Theological Opinions

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

So if you are planning on a vacation and your husband wants to go one place and you want to go another - you have no problem with him just saying - "well sorry - this is where we are going"?

Certainly I would have a problem with him saying that!! As it stands, that statement sounds very selfish and self-centered, and I would certainly have a problem with that.

If you think I wouldn't have a problem with that statement, then apparently you just don't understand my posts on the subject. I give up trying to explain it to you - apparently I just can't express myself well enough for you to understand.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Certainly I would have a problem with him saying that!! As it stands, that statement sounds very selfish and self-centered, and I would certainly have a problem with that.

You've said several times that he has the final word though. And that it only bothers you if it's an immoral thing that he wants to do and you are against. Although it may bother you - but I suppose maybe you just accept it then and stay quiet about it once he makes his decision.

If you think I wouldn't have a problem with that statement, then apparently you just don't understand my posts on the subject. I give up trying to explain it to you - apparently I just can't express myself well enough for you to understand.

Well I guess not - and the amazing thing is - even while you wish to attack me and act as if I'm the only one who doesn't understand - there seems to be several others on this thread who don't understand either. But that's fine. let's see though....

BASICALLY you have said that when you have disgreements - your husband has the final word. And unless it's morally wrong - you have no problkem with it and feel that it's proper because god made it that way. The other stuff where you try to justify this stance isn't much importance to me to tell you the truth - it's about who has final say in decisions and several times you said that your husband does.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I agree, though it's not always appropriate. For example, in building forestry machines like harvesters, one person is in charge of that particular machine and follows it from a box of parts to the final product. They don't have an assembly line, but rather, stations. There is freedom for workers to switch shifts or stations, as long as they finish the machine in the time it should take.

And I might follow certain areas in our marriage thru - er, through.

I know you said that. I meant that it does seem that he is the leader since the responsibility of making final decisions rests on his shoulders. Personally this is one way I define a leader.
Maybe we're just in a word-usage like Inked and I were a few posts ago now?

I guess I feel like we're equal partners in a team, and he has the final say (which is MY choice to give to him) in areas where we disagree, as long as I don't feel there's any moral problems with the decision. So yes, he's a leader in the sense of he has the final decision, but not in the sense of he's some great guy and the wife is just a flunky.

Husband: Let's send our son to military school!
Wife: I know he spray painted a car, but I don't think this would help.
Husband: I'm the man and my decision is final.
Wife: Oh please. *rolls eyes* This is not a good idea and I won't go along with it. Instead, I think he should pay for the damage out of his own pocket.
Husband: That is a better idea. We'll do that.

Well, I couldn't quite see THAT happening but I could see THIS happening:

Husband: Let's send our son to military school!
Wife: I know he spray painted a car, but I don't think this would help.
Husband: What do you think would help?
Wife: I think he should pay for the damage out of his own pocket.
Husband: That is a better idea. We'll do that.

or this:

Husband: Let's send our son to military school!
Wife: I know he spray painted a car, but I don't think this would help.
Husband: What do you think would help?
Wife: I think he should pay for the damage out of his own pocket.
Husband: Hmm, let's think about that, and you think about my idea.
*lots of discussion follows, with lots of prayer and talking with others, and new options come up from both sides, and further discussion follows, because this is an important topic, and both husband and wife should be able to fully express their opinions in the matter*
Wife: Well, we've talked it over and we still disagree, but it's time to decide because we have to turn in applications, so hon, I now turn it over to you for the final decision, and I'll back you 100%, even if I disagree with your decision, because neither one of us can know which one is really better anyway. I think both have positives and negatives, and either one will work out, altho I may have a different opinion about which one is better. But I now turn things over to you to decide.
Husband: I really value your input, and it's given me lots of helpful things to think about. I know we both love our son, and want what is best for him. At this point, I think military school is the best option. Let's go for that, and re-assess the situation in a few months.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I guess I feel like we're equal partners in a team, and he has the final say (which is MY choice to give to him) in areas where we disagree, as long as I don't feel there's any moral problems with the decision. So yes, he's a leader in the sense of he has the final decision, but not in the sense of he's some great guy and the wife is just a flunky.

