Theological Opinions

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I don't see anywhere where you come out and say that you don't think submission is an absolute truth.

I could have sworn I put this in post #337, but I see I just said this:

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

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?

I didn't explicitly say it wasn't, but now you know what I think anyway.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

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.

I think it's more important that people are kind because they believe it's the right thing to do than to have a specific motivator.
I mean, as long as people are kind and they feel sincere about it, then that's more important than why they feel it's right to be kind.

One of these two statements should make sense. My goodness. Clarification will be provided upon request.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I could have sworn I put this in post #337, but I see I just said this:

I didn't explicitly say it wasn't, but now you know what I think anyway.

See - told you you didnt' say it.

I think it's more important that people are kind because they believe it's the right thing to do than to have a specific motivator.
I mean, as long as people are kind and they feel sincere about it, then that's more important than why they feel it's right to be kind.

One of these two statements should make sense. My goodness. Clarification will be provided upon request.

I understand and I agree. Being kind and helping someone out is important. It shouldn't be about what you can get out of it - or that you should do it.

sidenote - heard you're going to stockholm.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

RÃ*an, do you have the Living Bible?

I used to, but don't remember if I still have it. I don't really use it. It's NOT a translation. Inky gave an excellent discussion of translations, IMO, if you want to re-read his post. I think we should work off of scholarly translations, like the New American Standard and the New International Version, and use things like paraphrases carefully, checking against the true translations. Paraphrases have their place, but IMO should not be the primary source of study.

I'm still trying to download MSN - will have to get to your questions later. Keep reminding me!

wait - Please PM me your msn handle again - I think I"m ready to try it!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I understand and I agree. Being kind and helping someone out is important. It shouldn't be about what you can get out of it - or that you should do it.

As it says in the scripture, "each person should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or out of compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver."

[Rían]

*sigh*

Why don't people make objections when Buddhism says it's good to be kind?

go figure!

got to get some dinner going - see ya'll later

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

See - told you you didnt' say it.

Well I didn't say it was an absolute truth either so

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I understand and I agree. Being kind and helping someone out is important. It shouldn't be about what you can get out of it - or that you should do it.

sidenote - heard you're going to stockholm.

Yay. That's right! Woo party in Stockholm! I'm going for 5 days. I bet there will be a lot to catch up on in this thread when I get back.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I used to, but don't remember if I still have it. I don't really use it. It's NOT a translation. Inky gave an excellent discussion of translations, IMO, if you want to re-read his post. I think we should work off of scholarly translations, like the New American Standard and the New International Version, and use things like paraphrases carefully, checking against the true translations. Paraphrases have their place, but IMO should not be the primary source of study.

Okay... seems like I have some more work to do to see where you're coming from.

(BTW, did you see my comment about that I don't try to be PC? This actually was important to me when I was 14, but I'm 1.5 times older now and it just doesn't matter anymore. )

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

*sigh*

Why don't people make objections when Buddhism says it's good to be kind?

go figure!

Who's making objections to being kind?

[Rían]

what you said reminded me of what some people have said to me before when talking about the Bible - things along the lines of "why should some book tell me what to do?!" Yet when I hear people talk about beliefs like Buddhism, I don't tend to hear objections along those lines - I usually hear, "Oh, that's so beautiful what it says!"

I don't understand the difference.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

what you said reminded me of what some people have said to me before when talking about the Bible - things along the lines of "why should some book tell me what to do?!" Yet when I hear people talk about beliefs like Buddhism, I don't tend to hear objections along those lines - I usually hear, "Oh, that's so beautiful what it says!"

Well I think because it might be that you don't hear the people criticising those who blindly follow buddhism without question. I looked at Buddhism a while ago - didn't like it for the same reasons as I don't like the submission thing. I don't believe in following anything right down the middle, there are always exceptions, there are always things that I can't or won't support. The bible is no different - as is buddhism or any other religion. I won't listen to what a book tells me to do, i will evaluate the merits and see if I agree with it. I can take things from judaism, islam, budhism, christianity, wherever I want and not be constrained. I can even make up my own beliefs.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I won't listen to what a book tells me to do, i will evaluate the merits and see if I agree with it. I can take things from judaism, islam, budhism, christianity, wherever I want and not be constrained. I can even make up my own beliefs.

