Theological Opinions

[Mercutio]

hmm...I have a very good argument on why the U.S. should not have entered WWI...

[/lurking]

[Lief Erikson]

Nurvi, you mentioned a page or two ago that you feared you were hijacking the Theology thread. Don't worry about it! I'm enjoying listening to the conversation enormously. Getting on tonight, I read the conversation from the 15th page to the 12th, everything backwards . Then I had to read it all 12th to 15th to get it all in context again, which made it much more comprehensible and understandable. It's quite interesting and exciting to read and listen to!

One thing I just wanted to add, concerning RÃ*an's "solid general observations" about the different gender-caused traits of girls and boys. I just wanted to mention that that's all I've experienced too. I also wanted to bring up a particularly strong example that shows the differences between genders.

In my family, my older sister stopped playing games of any kind faster then she ought to have . My younger sister tried to get her to play barbies and such, but she was simply not interested in any games, masculine or feminine. All she liked to do was read. All the boys play senseless battle games for fun, and she had to play barbie games by herself. She was fully aware that she was more then welcome to join into our battle games, but she preferred to play alone with her more feminine games then to join into ours, which she was completely uninterested in (which to me is perfectly understandable). She used to play romance games by herself, because no one else was interested. She plays a lot with us too, a lot a lot. As it happens though, in the enormously complex games she plays with us, she always leaves the battles to us to play. That says something! She's grown up in a household full of boys and enjoys it a great deal. The only "society pressure" that she goes through is to conform more to the games males enjoy, and she most strongly resists it. She's more relational too, as is my mother, while my father and his sons are much, much less. My older sister also is more relational, capable of forming friendships easily. Us boys stand around like statues in an ancient park, in public. As does my father. The girls do not.

I think my younger sister, with the powerful opposite society pressure she encounters, is a very strong example of how gender causes people to be different.

Oh yes, another example! My mother! She absolutely loves romance movies, 'chick flicks', and is extremely relational and all that. She grew up in a house with . . . let's see . . . at least three brothers and no sisters. She nonetheless managed to remain extremely feminine, in the face of all that. While she isn't as impressive an example as my younger sister, who is homeschooled and thus outside of much influence other than her brothers, it still is a strong example. My Mom's mother remarked to me about how her sons all played the shooting war games and such as well.

I also have heard stories of parents attempting to keep their children away from all forms of violence. They bought them different toys, like cars and grocery stores and little people to play with, without any weapons or combat figures. The boys were extremely bored with these presents at first, but soon started using their imaginations to turn those toys into soldiers and the grocery stores into forts. That's us. Men.

[sun-star]

I just read through four pages at once, so it's entirely possible I've missed something, but never mind...

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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.

So now we're clear on what Biblical submission is, I'd like to ask why, in two senses of the word.

What is the purpose of Biblical submission? You said that it wasn't just about keeping the peace. I can see that it could have benefits in that it's 'good for people' to learn to submit their own desires, and to learn how to exercise authority wisely... anything else?

Why is it women submitting to men, rather than the other way around? You've said that it's because men and women are different, by which I imagine you mean that men are designed to be leaders and women are designed to be followers. How does this work for people who don't fit those roles - for the exceptions to the rule? I said a couple of pages ago (it got buried, I think ) that I was dismayed by the idea of a Christian ideal which can't possibly apply to every relationship. Are people in a marriage where the woman is the best leader justified in just ignoring the idea of submission?

Lastly (kind of related...), would you consider submission a suggestion or a command for Christians? IOW, is it "try this if you have problems in your marriage, it could sort them out" or "these are the roles and duties prescribed for men and women in marriage, and it's wrong not to follow them"?

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

In my family, my older sister stopped playing games of any kind faster then she ought to have . My younger sister tried to get her to play barbies and such, but she was simply not interested in any games, masculine or feminine. All she liked to do was read. All the boys play senseless battle games for fun, and she had to play barbie games by herself. She was fully aware that she was more then welcome to join into our battle games, but she preferred to play alone with her more feminine games then to join into ours, which she was completely uninterested in (which to me is perfectly understandable). She used to play romance games by herself, because no one else was interested. She plays a lot with us too, a lot a lot. As it happens though, in the enormously complex games she plays with us, she always leaves the battles to us to play. That says something! She's grown up in a household full of boys and enjoys it a great deal. The only "society pressure" that she goes through is to conform more to the games males enjoy, and she most strongly resists it. She's more relational too, as is my mother, while my father and his sons are much, much less. My older sister also is more relational, capable of forming friendships easily. Us boys stand around like statues in an ancient park, in public. As does my father. The girls do not.

