Theological Opinions

[Nurvingiel]

Do Hinduism and Buddhism have a lot in common? The wheel (<- should that be capitalized? Maybe you're not the right person to ask ) seems very important.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

You know - the King (or in the current case Queen) of England is NOT the head of the church for the hell of it. The church and politics of england are interwined. It's a fact. And King James put the version out for HIS political purposes.

I thought the Archbishop was the head of the church now.

Though at least with Anglicanism, Henry VIII was the first head of the church. And he had perfectly good reasons to separate from the Catholic Church than just wanting to divorce his wife. I can think of two others - I believe he considered worshipping relics a form of idolatry, and also for various reasons he didn't like the tithes sent to the Pope (IIRC).

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

hinduism and buddhism have quite a bit in common - hinduism was the common route, both believe in samsara, nirvana(nibbana), and some buddhists, tho not many, believe in some of the hindu gods

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I thought the Archbishop was the head of the church now.

Though at least with Anglicanism, Henry VIII was the first head of the church. And he had perfectly good reasons to separate from the Catholic Church than just wanting to divorce his wife. I can think of two others - I believe he considered worshipping relics a form of idolatry, and also for various reasons he didn't like the tithes sent to the Pope (IIRC).

No - the monarch is the head of the church. it was a big issue with Charles and Diana's divorce - who coudl the future head of the chruch get divorced. and it was an issue with Edward Duke of Windsor and his wife.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

As for the translation thing, maybe Lief's 4 book volume can shed some light on this..? What do the other versions have for those quotes? (Colossians 3:18, Ephesians 5:23-24, Ephesians 5:21-23.)

Colossians 3:18

King James

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord."

New International

"Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord."

Living Bible

"You wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, for that is what the Lord has planned for you."

Revised Standard

"Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord."


Ephesians 5:21-24

King James

". . . submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their husbands in every thing."

New International

"Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

Living Bible

"Honor Christ by submitting to each other. You wives must submit to your husbands' leadership in the same way you submit to the Lord. For a husband is in charge of his wife in the same way Christ is in charge of his body the church. (He gave his very life to take care of it and be its Savior!) So you wives must willingly obey your husbands in everything, just as the church obeys Christ."

Revised Standard

"Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands."

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

No - the monarch is the head of the church. it was a big issue with Charles and Diana's divorce - who coudl the future head of the chruch get divorced. and it was an issue with Edward Duke of Windsor and his wife.

Ok. (I have no reason not to take your word for it. )

edited to add:
Except, Henry VIII was divorced 2 times (and beheaded 2 other wives ). Why is that a problem now?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No, it's not quite that simple, IMO. How do I word this? Let's see - I think in a marriage, both parties will be enabled to reach their maximum potential, and the marriage will be enabled to reach its maximum potential, in the set-up that God has given for marriage, which is that the man is the head of the marriage as Christ is head of the church, and the woman submits to his headship as the Church submits to Christ. (and btw, children are instructed to "obey"; wives are instructed to "submit". There's a big difference.)

I think part of the problem is that one of our current societal thinking errors, IMO, is that ANY type of submission is wrong. Yet if we keep fighting the law of gravity, we'll get hurt. If we submit to it, we can accomplish amazing things, like putting people on the moon.

In light of all you have written, explorations and otherwise, I think I understand your view of Biblical submission and its usefulness.

However I still have two major problems with the idea. I have already outlined my issues around the emphasis on gender differences 4 posts ago.

My other issue is, why does a marriage have to have a leader? Why can't they just work together like my parents? They are my model for an ideal marriage. Not only are they truly wonderful and generous people, but they've also been very happily married for 23 years.
(Even though my dad jokes that it has been 20.)
(I'm 21.)

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

the monarch, as head of the church of england, is also 'fidei defensor'

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What's the Amplified Bible?

An interesting translation with the philosophy of the more, the better. Kind of like when my Colombian sister-in-law is trying to translate a difficult word, and she says, "kind of like this, with a touch of that and an inference of this." It doesn't try to pick one word for one word - it tries to get across the main meaning as well as any secondary or tertiary (how often can i use THAT word?!) ones.