Well there you say it again - he hasd the final say and you finally say that he is the leader. As for it being your choice - it seems more like it's because the bible says it's suppsosd to be that way more than anything else. Because that's what you keep bring up is what the bible says about it. therefore I am wondering - and I'm sure many others on this thread are wondering - how much of it do you actually think it's your choice and how much of it you feel it is your obligation because it's stated in the bible.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

rian i think i got a handle of what you were inferring: that in your relationship there is a lot of trust and mutual respect and therefore you had no personal problem with due regard to the respect of your husband's love, character and judgement in giving final say to him at a pinch as an agreed course of action, but would never do so if you seriouslt thought it wrong - is that correct?

To recap - yes, that's a pretty good summary, except I would clarify it to "morally wrong", not just "wrong".

But you have surely got to see how JD and LCOU and (even Nurvingiel in her own slightly different way) see this as unequal and - it appears -almost doctrinal submission? How much is this through religious doctrine and how much through your own personal choice and free- will?

From what I understand of their beliefs, I certainly see how they would think it's "unequal".

(and btw, before this thread, were YOU, personally, aware of the verse telling the husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church? or were you just aware of the submission verse?)

My choice to comply with this idea is based on my beliefs, just as those who choose to NOT comply with this idea base THEIR decision on THEIR beliefs. If a person doesn't BELIEVE in the God described in the Bible, then I certainly would see no reason why they would choose to model Biblical submission in their marriage.

My stance on this issue doesn't exist in a vacuum ("vacuum" as in lack of air, NOT the cleaning tool! ). It has context. Did you see my 5 posts on why I personally believe Christianity is true? I did NOT pick up a slip of paper that says "wives submit to your husbands" and say, "hey, I think I'll believe that!" My choice to go along with this concept of submission is just that - a CHOICE - based upon an extensive and careful evaluation of the Christian worldview and other worldviews such as atheism.

When you say, "How much is this through religious doctrine...", it seems like you are implying that I haven't thought about it - is that so? I know many Christians, as well as many atheists, who have NOT carefully thought through and evaluated and analyzed their beliefs. I'm NOT one of them. I've given a LOT of thought to this issue, and to the context surrounding the issue, and I believe that it is a right and good thing. I don't think anyone should do what they think is wrong, whether it's in their "religious doctrine" or not.

Asi said above i think i understand where you are coming from (not personally - HAH! y'know?)- and if you are happy great! but i can't quite grasp why you have seem not to understand the response, ref: clear cut case of leader?

See answers to Nurvi - leader, yes; leader in the sense of superior, no.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

See answers to Nurvi - leader, yes; leader in the sense of superior, no.

Who has final say in disagreements - hence superior.

[Valandil]

JD - now cut it out! Us Christian guys finally have a good thing going - and here you're trying to RUIN it for us!!

(my wife made me say that)

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Valandil

JD - now cut it out! Us Christian guys finally have a good thing going - and here you're trying to RUIN it for us!!

(my wife made me say that)

Hey - what's your wife doing reading entmoot - shouldn't she be in the kitchen slaving away to make your dinner?

[Rían]

So anyway, Nurvs, did I clear up for you that I think that the leadership of the husband has NOTHING to do with his somehow being a superior being? I sure hope that is totally clear. I repeat that I think women are AMAZING beings, and so are men, and they are totally equal in the sight of God as far as value. They have EQUAL opportunity to do well with whatever abilities they have, or to choose to abuse their abilities. They are BOTH responsible to do what they think is right, and answerable to God if they don't. They are EQUAL partners, with the right of final decision making going to the husband while they are living in this world (the next world, the one we'll spend eternity in, is a different story. As Jesus pointed out, there is no marriage in heaven. Marriage is something specially and uniquely designed for our blessing while we are living out our short life here on this earth. As the old song says, we're only visiting this planet )

It's late; I'll address your question tomorrow, Chrys.