I think my younger sister, with the powerful opposite society pressure she encounters, is a very strong example of how gender causes people to be different.

Oh yes, another example! My mother! She absolutely loves romance movies, 'chick flicks', and is extremely relational and all that. She grew up in a house with . . . let's see . . . at least three brothers and no sisters. She nonetheless managed to remain extremely feminine, in the face of all that. While she isn't as impressive an example as my younger sister, who is homeschooled and thus outside of much influence other than her brothers, it still is a strong example. My Mom's mother remarked to me about how her sons all played the shooting war games and such as well.

But what does this tell us about the fact that (for example) my brother never played a war game in his life and is an exceptionally sensitive, intuitive person, while I'm terrible at relating to people on an emotional level and can't stand romance novels? We can all swap personal experiences, but the only thing we could conclude is that people, and families, are endelssly different...

[Nurvingiel]

Good to see you guys Lief, Mercutio, and Sun-star.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Nurvi, you mentioned a page or two ago that you feared you were hijacking the Theology thread. Don't worry about it! I'm enjoying listening to the conversation enormously. Getting on tonight, I read the conversation from the 15th page to the 12th, everything backwards . Then I had to read it all 12th to 15th to get it all in context again, which made it much more comprehensible and understandable. It's quite interesting and exciting to read and listen to!

Well I'm glad you're enjoying it. I hope everyone is. (Sorry about the buried post Sun-star.)

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

One thing I just wanted to add, concerning RÃ*an's "solid general observations" about the different gender-caused traits of girls and boys. I just wanted to mention that that's all I've experienced too. I also wanted to bring up a particularly strong example that shows the differences between genders.

As I'm sure you've already observed, I have serious issues with general statements concerning social behaviour, in this case with respect to gender roles. I agree with Sun-star's observation - it further outlines how people are individuals first.

My brother and I experienced this to varying degrees. I played with dolls, my brother built models. We played together a lot - Brio train sets, chess, other board games, climbing our two trees, building forts out of couch cushions and whatnot, etc.
We both played soccer (I played a lot longer though), we were both in karate (he joined first and got me into it, but I am still in it many years later).
We were both into art and took art lessons, we both took music lessons (he was generally better at it and much more dedicated, but I do still play classical guitar. For some reason guitar is mainly a "guy instrument". I don't get it. My borther plays the oboe and piano, both "unisex instruments".)
I played rugby, my brother played tennis seriously (we started playing together but I quit after a couple years, and he kept going and was quite good). My brother used to downhill ski race and he's still and awesome skiier. I took skiing lessons but always skiid for fun (I am good though. Or was anyway.) I also swam and was on the badminton team.
Generally, I played more sports and my brother did more in music (band, jazz piano and singing, classical piano, and orchestra). He took two band classes in secondary school and I took metal shop/power mechanics and art.

Where will all this apply to my future marriage? Well... my future husband is also in karate. We do and will train together. That wouldn't really affect our marriage though. Had my boyfriend taken the opportunity in high school, I imagine he'd be brilliant at rugby. All the experiences my parents gave us gave me a huge appreciation of art, sports, shop, cooking, and music. Everyone in my family is a good cook, and good, healthy food and skillful cooking is highly valued in our family. My boyfriend (and future husband) used to be a cook, and it still an excellent cook. I imagine our children will learn the value of good food early on. (I hope they take an interest in cooking, but I won't force them to participate beyond doing their share around the house.)
I can't think of any other possible applications. None of the above is particulary gender-specific, barring that being a cook is also a "guy job".

I didn't quote your example, but I did read it. It just so happens that your family fits the general obvervations RÃ*an made about relational behaviour etc. This probably applies to a lot of different people - enough for these generalizations to have basis in reality. However, I think that society allows this generalization to perpetuate itself by some people thinking they should do "what all women do". Boys are often ridiculed for playing "girly" games, for example. Parents may try to shield their children from all violence, but this disregards the significant influence of a child's peers.

With respect to marriage, what good is a generalization unless it applies to you? If you and your spouse are having problems communicating, the observation that many women are good communicators is useless unless your wife actually is a good communicator. That's why I put such an emphasis on the skills, values, strengths, and weaknesses of the people actually involved in the marriage in question.