Yes, and God certainly wouldn't want you to practice something even from the Bible that you don't believe is right.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Yay. That's right! Woo party in Stockholm! I'm going for 5 days. I bet there will be a lot to catch up on in this thread when I get back.

Have fun! I won't be on much over the next 5 days or so either, because of visiting family.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvi

Congradulations on the correct spelling of though.

Condolences on the incorrect spelling of "congratulations"!


(aren't we a riot?!)

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Condolences on the incorrect spelling of "congratulations"!

(aren't we a riot?!)

Yes we are! *gets pepper sprayed*

I could build the Eiffel tower out of the irony. I will probably never mis-spell 'congratulations' again.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Have fun! I won't be on much over the next 5 days or so either, because of visiting family.

Maybe this discussion will wind down a bit for Easter.
(Y'know, it would be easier to quote you if you had just added that to your last post. )

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Yes, and God certainly wouldn't want you to practice something even from the Bible that you don't believe is right.

I agree Lief.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

what you said reminded me of what some people have said to me before when talking about the Bible - things along the lines of "why should some book tell me what to do?!" Yet when I hear people talk about beliefs like Buddhism, I don't tend to hear objections along those lines - I usually hear, "Oh, that's so beautiful what it says!"

I don't understand the difference.

Well if someone finds the text beautiful of course they aren't going to criticize that part. The same if someone was reading a particularly lovely psalm. I think I see what you mean though.

I think one reason people (in Western society anyway) don't criticize Buddhism is because we don't really know anything about it. We know that we don't know. With Christianity, a lot of people do know something about it, enough to disagree with something or make a comment about it. This does bring up problems though since Christians are a highly diverse group of people. Many Christians, for example, don't practice submission.
I think JD is the exception since he actually did look into Buddhism (and other religions). I think, happily, that people are usually not inclined to criticize a religion about which they know nothing. But if you've done some research you could find points where you disagree with the religion's teachings.
In this thread though, I don't see a problem, since we're discussion the idea of Biblical submission, regardless of who holds the belief.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Yes we are! *gets pepper sprayed*

I could build the Eiffel tower out of the irony. I will probably never mis-spell 'congratulations' again.

I always have to stop and think about how to spell that word. What helps me is to remember what people say for short - it's "congrats", not "congrads". That helps me remember to spell it with a "t".

[Rían]

So I can only think of one more question - it was something along the lines of "why is the man the head?"

I guess I would answer that if there are two, and they are both wonderfully and uniquely designed as men and women, and are equally important, than ONE has to be the head and is designed better for it, and it happens to be the man.

And as I said, sometimes the woman might be the better leader! In fact, very often, given this fallen world! But I think our goal in life should NOT be to do whatever is easiest - it should be to do what we think is right. I think it would be better for all concerned in these cases for the man to strive to learn to be the leader, and the woman to submit as he demonstrates leadership. And again, IMO she does NOT submit to anything she KNOWS is against God's word, such as lying to cover up something.

From what I've seen, many objections go along the lines of that this concept is somehow belittling to a woman. I guess I just don't see it that way. I have NO problem with believing that I am just as good as any man In fact, I believe that I am BETTER than men in some areas, and they are better than me in some areas, and that makes a POWERFUL combination when we get together!

I have no problem with God assigning these roles because IMO He cares for men and women equally. We are called "co-heirs". To me, life is amazing and people are incredible! Why complain when we've received such an amazing gift as life and the many blessings that go with it? It's like what Chesterton says about how he can't understand those who complain about being sexually faithful to one woman - "Keeping to one woman is a small price for so much as seeing one woman."

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

So I can only think of one more question - it was something along the lines of "why is the man the head?"

I guess I would answer that if there are two, and they are both wonderfully and uniquely designed as men and women, and are equally important, than ONE has to be the head and is designed better for it, and it happens to be the man.

