacher (mindfulness) and a "covering cherib" (mask of godliness.)
The Luciferian qualities would then be:
Selfish affection disguising itself as metta (loving kindness,) pity disguising itself as karuna (compassion,) exuberant indulgence disguising itself as mudita (sympathetic joy,) and indifference disguising itself as upekkha (equanimity.)
I know ... but what is entirely absent from your thought is the 'nuptial mystery' which is central to Christianity. Ther family is not central to Revelation, God is ... the state of the family, good or bad, is in relation to that first principle. You seem to be elevating a secondary and subsequent issue to one of primary importance.
Not so. If you read Scripture, the history of the world of strife, sorrow and pain is disobedience with regard to the Will of God. You might note that Adam and Eve acted together — as a family — and fell together, as a family.
Family breakdown did not occur until Cain murdered Abel.
Not at all, that's all your supposition. I would say that God established the material order according to His will, hierarchically and horizontally, by which the world would have naturally proceeded towards its fulfillment. Family is simply part and parcel of the deal, nothing special.
I would direct you to the teachings of the Mystical Body in St Paul, the unity of fellowship in St John, the Nuptial Mystery in St Paul, the analogy of the Bride and the Groom in the Gospels, and the symbolism of the Spouse of the Lamb in Apocalypse.
You might also like to consider the image of Mary as the 'New Eve' ... and of course the Bride of the Groom is the Church, which brings me back to your original point.
Where the Church is, is where Christian culture is ...
Thomas
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
Soleil10, here's more cut and paste from that article, just in case you didn't follow the link [bolding mine]...
The Funeral Song
It is not unusual in Bible literature to accompany a divine judgment with a “funeral” dirge that echoes the predictions of sacred justice upon evil. See, for example, the lyrics of the book of Lamentations that accompany Jeremiah’s prophecies of the impending destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, as well as Ezekiel’s lamentation over Tyre in chapter 27 of the present document.
Thus, verses 12-19 constitute a “funeral lament” over the fallen “king of Tyre” (v. 12). It is paramount that the Bible student keep in view this point. This discussion is not regarding Satan; rather, it is about a human king over a material city. To ignore this fact is to be guilty of the coarsest form of textual manipulation..
Dude... "the coarsest form of textual manipulation"... harsh.
The Funeral Song
It is not unusual in Bible literature to accompany a divine judgment with a “funeral” dirge that echoes the predictions of sacred justice upon evil. See, for example, the lyrics of the book of Lamentations that accompany Jeremiah’s prophecies of the impending destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, as well as Ezekiel’s lamentation over Tyre in chapter 27 of the present document.
Thus, verses 12-19 constitute a “funeral lament” over the fallen “king of Tyre” (v. 12). It is paramount that the Bible student keep in view this point. This discussion is not regarding Satan; rather, it is about a human king over a material city. To ignore this fact is to be guilty of the coarsest form of textual manipulation..
Dude... "the coarsest form of textual manipulation"... harsh.
S
soleil10
Guest
Thomas, before I comment, I need to ask you what you define by "nuptial mystery"
Once A&E separated themselves form their Heavenly Parent (God), he chased them from the Garden. Their children were born outside of the garden. The root of the breakdown of their family comes from the human fall. The murdered of Abel by his older brother is another phase of the original break down of their family away from God.
God was and wanted to be part of their family. Instead, they listened to Lucifer and put him in God's position of auhtority. The breakdown of their family started with the breakdown of their relationship with God. It is the root of it.
If God would have been able to bless their marriage and family and A&E had not die spiritually, do you think Cain would have killed his brother. Actually there would not have been any need for them to offer a restoring sacrifice to God and for Cain to submit to his younger brother in a process to reverse the fall of their parents
The whole motiviation and process of creation was a preparation for God's children with whom God wanted to complete His love. In gen 1:28 God gave them 3 blessings to fulfill 1) To mature (being fruitful) 2) to mutiply (create families) and 3) Dominate the earth. Through the family, we can be co-creator with God and experience the 4 realms of love (parental, congugal, brothers/sisters love and children love from their parents)
The family is the school of love, the place to grow spiritually and the way to live eternally on this earth through our descendants and lineage). I am shocked when you write, it is nothing special. Most of the saints in Christianity are single individuals. Because Jesus could not get married, the best way to reach a higher spirituality has been singlehood.
Since Genesis, God wants to have His lineage and His family on earth.
You are using the words, mystical, nuptial mystery, symbolism and image. These are spiritual and abstract symbols. Christianity is based on spiritual salvation because Jesus lost his physical body during the crucifiction.
Did Jesus not come as the second Adam to restore the failure of the first one and originally build the Kingdom of Heaven on earth ?
I am not trying to be disrespectful but honestly based on what you are saying. Jesus' mother would be his wife. The church also is the wife of Jesus who is the bridegroom.
This is exactly my original point, without a clear theology of the family (salvation), Christianity will continue to loose the cultural war.
There is so much confusion about this within Christianity itself.