I still fail to see why it matters so much what other people do when trying to solve problems (or any aspect of the marriage) in one's own marriage.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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.

Yes, that is what I meant. I think that this quote has a deeper meaning that I'm just not seeing yet though.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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.

In my post prior to this one I really get into this answer.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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.

I won't ask for data here because to be honest, I don't feel like reading a study. (Finished a four hour exa, this morning. Four hours! Erm yeah... ) However for the sake of argument I believe that this study exists and didn't make some gross error in bias.
However, I will make one comment about social studies in general (oh no, it's that word! ). It is very easy to inadvertently introduce bias into your results despite all the precautions.
In the study you mention, it's possible that the children altered their behaviour to varying degrees because there were adults making observations. (I'm not saying this did happen, I'm just saying it's certainly possible that it happened.) The children may have changed their style of play because they felt they were supposed to be playing a certain way. The boys may have felt shy letting a stranger see them talking the their truck. The girls may have felt silly making airplane noises and pretending their hand was an airplane for reasons they wouldn't be able to explain, but culture and society does affect children at a very young age IMO. In my opinion, children of all ages are very perceptive and intelligent.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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

Do you mean the people you observed fit the generalizations (certainly possible, as I mentioned a bit in my previous post)? Or do you mean that knowing the general behaviour helped specific couples in some way? (If so, how so? Interesting.)

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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.

But... wives have one area of improvement in common with each other? Every wife? Most wives?
Ditto the above for husbands. I just don't see this being helpful.

Like I detailed above, I really don't think individuals in a marriage need a generalization about gender as a frame of reference.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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!

Later - gtg again! Remind me if I forget.

Oh I'll remind you alright. Bwahaha.

Well I do agree with this last part of your post. I think you and I will probably continue to disagree about the usefulness (or lack thereof) of generalizations WRT gender. Why don't you have one response to this post, then we can lay this aspect aside and move on to other aspects of Biblical submission? Maybe other points about submission will shed some more light on gender roles in society, and their relationship back to Biblical submission.
For me, I still don't understand the idea of Biblical submission in general. Maybe once I "get" that, we can talk about gender issues, which, in this case, is a more specific issue.

I do think that with respect to your sister and brother-in-law JD, I don't think RÃ*an would condone subscribing to Biblical submission just because the husband's a lazy ass who wants his wife to do all the work around the house. ( )
And then God did not say "Thou shalt slack off and then lo! the wife shalt bring you a brewsky."

[Rían]

A quick post for consideration for everyone here, then I'll (hopefully) be back shortly ...

Forget studies. Let's look at economics.

Let's look at two forms of literature (loosely defined!) - romance novels and pornography. Both are billion dollar industries.

The dollar doesn't care about PC-ness.

Which of the two are marketed primarily to women, and which primarily to men? Which of the two would be considered relational?

(n.b. - I'm not saying all men are into porn, or all women are into romance novels, by any means. But IMO it's highly significant how these are marketed - as I said, the dollar is not PC.)

[Nurvingiel]

I like Maxim, the jokes are funny. And some of the articles. I did buy a romance novel once for 25 cents though. Oh wait, that wasn't your point was it? Well my boyfriend subscribes to Maxim, I just read his. I think romance novels are porn, for women. Maybe I should read more...

However, I think we can safely say this rabbit trail is pretty far from Biblical submission.

EDIT:
Edited to add... the fact that Maxim and Lurlene McDaniel are marketed at men and women respectively actually demonstrates my earlier point about how society perpetuates generalizations.

In this case, Maxim execs know that men will buy their magazines. I think they could successfully market a Maxim for women. (Though one might argue Cosmopolitain fills this role.) However, it would be a risk - it may be huge, or it may not fly at all. It's smart business for Maxim execs to market Maxim only to men, no matter what women are really thinking. In this way it does not accurately reflect society.

We seriously need to curtail this discussion though, at least for the meantime. (Go ahead and respond though, I won't insist on having the last word.)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I think romance novels are porn, for women.

Yes, so do I, but my point is that they're relational, as opposed to "regular" porn. I don't think a man is thinking about deep, personal conversations and sharing his soul with the naked woman he's looking at in the magazine.

However, I think we can safely say this rabbit trail is pretty far from Biblical submission. [/qupte]IMO, it's HUGELY relevant, because my support of the issue hinges on my beliefs that men and women are different. Equally important, but different. And IMO, both studies and marketing prove this.

