Theological Opinions

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Your goal is not peace, it's WAR! Bwahaha... oh, love.

War rocks! If you're fighting for what's right That's why we're all at Entmoot in the first place - we love LOTR, which IMO is mainly about a fight for what people think is good and right.

GOSH I LOVE THAT BOOK!!!!

cya


(edit - of course I don't mean "real" war "rocks" in and of itself, or that any war is not also difficult and painful. I do mean that "fighting" for something that is good and right is, IMO, worth it.)

[Nurvingiel]

Yeah but that's just self defence! You're scaring me.
I seriously have to get off Entmoot right now. My goodness.

Goodnight everyone! Thanks for replying to my post RÃ*an, I see I cut into your time in the Evidence for Creationism thread.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I was thinking about this getting a snack in the kitchen... if my husband ordered to me to stay home with the kids, I would probably tell him to get bent. But I might choose to stay at home for a while.
At this point in my life I can't imagine staying home, but I can imagine myself having kids at some distant date.

I agree. My mother worked as a real estate agent and then she opened up a bookstore in Indiana. My mother would have been furious if he told her she had to stay home. She was depressed after having giving up her real estate career by moving to Indiana,but it was a fmaily decision - not my father's to startup the business (although it was DEFINTELY not my choose to move out to Indiana )

I am actually very concerned with my sister - I feel that her husband is into this woman submission thing. My sister assures me he's just joking - but I look out for my sister. I get pissed when she's on the phone and he's there and I hear the baby crying and it doesn't seem like he's helping her at all. She assures me he helps at other times - I just wish I saw some evidence of it.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

That may be so. I'm going by time stamps here though.

Y'know, this really bothered me, because it's an accusation against my integrity, and it's totally false. I'm hoping that it's entirely a misunderstanding on your part. So the kids will stay in daycare a few minutes while I explain, then you may believe it or not, as you wish.

Whenever I make a post, I always read it thru, because written communication is a lot tougher than verbal, so I like to be careful and accurate. I usually always end up editing a post, esp. if it's long or on a complex subject. In this case, from what I remember, I typed the post and entered it, and started reading the post to check for possible edits. I then took a brief, um, break , then finished reading it, and then hit the "edit" button (apparently after you posted your quote of my post). Obviously I was NOT able to see your post at this time, because I was still reading my post and the thread had not been able to update with your post. Then I edited the post and entered it. Then, and NOT before, I saw your post.

At this point, solely out of courtesy, I decided to let you know that I had just edited the post, because I thought you might have been a little embarassed to quote something that was no longer there. I know that I would have appreciated that courtesy. I don't you if YOU would, but I did it because I knew that I would have appreciated it, and I was trying to be courteous to you. That's exactly what happened, as far as when I saw your post, and then why I told you the quoted section was now different than how I had just edited it.

I was then really, really shocked and saddened to see that you thought I had edited it for unethical reasons, and especially to see that IYO, I had done this before

Feel free to believe what you want, but I have never edited a post for unethical reasons, and I would never edit a post for reasons you suggested. What I described is exactly what happened. I never saw your post until after I finished editing my post, and it makes me very sad to hear that you think I was unethical

[jerseydevil]

That's fine. I have to leave now - I have a meeting.

But I don't understand why you owuld think I would be embarrassed by quoting you before you made an edit chnage. If anyone asked - I would say you must hjave edited your post. I think it would be more you whould would be embarrassed if someone noticed that - more than I would be.

[Rían]

It's just me - if I quoted someone, not realizing they had just changed it, and someone pointed out that I had quoted something that wasn't even there, I would feel a little embarassed, like maybe I made a mistake or something and quoted the wrong person or something. It's just me. I can get kinda shy, I guess. My only thought there was concern for you, that perhaps you would feel the same way. I thought, "oh my goodness, he didn't realize I was editing it - I'll go tell him so he can change it."