[jerseydevil]

There is also the New King James Version.

[Nurvingiel]

Yay RÃ*an's on. What do you think of my posts #285 and 286 on p.15 (or did you already respond to those, if so what post #?) and post #314 on p.16?

(I have read this whole thread, it's just complicated. )

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

There is also the New King James Version.

I noticed that. I have (in Canada) the Good News Bible.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Ok. (I have no reason not to take your word for it. )

edited to add:
Except, Henry VIII was divorced 2 times (and beheaded 2 other wives ). Why is that a problem now?

Because it doesn't look good for the head of the church to actually get divorced. Even though Henry VIII did far worse things - it doesn't matter.


In light of all you have written, explorations and otherwise, I think I understand your view of Biblical submission and its usefulness.

My other issue is, why does a marriage have to have a leader? Why can't they just work together like my parents? They are my model for an ideal marriage. Not only are they truly wonderful and generous people, but they've also been very happily married for 23 years.
(Even though my dad jokes that it has been 20.)
(I'm 21.)

Well I don't either. As I said - I think it's anarchaic practice to have the woman submit. But some people (not you Rian) believe whatever the bible says - without thinking if it makes any sense in todays society. As far as I'm concerned - it makes no sense in todays society. Woman are equal to men - not that they are capable of everything, but there is no difference in decission making and they should not be pushed to the back of the room while decisions are made. If things didn't change - like the bible doesn't - woman wouldn't be voting and slavery would still be acceptable. But things change, as they should.

[Nurvingiel]

You have a slightly misplaced quote tag there JD. (I actually said "In light of all you have written...")

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Because it doesn't look good for the head of the church to actually get divorced. Even though Henry VIII did far worse things - it doesn't matter.

Yeah but Henry VIII set the precedent. He was divorced 2 times, and head of the Anglican Church. Why should it matter now if the head of the church is divorced? Plus, I thought divorce was acceptable in society.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well I don't either. As I said - I think it's anarchaic practice to have the woman submit. But some people (not you Rian) believe whatever the bible says - without thinking if it makes any sense in todays society. As far as I'm concerned - it makes no sense in todays society. Woman are equal to men - not that they are capable of everything, but there is no difference in decission making and they should not be pushed to the back of the room while decisions are made. If things didn't change - like the bible doesn't - woman wouldn't be voting and slavery would still be acceptable. But things change, as they should.

I agree, except... something in the Bible would stop women from voting?

[Rían]

As far as things changing - this brings up the interesting point of: if something is right, then changing it will make it wrong.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

As far as things changing - this brings up the interesting point of: if something is right, then changing it will make it wrong.

Not necessarily, there are things that were right in a particular society or time period, but would no longer be right today. How do you know that the wife being submissive is right and it doesn't need to change?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Not necessarily, there are things that were right in a particular society or time period, but would no longer be right today.

I agree with jerseydevil on this. For example, it would have been shameful in ancient Jewish culture for a man to go around clean shaven. Now, this is not the case.

I expect I'm missing your point though, RÃ*an .

[Rían]

I'm NOT talking about "right" in terms of society. I'm talking about absolute rights and wrongs.

But some people don't believe in those

I do.

For example, I think the admonition to love your neighbor as yourself is true in ANY society and in ANY time, and changing that would make it wrong. However, it might look different in different societies and at different times. But the underlying HEART is the same.

It's also always right to be kind to one another, as we are admonished to do in Ephesians 4:32.

One way of being kind is to be modest in our dress (i.e., don't dress to intentionally arouse intense sexual desires that you have no intention of satisfying.) Now a young lady in a warm-climate island somewhere can go topless and be modest, if that is what her society is fine with. If I went topless outside my house, that would be immodest (or perhaps, given my age, humorous! but you get the idea ). How modesty looks has changed, but the underlying principle of it is right to be modest will never change, IMO.

Do you see what I mean? The outward trappings of some truths might change over time and place, but the truths are still truths. And I think that it's pretty clear that Biblical submission is a truth, tho (eep - though! though!) how it works out might look different.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm NOT talking about "right" in terms of society. I'm talking about absolute rights and wrongs.