EDIT:
Edited to add... the fact that Maxim and Lurlene McDaniel are marketed at men and women respectively actually demonstrates my earlier point about how society perpetuates generalizations.

Nurvi, I think you are bordering on being PC here, which is unlike you ... please pause and rethink this. WHY would a marketing executive have a career goal of perpetuating generalizations? IMO, his/her goal is to make MONEY, and the more the better! And knowing your market will make you the most possibly money. I think by the time a man or woman grows up, they have come across enough things to decide on their own what they like. And marketing shows what men and women like.

In this case, Maxim execs know that men will buy their magazines. I think they could successfully market a Maxim for women. (Though one might argue Cosmopolitain fills this role.) However, it would be a risk - it may be huge, or it may not fly at all. It's smart business for Maxim execs to market Maxim only to men, no matter what women are really thinking. In this way it does not accurately reflect society.

Marketing executives, IMO, don't give a rip for anything they don't think will make money. And if they DO think something MIGHT make money, they WILL try it. They have TRIED things like Playgirl. They are a astronomical second to things like Playboy. This is just marketing fact. If women were clamoring for Playboy, then it would have its sales shooting through the roof, and other magazines would immediately follow suit. Women were NOT clamoring for this. Romance novels CONTINUE to be marketed in magazines directed at women, and NOT in magazines directed at men.

[Nurvingiel]

Yer quote tags are showing...

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yes, so do I, but my point is that they're relational, as opposed to "regular" porn. I don't think a man is thinking about deep, personal conversations and sharing his soul with the naked woman he's looking at in the magazine.

IMO, it's HUGELY relevant, because my support of the issue hinges on my beliefs that men and women are different. Equally important, but different. And IMO, both studies and marketing prove this.

Well in that case we can keep discussing this issue.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Nurvi, I think you are bordering on being PC here, which is unlike you ... please pause and rethink this. WHY would a marketing executive have a career goal of perpetuating generalizations? IMO, his/her goal is to make MONEY, and the more the better! And knowing your market will make you the most possibly money. I think by the time a man or woman grows up, they have come across enough things to decide on their own what they like. And marketing shows what men and women like.

No, you misunderstood what I meant there. I will explain it a bit better...

First of all, I can see how my strongly egalitarian views could be construed as political correctness. This doesn't bother me, because I don't care if I'm being PC or not - that's not my goal. I believe all human beings have an intrinsic value equal to each other no matter how different each individual is. (I know you think this too, as do many people, I just had to state it because it's an important part of my views.)
I'm also a bit suspicious of what society says about people's roles. I will evaluate different fairly though; I don't tend to reject things out of hand.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Marketing executives, IMO, don't give a rip for anything they don't think will make money. And if they DO think something MIGHT make money, they WILL try it. They have TRIED things like Playgirl. They are a astronomical second to things like Playboy. This is just marketing fact. If women were clamoring for Playboy, then it would have its sales shooting through the roof, and other magazines would immediately follow suit. Women were NOT clamoring for this. Romance novels CONTINUE to be marketed in magazines directed at women, and NOT in magazines directed at men.

You think romance novels are relational? Well, there is one kind of relation in romance novels.

Anyway, that's not really the point. I don't believe that the goal of marketing executives to perpetuate generalizations in society. I believe that's an unintended result of the way business works. I agree that execs will market to people they know, or are at least pretty darn sure, will buy the product. They won't take a risk on a new market when they already have a captive market. That's why I said something to the effect of why would they risk marketing to women, who they aren't sure about, when they know they have a huge market in men. I think we agree about the marketing of porn and romance novels (which we're debating in the Theology thread... )

We agree that men and women are different, but why is this important in marriage? It's the people in a given marriage that must acknowledge and respect each other's differences IMO, not the differences of millions of random strangers.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Yer quote tags are showing...

Eep! *tucks them in*

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

My brother plays the oboe and piano (both "unisex instruments").

so do I; living proof.

~

my mom read some books (that my dad jokingly condemns as "pop pyschology") in the Mars/Venus series that really outline the differences between men and women, basically emotionally and mentally.

*will find book tonight and read after writing school essay

[jerseydevil]

Nurv - I have several sites to give you about the Greek orthodoc - which is similar to Greek Catholic. YOu can listen to the masses on there and the chanting. There is one that also allows you to do searches on the MANY Bible translations.