That's all. I'm goofy - what can I say? I won't tell you again unless you want me to.

[Rían]

Maybe I should use the "preview" option! I think that's probably the best solution, because I really DO edit pretty much every long post.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by rÃ*

War rocks! If you're fighting for what's right

war is always a terrible and sad thing to behold, and should never be, never

[inked]

LCoU,

Since this is the theology thread, I will take issue with your last. There is a just war. This has long been a contentious issue in Christendom since the legalization of Christianity under the Emperor Constantine.

War is not a good thing in and of itself. But it is a justifiable action. Those who serve in the military can do so lawfully under God and human laws. They individually remain responsible for their actions. There are codes for the proper conduct of war.

I agree that it is a terrible thing. I just cannot agree that it "never should be, never".

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i still do not agree with conflict, at all

and the term 'just war' may be bandied by anyone
the crusades were 'just wars', to the europeans anyway, from the turkish point of view, however, they were a series of wars whereby the saracens and ottomans were expelled from their homeland, and from lands sacred to the islamic rleigion, simply because they were also sacred to the christian religion

'just' maybe, but from who's point of view?

the invasion and annexation of tibet was 'just' to the chinese, however to the expelled gov't and the dalai lama, i hardly believe that it was 'just'

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

war is always a terrible and sad thing to behold, and should never be, never

Oh, Chrys, please look at my statement in context

Nurv was teasing me, I was teasing back and making a point that the little "war" that I had was worth the fight. BTW, it was hard and painful, but WELL worth it.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Oh, Chrys, please look at my statement in context

Nurv was teasing me, I was teasing back and making a point that the little "war" that I had was worth the fight. BTW, it was hard and painful, but WELL worth it.

you misunderstand me, i just wished to highlight that some reliogious aspects do feel that war is good, i wasn't attacking you, eru forbid! if there is a subtext with me, i do try to put it in plain view

[Rían]

well, then I don't see why you quoted me and then talked about war, but that's ok

I was WAAAYY overstating things when I said "war rocks!" I was just really excited that we had worked some difficult things thru recently as a family, and worked them thru well and with dignity, and if I had been "submissive" in what I think is a WRONG sense, then these things would never have been worked on. I think it's great to "fight" for what you think is right, as long as the fight is with dignity and love and consideration of others.

[Rían]

So I hope I have presented what I think is an accurate picture of Biblical submission - it's a strong woman making her own choice to let her husband make final decisions when there is disagreement, as long as the decision is not clearly against God's will. It's my choice, and I think it's a good idea, and I choose to do it that way.

And I think men that think submission is an excuse to browbeat their wives and mistreat them should be shot. No, castrated! No, shot then castrated. No - that's no good - castrated then shot! I think it's a travesty for a man to use his strength to hurt a woman, when he should use it to bless her.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i still don't quite understand, but that's just me and my psychosis

like i say, my mum is the top predator in my household, after her comes my older sister, then me and my twin sis, then my dad, so any form of submission would be too weid in my, ahem, 'worldview'

[inked]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

i still do not agree with conflict, at all

and the term 'just war' may be bandied by anyone
the crusades were 'just wars', to the europeans anyway, from the turkish point of view, however, they were a series of wars whereby the saracens and ottomans were expelled from their homeland, and from lands sacred to the islamic rleigion, simply because they were also sacred to the christian religion

'just' maybe, but from who's point of view?

the invasion and annexation of tibet was 'just' to the chinese, however to the expelled gov't and the dalai lama, i hardly believe that it was 'just'

I suspect that we can argue specific wars ad nauseum. After all, given that there "should never be conflict" I do not think we can justify American assistance in WWI or WWII, can we? In fact, by that criteria, the spread of western civilization can be seen as one long immoral event. Some "wars" were just more involved than others.

But, what we need to specify are what are the criteria for a just war, if you care to discuss it.