My issue with the man as the leader thing is this, since I disagree with everything in the above statement.
I still don't see why there needs to be one leader. I see marriage as an equal partnership of those involved.
I still disagree with your emphasis on gender roles as well, but we both probably have equal evidence. It is quite hard to know exactly how much is biology, and how much is the influence of society.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And as I said, sometimes the woman might be the better leader! In fact, very often, given this fallen world! But I think our goal in life should NOT be to do whatever is easiest - it should be to do what we think is right. I think it would be better for all concerned in these cases for the man to strive to learn to be the leader, and the woman to submit as he demonstrates leadership. And again, IMO she does NOT submit to anything she KNOWS is against God's word, such as lying to cover up something.

Well I agree with this. (Except for implications that one person has to be the leader, but I already voiced that above.)

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

From what I've seen, many objections go along the lines of that this concept is somehow belittling to a woman. I guess I just don't see it that way. I have NO problem with believing that I am just as good as any man In fact, I believe that I am BETTER than men in some areas, and they are better than me in some areas, and that makes a POWERFUL combination when we get together!

I don't think it's belittling in your case anyway. But to generally say that men are designed for A and B, and women are designed for C and D belittles both men and women in my opinion. It takes away from the uniqueness of the individual. God doesn't have 2 Play-do molds - one for men and one for women.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I have no problem with God assigning these roles because IMO He cares for men and women equally. We are called "co-heirs". To me, life is amazing and people are incredible! Why complain when we've received such an amazing gift as life and the many blessings that go with it? It's like what Chesterton says about how he can't understand those who complain about being sexually faithful to one woman - "Keeping to one woman is a small price for so much as seeing one woman."

Ah the oft-quoted G.K. Chesterson (at least by some). Maybe I should read something by him. Later. I don't have any issues except one with this statement as well. If we are co-heirs, with which I agree, why one leader? This seems to contradict the idea of co-heirs, even though I think I see what you mean. I just find myself unable to articulate it at the moment.

Our two areas of contention, which will probably never be resolved since a lot depends on your own experiences etc. are:
1. Why shouldn't marriage be an equal partnership?
2. Why such a strong emphasis on gender roles? It does not appear to serve any useful purpose.

Sorry to bludgeon you to death with these 2 questions, but I'm just not getting the point of Biblical submission.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I always have to stop and think about how to spell that word. What helps me is to remember what people say for short - it's "congrats", not "congrads". That helps me remember to spell it with a "t".

That's a good way to remember. It's just that we somewhat lazily say 'congradulations'.

[inked]

Nurv,

"Our two areas of contention, which will probably never be resolved since a lot depends on your own experiences etc. are:
1. Why shouldn't marriage be an equal partnership?
2. Why such a strong emphasis on gender roles? It does not appear to serve any useful purpose."


partnership - business arrangement model marriage

marriage, Christian - covenant model

gender - biological differences due to chromosomal distribution and expression

gender roles - social functions assigned variously to identified genders


Marriage will never succeed as an equal partnership UNLESS both parties are willing to give 100% of themselves (desires, goals, aspirations, physical selves) to each other. Check your Prayer Book at Marriage and see that the institution of marriage 1) is a covenant, 2) symbolic of Christ and the Church, 3) to honored among all people, and 4) mutual for joy, help, support, and procreation (when it is God's will). Note the vows et alia.

Gender roles are societally defined and vary quite a bit. My personal favorite is the one where the husband gets to bed down with the baby to finish the hatching while the wife goes back out to finish planting rice in the fields immediately postpartum. Is this what you had in mind? (I rather doubt it, but I could be in error.)

Gender is the consequence of chromosomal expression. There is unavoidable difference in that. And it must be real because it is in the genes, right? Actually proven to be in the genes and different. So much so that there is X for female and Y for male in the addition to the X every person carries. SO THERE MUST BE SOMETHING TO GENDER deeper than the skin you see expressing it! (Based on multiple arguments on mutliple threads by multiple people here on the 'Moot !) SO IT MUST SERVE A PURPOSE if only to allow me to point it out to you! (A very noble purpose, that! )

In truth, every team has a leader. Every leader has assistants. Every team has differences of opinions. Some teams argue. Some teams break up. Some teams have a submission model ahead of time.