If you are interested in a lot of information on the sacrements and videos that you can watch concerning the Greek Orthodox Church - this is an great site - Greek Orthodox Church of America

St Marks - Boc Raton FL
St George - Clifton NJ (here you can watch some weddings)

There are some others I've found - but for the time being these should do.



Here are some quotes from the New Living Translation bible when doing a search on "submit", other bibles don't have these translations.

Colossians 3:18
You wives must submit to your husbands, as is fitting for those who belong to the Lord.

Ephesians 5:23-24
23 For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of his body, the church; he gave his life to be her Savior. 24 As the church submits to Christ, so you wives must submit to your husbands in everything.

Ephesians 5:21-23
21 And further, you will submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 You wives will submit to your husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of his body, the church; he gave his life to be her Savior.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I also have heard stories of parents attempting to keep their children away from all forms of violence. They bought them different toys, like cars and grocery stores and little people to play with, without any weapons or combat figures. The boys were extremely bored with these presents at first, but soon started using their imaginations to turn those toys into soldiers and the grocery stores into forts. That's us. Men.

And I think men are wonderful!
And so are women!

Here's some more of my thoughts and opinions on the issue to put out for thought and comment:

As I said before, the Bible says that BOTH the man and the woman were made in the image of God. Yet it also shows that things were not complete UNTIL after Eve was made. This, to me, shows that Adam and Eve had different aspects of God, or else things would have been complete with just Adam.

Actually, I think it's more accurate to say that God highlighted different characteristics of His in men and in women.

Now here's where I'm going to start "exploring", as Nurvi says

I agree with Tolkien that myth is vitally important, and myth illustrates deep, deep truths better than anything else sometimes, and that the world is deeply mythic. And I also agree with him that Christianity is the ONLY completely true myth. Yes, it's a story; but remember, stories can be true... It's his opinion, and mine, that this story is completely true, and the other myths were "exciting previews", as it were, so that we would be ready for the main attraction when it came.

Look at myth, as it is in the world and in fairy tales.

Fairy tales tell us that things are not what they seem. That peasant's youngest son will one day rise up and slay a dragon. Christianity says that a baby was born into the world that actually created the world and will save it - this baby is not what He seems - and He will one day slay the dragons that we call Satan and sin and death.

The world shows us that seeds fall into the ground and die ... and new life is born. Christianity tells us that Jesus, this god/man, fell to the ground and died ... and new life was born for us all.

Fairy tales tell us that beautiful princesses can be taken captive by evil forces, and it takes a wonderful prince to save them. Christianity tells us that God sees the beauty of our souls, and sees that we have been taken captive by sin and death, and God sends the wonderful Prince to come and save us.

The world shows us that together, a man and a woman can create new life in their love, by the man in his strength giving seed to the woman who is receptive to it. Christianity tells us that an all-powerful God reaches out to us in love, and any that are receptive will receive new life.

Fairy tells tell us that the princess has everything she needs and desires (including a wonderful Prince) in a magical castle, and yet she is told to not open the one room at the end of the hall on the top story. And she opens it - and she is separated from the Prince and must seek him with all her heart to be reunited with him again and live happily ever after. Christianity tells us that the first man and woman were in Paradise and in communion with God, yet with only one restriction - and they fell and were separated from God; yet that if they seek Him with all their hearts, they will find Him again and live happily ever after.

And in the fairy tales, I think we see that strength is the glory of a man, and beauty is the glory of a woman. And this is deeply mythic, and portrays some deep truths.

(Now, I think that women definitely have strength, and men definitely have beauty, but I think that God uniquely showcases strength in men and beauty in women (and I'm not talking outside beauty only by any means, or even primarily!) )

(con't - getting too long for this post!)

[Rían]

(thoughts, con't)

So I firmly think, and I think it is firmly supported by the evidence that I see all around me, that men and women are different from each other in the very core of their being. They are absolutely equal - but they are different. And just as Henry Ford found out, specialization is more efficient, and so bringing a man with specialized talents in one area and a woman with specialized talents in another makes one powerful marriage! (it also makes it very hard sometimes! but most if not all good things take work.)

As I said, I think the essence of the masculine is strength. I think there are two types of men that are deeply wrong - one is the one that abuses his strength, and the other is the one that suppresses his strength. The first would be those horrible men that abuse those around them, especially their wives and their children. Few things in this world are worse than a man abusing his strength - this is a shameful and terrible thing. The second would be the "milquetoast" guy - a man that lets others boss him around and never stands up for anything. This is deeply tragic and pathetic, for his strength should be used for the good of those around him.