Guten abend, mein Herr!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Inked

"should never be conflict" I do not think we can justify American assistance in WWI or WWII

erm, if no conflict, america would have nothing to assist with, so erm...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

erm, if no conflict, america would have nothing to assist with, so erm...

So what you're arguing against is really only preemptive assault, correct?

Even preemptive assault can have really good reasoning, though. The side that initially launches an assault usually gets an advantage, like Japan did after Pearl Harbor. "For attack them before they attack you," to be justified, one has to have really good intelligence that they are a threat. I think preemptive assault on the behalf of your allies or friends can also be justified. It makes it so that the war has fewer casualties. The preemptive assault in Iraq was done with a major motive being that we keep Iraq from using its chemical and biological weapons to terrorize the world. Hence what we were doing was done with the goal of saving what could have been millions of lives. The recent war in Iraq was one of the most humane wars in history. If Iraq had possessed weapons of mass destruction, our preemptive assault would have taken an extremely small number of lives (by far the majority of these belonging to our enemies), while saving millions. That was an example of a preemptive war at its finest. I doubt that history will show many other conquests that have been that . . . tidy. Not that the aftermath has been all that tidy- I'm talking about the war itself, not all of these Syrian terrorists.

Waiting for the enemy to attack you, when there is good reason to believe they eventually will, gives them time to get stronger and more powerful. It means that there will be more lives lost, on their side and on yours.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

erm, if no conflict, america would have nothing to assist with, so erm...

You'll never convince all nations to cease all war. Do you believe in heaven? That seems to me to be what you are desiring. That's not Earth .

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I don't think they are interchangeable. I thought you were using them this way, for example here: ...
I took this as a command for the husband to respect the wife. What does this quote (above) mean?

That Christ died for the church, served the church, and put her needs above His own, and men are called to reach for that goal in how they treat their wives. This involves respect, of course, so maybe that's what you mean.

I disagree. (Natch. ) Even if this is true in many, or even most cases, how is a good marriage based on what other people do? As I said earlier, people are individuals. If you respect each other, including your respective strengths and weakness, this lays the groundwork for a good marriage. The husband doesn't need extra rules just because he made truck noises when he was a little boy. I know you're not saying this exactly, but my point is that I don't think people should define their marriage on generalizations that may not apply to them. (Well, they can do what they like, but it just doesn't seem like a good idea to me.)

IMO, I think it is a solid general observation that women are different than men (and vice versa) in the ways I stated. And that it makes sense to admonish men in areas that they are weaker in and admonish women in ways that they are weaker in, in a general letter.

It seemed to be fashionable for awhile to say that boys were like boys only because of environment, and ditto with girls. Many people tried to prove this. It finally died an ignomious death, because even if you gave boys dolls, they turned them into guns, in general. And even if you gave girls sticks, they talked to them, in general. Not every girl, and not every boy. But the VAST majority of girls and boys, IMO. A statistically significant number.

Again, I feel this general statement is not necessary in the marriage between two individuals.

And I feel it is, given my observations of my own marriage and other marriages

If respect is not as important to the wife as the relationship then she should certainly take that into account. If it's of equal or greater importance, then she should take that into account. Neither the husband nor the wife need someone else to tell them how they feel.

I don't think it's telling them how to feel. I think it's pointing out that wives tend to need to improve in one area, and husbands in another. And I think that's true, from what I have observed and read about.

(Not to beat this point to death, but I don't think you can say something is unnatural for an entire group of people.)

I think you can certainly say it's true in general for a group of people. Men and women's brains are different, as well as their bodies. IMO, they are equal but different, and this is GOOD. It's way cool, in fact!

Well, you seem to be of two minds. I'm confused. On the one hand, you seem to be stating that both the husband and wife need to respect each other. On the other hand, you suggest that the husband and wife must go about this in different ways. Is it these different ways, with accompanying respect, that form the idea of Biblical submission?

Later - gtg again! Remind me if I forget.