S
soleil10
Guest
Are you sure ?
The bible is full stories of families,(Adam's family, Noah's family, Abraham's family,Jacob's family, Jesus' family). It is full of stories of brothers, (Abel and Cain, Shem and Ham, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau) Later it is also the story of clans and nations.
The preparation for Jesus' coming happened through family relationships. The human fall is also a family affair. We could go on and on.
Christian's salvation is centered on the individual because Jesus did not have his own family. He died on the cross as a single man.
In genesis God asked A&E to grow to maturity as individuals, then build an individual family center on Him. Unfortunately they failed.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Indeed, all of humanity is one family, and we are all in the same boat. We all have to learn to get along.
Individual free-will has nothing to do with it then, huh?
I suppose you are looking for another route to salvation?And he fulfilled the Law without being married.
There's the crux. Families begin with individuals. One of the fruits of the Holy Spirit listed at Galatians 5:22-23 is self-control, not family control, and not family theology. Self-control. Salvation is through the Spirit, not through the flesh.
Galatians 5
16 I say then, walk by the Spirit (Q) and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires (R) what is against the Spirit, and the Spirit desires what is against the flesh; these are opposed to each other, so that you don't do what you want. (S) 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: [a] [b] sexual immorality, (T) moral impurity, (U) promiscuity, (V) 20 idolatry, (W) sorcery, (X) hatreds, (Y) strife, (Z) jealousy, (AA) outbursts of anger, (AB) selfish ambitions, (AC) dissensions, (AD) factions, (AE) 21 envy, (AF) [c] drunkenness, carousing, (AG) and anything similar, about which I tell you in advance—as I told you before—that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (AH)
22 But the fruit of the Spirit (AI) is love, (AJ) joy, (AK) peace, patience, (AL) kindness, (AM) goodness, faith, [d] 23 gentleness, (AN) self-control. (AO) Against such things there is no law. 24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus (AP) have crucified the flesh (AQ) with its passions and desires. (AR) 25 If we live (AS) by the Spirit, we must also follow the Spirit. 26 We must not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another. (AT)
16 I say then, walk by the Spirit (Q) and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires (R) what is against the Spirit, and the Spirit desires what is against the flesh; these are opposed to each other, so that you don't do what you want. (S) 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: [a] [b] sexual immorality, (T) moral impurity, (U) promiscuity, (V) 20 idolatry, (W) sorcery, (X) hatreds, (Y) strife, (Z) jealousy, (AA) outbursts of anger, (AB) selfish ambitions, (AC) dissensions, (AD) factions, (AE) 21 envy, (AF) [c] drunkenness, carousing, (AG) and anything similar, about which I tell you in advance—as I told you before—that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (AH)
22 But the fruit of the Spirit (AI) is love, (AJ) joy, (AK) peace, patience, (AL) kindness, (AM) goodness, faith, [d] 23 gentleness, (AN) self-control. (AO) Against such things there is no law. 24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus (AP) have crucified the flesh (AQ) with its passions and desires. (AR) 25 If we live (AS) by the Spirit, we must also follow the Spirit. 26 We must not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another. (AT)
S
soleil10
Guest
Yes He did but this was plan B. God had to change His original plan because the people rejected Jesus. This is why the Messiah has to come back once more
Families are made of individuals but a new family is created when two become one
Self-control if I may use your own words is when the mind and body become one. In fallen men they are at war. The bible speaks of dominating the flesh as you mentioned in your post. That is what God asks us to do when he tells us to become fruitful. This is what Jesus ask us when he tells us to become perfect.
The second blessing is to multiply by creating a family and the third blessing is to dominate the earth.
The salvation of the individual is the first step before the salvation at the family level.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
The married man is divided, between the world and the Lord, according to Paul:
1 Corinthians 7
32 I want you to be without concerns. An unmarried man is concerned about the things of the Lord—how he may please (V) the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the things of the world—how he may please his wife— 34 and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is concerned about the things of the Lord, (W) so that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the things of the world—how she may please her husband. 35 Now I am saying this for your own benefit, not to put a restraint on you, but because of what is proper, and so that you may be devoted to the Lord without distraction.
32 I want you to be without concerns. An unmarried man is concerned about the things of the Lord—how he may please (V) the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the things of the world—how he may please his wife— 34 and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is concerned about the things of the Lord, (W) so that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the things of the world—how she may please her husband. 35 Now I am saying this for your own benefit, not to put a restraint on you, but because of what is proper, and so that you may be devoted to the Lord without distraction.
The scripture says self-control is a fruit of the Spirit.
You haven't said anything about the Spirit here. (Are you more concerned about the flesh?)
I would say subdue or replenish the earth, rather than dominate. Dominion was in regard to the animals. (flesh) (Genesis 1:28)
The individual, and that individual's behavior, is paramount here. The individual doing right would lead to acceptance. It was the individual's "fallen countenence" that lead to dysfunction in the family. (Not to mention the call for revenge--more dysfunction.)