I mentioned how I was fighting for something in the family a few nights ago, and I'll share some details because it is relevant to this discussion. My oldest son is almost 15, and he and my husband have been butting heads for awhile. They love each other deeply, play together, work together, and are very close, but they're guys, and they butt heads sometimes like those rams you see on nature shows. (btw, there is NO violence involved, just raised voices. There is NO name-calling or verbal abuse, either - just very heated opinions flying around! We have clearly defined family rules for disagreements.) It was escalating, and by the sheer power of being a woman, I can walk into the room and they will both immediately settle down somewhat because they are honorable men. So we ended up talking, we three, for a long time, and at one point I realized something that I thought was helpful, and it was this.

I told my son, "You know, you're a young man now, and you are MEANT to fight - God made you that way. That's why you do it with dad sometimes! However, you are meant to fight for GOOD, not for selfish reasons. You are meant to fight for what is right; for the poor and the oppressed, for the wronged and the hurting. God MADE you to be a fighter. But sometimes your fighting urge gets turned around a bit because of sin, and you end up fighting for the wrong reasons."

This really hit both of them and helped them see that fighting itself isn't bad, it's only bad when you're fighting for the wrong thing. In fact, it's GOOD to fight for what is right, and that's the heart that God placed in ALL men, IMO. They are all different - we have men that play football and men that play piano - but I believe in their soul, they are fighters. And they reflect the very image of God, who is a mighty warrior for what is good and right.

And this characteristic, among others, is why God has appointed men to the headship of the family. Marriage in the Bible is used over and over to represent how God loves His people. Jesus is called the bridegroom, and the Church is called the bride. And the bridegroom in his strength takes the bride in her beauty to Himself, and they become one.

BTW, in Galatians chapter 3, it says, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." See, I think the whole male/female thing came about BECAUSE of the fall (the "your husband will rule over you" didn't come about until AFTER the fall - before the fall they were jointly commanded to take care of the earth.) If the Church is called the Bride of Christ, then it's obvious that this includes men, because men are in the church! So I think, making it VERY simple, that God made two sexes on purpose for illustration purposes, and gave them different characteristics of His, and suited one better for the head of a marriage and one better for the - I don't know, I guess filling of the marriage or heart of the marriage or life of the marriage. I don't think it's accidental that the WOMEN are the ones that grow life in themselves. Women are awesome - nothing can replace a woman in a marriage. And the same for men. And together - woohoo!

Well, it's very late, and this is a LOT of "exploring"!! I'll be interested to hear the comments (actually, kinda scared ) And I haven't touched the beauty in women thing, either - I'll do that later, I guess. And to reiterate, I think women are IMMENSELY powerful, but the power is tied to their beauty (again, NOT physical).

(I also think men are immensely beautiful but the beauty is tied to their strength.)

[Rían]

Oh, one more thing - the verses JD provided made me think about translations.

I've talked with people about translations, and there's two things I wanted to briefly (hey, no snickers!) touch on.

First - some people have thought that translations are based on previous translations, and thus errors compound. This is not true; scholars go back to the original language. As Tolkien's elves knew well, languages change and need to change their form as the need arises (Guys - check out my Shibboleth thread in the Middle Earth forum! Fascinating!), and in the time of the King James translation, "charity" was very well understood to mean what we would call "love" nowdays. So when the word meanings shifted, it's appropriate to make a new translation.

Personally, I like the New American Standard Bible. It's an excellent, scholary work of translation, and it keeps the "thee"s and "thou"s in the language of prayer and in the Psalms. My husband likes the New International Version. So which is "right" or "better"? I think neither - I think it's a matter of preference. Both are accurate translations.

Second - speaking of "accurate translations" - yes, translating is not an exact science. Yet I think making that objection misses the point. See, in a few days, my sister-in-law and her family will be coming here for Easter. She grew up in Colombia and Spain, and Spanish is her native tongue. But should I refuse to talk to her because I realize translation is not an exact science? I don't think so - it would be a great loss to not talk to her - I like her a lot! Sometimes something isn't clear, but then we just work on it and clear it up, and enjoy ourselves in the process. What about other countries - should the leaders in the US refuse to talk to any non-English speaking country because of possible errors of translation, or should they use trained scholars and translators and go ahead and talk? Personally, I think they should go ahead and talk - the benefits are enormous. I think the Bible translation thing is the same - people have been translating languages throughout history - and I think that God is a big enough guy to be able to deal with any translation problems, too.