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

To recap - yes, that's a pretty good summary, except I would clarify it to "morally wrong", not just "wrong".


Quote:
(and btw, before this thread, were YOU, personally, aware of the verse telling the husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church? or were you just aware of the submission verse?)


As i understand it is a two way thing often misunderstood and rarely truly pratcisied: the wife should submit to the will of the husband true, but he is charged with a solemn duty to love , respect and never to harm his wife (obviously paraphrasing wildly here from memory of filming a wedding service at an abbey) so yeah i do kinda understand what you are saying and since it seems you are both equally devout (if right word??) it does to a large degree explain your position: one has to appreciate that you and your husband are let us say Chrisitians in the REAL sense as opposed to the common or garden nominal sort that makes up the vast majority: and there is a real big difference between really beleiving and trying to live the moral codes of your belief and knowing the words as it were. So fair play.

It does obviously bring you into inevitable conflict with the real world (real as in modern commonality of experience, "belief", world views etc - esp in the West anyway):
I still think JD is right though: what is the problem since you state it clearly numerously stating that effectively (in your own terms for sure) your Husband is the leader?

Quote:

My choice to comply with this idea is based on my beliefs, just as those who choose to NOT comply with this idea base THEIR decision on THEIR beliefs. If a person doesn't BELIEVE in the God described in the Bible, then I certainly would see no reason why they would choose to model Biblical submission in their marriage.

My stance on this issue doesn't exist in a vacuum ("vacuum" as in lack of air, NOT the cleaning tool! ). It has context. Did you see my 5 posts on why I personally believe Christianity is true? I did NOT pick up a slip of paper that says "wives submit to your husbands" and say, "hey, I think I'll believe that!" My choice to go along with this concept of submission is just that - a CHOICE - based upon an extensive and careful evaluation of the Christian worldview and other worldviews such as atheism.



Hadn't thought to read the vacum line that way, but its very Monty python when you do! Nooobody expects their beleifs to be sucked out by the Spanish DYson!


Quote:
When you say, "How much is this through religious doctrine...", it seems like you are implying that I haven't thought about it - is that so? I know many Christians, as well as many atheists, who have NOT carefully thought through and evaluated and analyzed their beliefs. I'm NOT one of them. I've given a LOT of thought to this issue, and to the context surrounding the issue, and I believe that it is a right and good thing. I don't think anyone should do what they think is wrong, whether it's in their "religious doctrine" or not.


NO: i'm pretty sure you've thought about it or at least are a genuine Christian and following belief: my issue is more how much do genuine Christians or rather should Gc's doctinally follow every last word and utterence, penned in the main by man many centuries ago and translated and tranliterated over many more centuries etc? how much should you question the details of written words and make individual decisions on each one's relevance and moral importance PROVIDED (from your point of view) you are surein your faith and know you are leading a morally good life etc?

you kind of say this yourself at the end there: so my question was rahter to find out if it is something you as a person agree with, or reluctantly agree to conform to or just put up with or willingly allow? or are more than happy to submit?
Again i know its good for you, and hard for others to understand (esp how you put it sometimes Rian!!) but which is it? Are you confident and secure enough in your faith to be a free thinker AND a good christian or do you feel that you must half blindly follow any doctrine no matter how (whatever)


This is the real issue here as i see it: im assuming JD respects your right to religius freedom: what i think is really at issue here is within that how free are you as a person (not the religion) are you within yourself confident and secure enough to have and stand by your own decisions? or conversly strong enough in your beleif and faith to do the same via your Husband's decisions - or NOt as the odd case may be: and why oh why cannot we agree IF thefinal say goes to your Husband then effectively by anyones rightful thinking he clearly CAN be seen as a Leader (if not please re-define the word for us)


See answers to Nurvi - leader, yes; leader in the sense of superior, no.

understand wht you trying to say, but you cannot re-define words like that: just admit it he is the leader (in this context!)

[Butterbeer]

don't know why all above is in Quote mode: sorry - my replies are below the bold entries, just to avoid any confusion!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

don't know why all above is in Quote mode: sorry - my replies are below the bold entries, just to avoid any confusion!