In point of fact, all teams have a submission model. It's called the hierarchy of social groupings. A dyad is a group of two. It has a hierarchy also. Can't help it, just does. Turns out that Christians have a common vision of what that means: mutual submission and final responsibility to the husband when such is required. Most couples in fact work it out on the mutual basis with concessions on either side. Submission is not dominant to inferior 100% of the time (which seems to be your take). It is laying aside self-interest for the good of the couple and may be practised equally. (It is distasteful to modern western sensibility to even consider self-denial in any form.)

Live & learn!

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

partnership - business arrangement model marriage

marriage, Christian - covenant model

gender - biological differences due to chromosomal distribution and expression

gender roles - social functions assigned variously to identified genders

I think gender is also socially defined. In most societies, including Western society, it is the same as your biological sex. But I agree with all your definitions. (And since we're both members of Western society, I'll keep calling it gender as well. I just thought that was interesting.)

Originally Posted by inked

Marriage will never succeed as an equal partnership UNLESS both parties are willing to give 100% of themselves (desires, goals, aspirations, physical selves) to each other. Check your Prayer Book at Marriage and see that the institution of marriage 1) is a covenant, 2) symbolic of Christ and the Church, 3) to honored among all people, and 4) mutual for joy, help, support, and procreation (when it is God's will). Note the vows et alia.

I do agree with this. When I said a marriage should be an equal partnership, I was describing what I think is ideal. Ideally, both people would give 100%.

Originally Posted by inked

Gender roles are societally defined and vary quite a bit. My personal favorite is the one where the husband gets to bed down with the baby to finish the hatching while the wife goes back out to finish planting rice in the fields immediately postpartum. Is this what you had in mind? (I rather doubt it, but I could be in error.)

Hatching..? Aside from the apparent biological discrepency (unless this is some kind of April Fools joke ), this is what I had in mind. Just the idea that the man does one thing and the woman does another thing. It is quite a broad idea, and includes many things, subtle and obvious.
My only real issue with gender roles is when people feel they have to conform. I think people should be able to decide which ones suit them, or which ones suit their marriage.

Originally Posted by inked

Gender is the consequence of chromosomal expression. There is unavoidable difference in that. And it must be real because it is in the genes, right? Actually proven to be in the genes and different. So much so that there is X for female and Y for male in the addition to the X every person carries. SO THERE MUST BE SOMETHING TO GENDER deeper than the skin you see expressing it! (Based on multiple arguments on mutliple threads by multiple people here on the 'Moot !) SO IT MUST SERVE A PURPOSE if only to allow me to point it out to you! (A very noble purpose, that! )

I thought genes were heritable? (You inherit 50% of your genes from your dad and 50% of your genes from your mom. Or is that DNA. First year biology... so... long ago. Okay 2 years. But still.) Your gender isn't heritable, but it is part of your biological make-up.
I wasn't saying that every difference between men and women is actually made my society, I just think a lot are, or some blend between biology and society. I also think it's quite hard to tell when biology's influence ends, and where society's begins.

Originally Posted by inked

In truth, every team has a leader. Every leader has assistants. Every team has differences of opinions. Some teams argue. Some teams break up. Some teams have a submission model ahead of time.

In point of fact, all teams have a submission model. It's called the hierarchy of social groupings. A dyad is a group of two. It has a hierarchy also. Can't help it, just does.

Live & learn!

Well, pretty much agree with this. Except, I think that in a marriage you don't have to have one person who's always the leader. I think this dynamic would shift depending on the situation and other factors.

[Nurvingiel]

Actually Inked, I think you could accurately say two married people are partners. Why not?

*sneaky bump*

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

sneaking? sneaking? very nice, oh yes, to poor smeagol, we shows them secret paths and they say sneak!