Well, it's very late. I'll be back hopefully tomorrow afternoon - I have a field trip in the morning - good night, er, morning all!

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

BTW, in Galatians chapter 3, it says, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." See, I think the whole male/female thing came about BECAUSE of the fall (the "your husband will rule over you" didn't come about until AFTER the fall - before the fall they were jointly commanded to take care of the earth.) If the Church is called the Bride of Christ, then it's obvious that this includes men, because men are in the church! So I think, making it VERY simple, that God made two sexes on purpose for illustration purposes, and gave them different characteristics of His, and suited one better for the head of a marriage and one better for the - I don't know, I guess filling of the marriage or heart of the marriage or life of the marriage.

That's a great quote, but I think it could also be interpreted to support the idea that men and women don't have specifically defined roles (I know I'm taking it out of the context of your post). The differences between Jew and Greek or slave and free man are surface characteristics based on the cultural and economic situation a person was born into. We don't now treat different races or different classes as if they are completely separate and innately determined to fulfil different roles. The parallelling of these superficial features - which don't tell you anything about who the person really is - with the biological differences between male and female suggests to me that the same reasoning applies to gender. I find it really comforting, actually, because it implies that all these forms of defining identity are irrelevant to God - "you are all one in Christ Jesus". Not "different but equally valuable", but "all one". A fab example of the Bible being ahead of its time!

BTW, did you see my questions in post 283 ? I know you've had a lot of comments to address

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sun-star

That's a great quote, but I think it could also be interpreted to support the idea that men and women don't have specifically defined roles (I know I'm taking it out of the context of your post).

I don't think that could be supported in the context of the quote - give it a read and see what you think!

And why would these roles be given, then?

IMO, the leadership of the man can take many shapes, too. More later.

The differences between Jew and Greek or slave and free man are surface characteristics based on the cultural and economic situation a person was born into.

Yes, and Paul is talking to people that are used to thinking that way, so he's saying, people, we're all the same in Christ! Yet on this earth, because of the fall, it's best for us if we go by laws established by the Designer, just like if you want a cake you need to follow the recipe.

The greatest freedom is found within boundaries, or laws, which sounds somewhat contradictory until you think about it a bit. There are boundaries/laws set up in the universe - physical and spiritual - and we have great freedom in these boundaries. Your country and mine has laws - and we have two of the freest countries on the planet. Science operates on the assumption of set laws, and endeavors to discover them and their relevance on things around us. A lack of laws isn't freedom, it's chaos and a lessening of freedom.

We don't now treat different races or different classes as if they are completely separate and innately determined to fulfil different roles. The parallelling of these superficial features - which don't tell you anything about who the person really is - with the biological differences between male and female suggests to me that the same reasoning applies to gender.

You can look at a baby and can't tell if it's a Jew or a Greek, a slave or free - but you can tell if it's male or female. I think it's an increase for a person to be made male or female in this world, not a loss.

I find it really comforting, actually, because it implies that all these forms of defining identity are irrelevant to God - "you are all one in Christ Jesus". Not "different but equally valuable", but "all one". A fab example of the Bible being ahead of its time!

I agree with both sentences, and as I've said before, God values men and women equally. Yet I think in this fallen world, we need some operating guidelines!

BTW, did you see my questions in post 283 ? I know you've had a lot of comments to address

Yes, and I was hoping my posts would address some of those questions, but I'll get to them individually later on

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

First - some people have thought that translations are based on previous translations, and thus errors compound. This is not true; scholars go back to the original language. As Tolkien's elves knew well, languages change and need to change their form as the need arises (Guys - check out my Shibboleth thread in the Middle Earth forum! Fascinating!), and in the time of the King James translation, "charity" was very well understood to mean what we would call "love" nowdays. So when the word meanings shifted, it's appropriate to make a new translation.

Personally, I like the New American Standard Bible. It's an excellent, scholary work of translation, and it keeps the "thee"s and "thou"s in the language of prayer and in the Psalms. My husband likes the New International Version. So which is "right" or "better"? I think neither - I think it's a matter of preference. Both are accurate translations.