I htnk you haev one single quote and didn't break it up into seperate quotes using the [/quote] tag after each section.

BTW - you gave a nice summary of my position when you mentioned it. But the other thing si that you told her to redefine the word for us - and then told her she couldn't. I would prefer her to call it what it is when a person has final say, instead of trying to twist it around.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

don't know why all above is in Quote mode: sorry - my replies are below the bold entries, just to avoid any confusion!

you need to add a few [/quote]'s in there, Butterbeer

all this militray school thing is weird ( i know it is just a scenario) when i spray painted my mum's car she took a photo and put it in her scrapbook, mind you i dont think we have 'military schools' in england, aside from actually joining the army, and the car was my art project, anyway

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

As i understand it is a two way thing often misunderstood and rarely truly pratcisied: the wife should submit to the will of the husband true, but he is charged with a solemn duty to love , respect and never to harm his wife (obviously paraphrasing wildly here from memory of filming a wedding service at an abbey) so yeah i do kinda understand what you are saying and since it seems you are both equally devout (if right word??) it does to a large degree explain your position: one has to appreciate that you and your husband are let us say Chrisitians in the REAL sense as opposed to the common or garden nominal sort that makes up the vast majority: and there is a real big difference between really beleiving and trying to live the moral codes of your belief and knowing the words as it were. So fair play.

It does obviously bring you into inevitable conflict with the real world (real as in modern commonality of experience, "belief", world views etc - esp in the West anyway):
I still think JD is right though: what is the problem since you state it clearly numerously stating that effectively (in your own terms for sure) your Husband is the leader?

Hadn't thought to read the vacum line that way, but its very Monty python when you do! Nooobody expects their beleifs to be sucked out by the Spanish DYson!

NO: i'm pretty sure you've thought about it or at least are a genuine Christian and following belief: my issue is more how much do genuine Christians or rather should Gc's doctinally follow every last word and utterence, penned in the main by man many centuries ago and translated and tranliterated over many more centuries etc? how much should you question the details of written words and make individual decisions on each one's relevance and moral importance PROVIDED (from your point of view) you are surein your faith and know you are leading a morally good life etc?

you kind of say this yourself at the end there: so my question was rahter to find out if it is something you as a person agree with, or reluctantly agree to conform to or just put up with or willingly allow? or are more than happy to submit?
Again i know its good for you, and hard for others to understand (esp how you put it sometimes Rian!!) but which is it? Are you confident and secure enough in your faith to be a free thinker AND a good christian or do you feel that you must half blindly follow any doctrine no matter how (whatever)


This is the real issue here as i see it: im assuming JD respects your right to religius freedom: what i think is really at issue here is within that how free are you as a person (not the religion) are you within yourself confident and secure enough to have and stand by your own decisions? or conversly strong enough in your beleif and faith to do the same via your Husband's decisions - or NOt as the odd case may be: and why oh why cannot we agree IF thefinal say goes to your Husband then effectively by anyones rightful thinking he clearly CAN be seen as a Leader (if not please re-define the word for us)


See answers to Nurvi - leader, yes; leader in the sense of superior, no.understand wht you trying to say, but you cannot re-define words like that: just admit it he is the leader (in this context!)

there you are butterbeer, tidied up

[Nurvingiel]

I get it now... and yet I don't. I see what you mean, but I still don't understand all of it.

I understand that someone can be a leader without somehow being superior. We see this a lot in everyday life. However, I'm having difficulty with this concept in a marriage of two equal people where one is in charge, though not superior. It works and it doesn't. My brain... hurts...

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I get it now... and yet I don't. I see what you mean, but I still don't understand all of it.

I understand that someone can be a leader without somehow being superior. We see this a lot in everyday life. However, I'm having difficulty with this concept in a marriage of two equal people where one is in charge, though not superior. It works and it doesn't. My brain... hurts...