But some people don't believe in those

I do.

For example, I think the admonition to love your neighbor as yourself is true in ANY society and in ANY time, and changing that would make it wrong. However, it might look different in different societies and at different times. But the underlying HEART is the same.

It's also always right to be kind to one another, as we are admonished to do in Ephesians 4:32.

One way of being kind is to be modest in our dress (i.e., don't dress to intentionally arouse intense sexual desires that you have no intention of satisfying.) Now a young lady in a warm-climate island somewhere can go topless and be modest, if that is what her society is fine with. If I went topless outside my house, that would be immodest (or perhaps, given my age, humorous! but you get the idea ). How modesty looks has changed, but the underlying principle of it is right to be modest will never change, IMO.

Do you see what I mean? The outward trappings of some truths might change over time and place, but the truths are still truths. And I think that it's pretty clear that Biblical submission is a truth, tho (eep - though! though!) how it works out might look different.

I don't think that there is an absolute truth with submission of the wife. You can - I don't. How is the submission of the wife an absolute truth?

As for bringing up modesty - who defines it? Is it's the wearing hijab? or is it having to wear skirt? or is it' no make-up? what is modest?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Living Bible

"Honor Christ by submitting to each other. You wives must submit to your husbands' leadership in the same way you submit to the Lord. For a husband is in charge of his wife in the same way Christ is in charge of his body the church. (He gave his very life to take care of it and be its Savior!) So you wives must willingly obey your husbands in everything, just as the church obeys Christ."

Thanks for posting all those Lief! There were more differences than I thought between versions.

RÃ*an, do you have the Living Bible? Your views in Biblical submission seem most in tune with the above quote, if I understand you correctly.

I still have two issues with the quote, and some things you said earlier. (Sorry to repeat, but it is nice to have everything still relevant nice and tidy at the end of a thread.)

1. Why is there such a strong emphasis on gender differences? Why is it so important in a marriage?

2. Why does there have to be a leader in a marriage? Why can't the husband and wife just work together?

I agree that there are some absolute rights and wrongs, but I think we interpret them differently. I do agree with you about kindness. However, what makes submission "on par" with kindness?


Congradulations on the correct spelling of though.

EDIT:
Cross-posted with JD:

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

As for bringing up modesty - who defines it? Is it's the wearing hijab? or is it having to wear skirt? or is it' no make-up? what is modest?

I agree with RÃ*an that different societies define modesty differently. For some societies wearing the hijab is the definition. People within societies also have different definitions of modesty, but there do seem to be overarching general ideas about it. (I have no idea what this has to do with marriage, unless you just mean that your husband probably doesn't want you to flash the neighours. ) I don't think modesty is an absolute truth either.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

EDIT:
Cross-posted with JD:

I agree with RÃ*an that different societies define modesty differently. For some societies wearing the hijab is the definition. People within societies also have different definitions of modesty, but there do seem to be overarching general ideas about it. (I have no idea what this has to do with marriage, unless you just mean that your husband probably doesn't want you to flash the neighours. ) I don't think modesty is an absolute truth either.

Well then - how would submission of the wife be an absolute truth?

[edit] and I disagree with your quote on the husband being in charge of the wife. I just don't buy it.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well then - how would submission of the wife be an absolute truth?

[edit] and I disagree with your quote on the husband being I charge of the wife. I just don't buy it.

I said I didn't think submission was an absolute truth.

I do think kindess is though.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

[edit] and I disagree with your quote on the husband being I charge of the wife. I just don't buy it.

That quote was from the Living Bible. I too have issues with Biblical submission. My main goal here is to understand what it is and why people do it. I don't personally see myself participating in this.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I said I didn't think submission was an absolute truth.

I don't see anywhere where you come out and say that you don't think submission is an absolute truth. [edit] well now that you edited your last post - now it has it in there. I couldn't deal with a relationship where the woman wasn't independant.

I do think kindess is though.

You don't have to be christian to believe in that though. I think the purpose for kindness has more to do with karma than anything else actually.