Second - speaking of "accurate translations" - yes, translating is not an exact science. Yet I think making that objection misses the point. See, in a few days, my sister-in-law and her family will be coming here for Easter. She grew up in Colombia and Spain, and Spanish is her native tongue. But should I refuse to talk to her because I realize translation is not an exact science? I don't think so - it would be a great loss to not talk to her - I like her a lot! Sometimes something isn't clear, but then we just work on it and clear it up, and enjoy ourselves in the process. What about other countries - should the leaders in the US refuse to talk to any non-English speaking country because of possible errors of translation, or should they use trained scholars and translators and go ahead and talk? Personally, I think they should go ahead and talk - the benefits are enormous. I think the Bible translation thing is the same - people have been translating languages throughout history - and I think that God is a big enough guy to be able to deal with any translation problems, too.

The King James version was put out for political reasons. Most bibles are "translated" with a particular audience in mind. The people who buy the bibles - pick the ones that support their belief structure. If you believe int eh submission of woman - you read the New Living Translation. If you don't you can read the King James Version. It all depends on your own beliefs.

[inked]

JD,

I really must protest against the canard you just uttered. To allege that any given translation of the Old and New Testaments is the result of political bias is a statement exhibiting an iganorance I do not usually associate with you - and I hope you did not mean what your wrote literally!

The KJV was translated from the original tongues into a deliberately elevated vernacular according to the best available textual evidence (the Textus Receptus), in comparison with the previously rendered vernaculars (English, German, etc) and the Vulgate. The scholars who rendered the translation were quite eminent folks who had no political ax to grind. And the whole process was spectacularly successful in achieving its goal of making the Christian Scripture accessible to the masses.

Because of the nature of the changes in language (eg, "let" and "prevent" changed meaning into opposites!), the work of re-newing the translation is called a revision (as in the Revised KJV), but that is updating the language - not politically charging the material!

THE JERUSALEM BIBLE was a RC translation from the original languages into French under the guidance of the best Scholars and upon the best textual evidences (note this was post Dead Sea Scrolls!). This new translation in its study editions actually notes the differences in the textual materials and variant readings with citations to the variant manuscripts. When it was translated into English, the same materials were utilized in the same manner, BUT it was not translated from French to English! It was translated from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into English and the resulting English vetted by noted English native language speakers (including Tolkien). The sense of the English and the French were compared to establish the correct expression of understanding of the text. But this is comparative language study in accuracy of expression of idiomatic original languages, NOT political alteration of the meaning. The JB follows in the footsteps of the Douay RC vernacular translation into English as a RC "production".

What I think your comments apropos to is the phenomenon of the "paraphrase" type of text such as the LIVING BIBLE. There the correlation is accomplished by one person or small group people and could well -largely unconsciously or even deliberately- incorporate a particular stance on politics. But these types of renderings are NOT translations.

Then you get the whole scholastic apparatus involved in assessments of true translations, revisions, and what-not. There is quite an extensive community of scholars capable of assessing the accuracy of a translation or revision and whole libraries of these critiques. It is not so much a cottage as a college industry. AND, when the scholarly assessments are done and perused, it is quite evident who has done their work properly and who has incorporated and agenda into their work. Read the reviews.

Another type of confusion that may be in your thoughts is the attempt by specific intentional groups guided by overwhelming concerns to produce politically correct lectionary readings for liturgical churches. The feminist inspired gender-inclusive or gender neutral soporifics to political correctness come to mind. They are, IMHO, dung (KJV), refuse (RSV), and crap (personal polite preference, with a strong leaning towards anglo-saxon 4 letter variant starting with s and ending in t).

Then there are legitimate colloquiallist renderings intended for reading and not scholarly accuracy nor political vendettas (though individual 'coloration' is inescapable) such as THE COTTON PATCH BIBLE (Southern USA with a strong black dialect) and others even unto Yea, verily, hip-hop.

So your blanket condemnation of politicization of the Textus Receptus is not correct, good sir, in the particualr case of the KJV. Nor is it accurate in the actual scholarly translations. It may have applicability to paraphrases and colloquial versions. It undoubtedly has applicability to translations or paraphrases produced under the hand of specific agendized groups as noted.

Now, the subject is more complex when one gets into the attempts to produce word for word or thought for thought or idiomatic retentive vs explicatory matters. But that is where the introduction and prefaces of these works come into necessary play. They should establish these factors in a clear and delineable way so the "buyer, beware" factor is obvious.

And, these comments refer to the text-translation and not necessarily the interpretive notes of various "study" editions published by various individuals and groups - which may intentionally or unconsciously incorporate the materials you would object to. But that is a different category of problem.