My feeling is you're brain hurts because she's talking in circles and trying to justify and get you accept something that makes no sense. He has the final say in disagreements - that's a given. That means that if she hands over the decision to him, that means she has aquienced to him the final say and for her to accept his decision. Sorry - I view it as a child accepting the parent as having a the final say. The parent still loves and respects the child - but the parent is still the one in control of any final decisions - even if they are discussed. So that is my whole problem here - I view it as a parent/child relationship. How do you others view? Doesn't this make sense? (hypothetical question because I already know it makes perfect sense ).

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

My feeling is you're brain hurts because she's talking in circles and trying to justify and get you accept something that makes no sense. He has the final say in disagreements - that's a given. That means that if she hands over the decision to him, that means she has aquienced to him the final say and for her to accept his decision. Sorry - I view it as a child accepting the parent as having a the final say. The parent still loves and respects the child - but the parent is still the one in control of any final decisions - even if they are discussed. So that is my whole problem here - I view it as a parent/child relationship. How do you others view? Doesn't this make sense? (hypothetical question because I already know it makes perfect sense ).

Not so, I think my brain hurts for a few reasons. Aside from this morning's academics, RÃ*an's point of view is quite different from mine and is also a complex social factor I haven't really given any thought to before this discussion. Of course it won't be immediately obviuos. I have come to understand a lot about this idea. Only the whole 'leader' thing remains to be deciphered.

Hehe. Acquiesced is a great word, it should be used more often. It brings to mine that great Pirates of the Caribbean quote... "I'm afraid I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request."

I don't think it's akin to a parent-child relationship. He's the head of the household, not her dad, as RÃ*an said at the beginning of page 20, "Yes, he's the leader of our household. That does NOT mean I don't have any say in things, or that I"m second class."
I understand this concept anyway, though I can't see myself practicing it. I think we mainly learn about marriage from our parents. We won't always agree with our parents' way of doing things, but I think to a certain degree we 'inherit' it from them.

I think I understand the whole concept now. I wish I had noticed your "head of the household" quote before. I think both my grandparents had this kind of structure, but at least one set was not practicing Biblical submission. The other set, perhaps.

edited to add paragraph breaks

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I don't think it's akin to a parent-child relationship. He's the head of the household, not her dad, as RÃ*an said at the beginning of page 20, "Yes, he's the leader of our household. That does NOT mean I don't have any say in things, or that I"m second class."

And what do you call it when one person has final say over things when there is no agreement? Rian has said many things and contradicted herself in many ways. Aslo- as a person growing up in a household where everything was discussed - it wasn't like we didn't have a say in things either. But when push came to shove - my parents made the final decision - just like her husband makes the final decisions for her when there is a disagreement. Hence the parent/chidl relationship.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

And what do you call it when one person has final say over things when there is no agreement? Rian has said many things and contradicted herself in many ways.

Actually RÃ*an has only said, IIRC, that she wouldn't go along with something she didn't believe. I have wrapped my brain around this concept (among other things, I rock at social sciences) and I think it can be explained like this: though the husband, as the head of the household, has the final decision, the wife is not a wuss who will do things she believes is wrong. It's a more complicated dynamic than the husband bossing the wife around.

Now, I don't agree with this idea, but it is not a load of bull. It's an idea that has been well-thought out (at least by RÃ*an) and practiced by many. You and I don't find it useful, but other people do.

My goal here was to understand what Biblical submission was in general and what RÃ*an's views on it were. I think I have grasped the concept now so I'm happy to either move along, or keep talking about the fine points - whatever you guys decide.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Aslo- as a person growing up in a household where everything was discussed - it wasn't like we didn't have a say in things either. But when push came to shove - my parents made the final decision - just like her husband makes the final decisions for her when there is a disagreement. Hence the parent/chidl relationship.

I'm acquiesing the decision about what we discuss now to the other members of the thread because either option is fine with me.

I also come from a house where we talked about important decisions, but my parents had the final say. They would, out of love for us, sometimes let us have the final say, like the time I quit piano. Thus far, it seems akin to Biblical submission, but the similarities end here.
The reason my parents had the final say is because they are more mature than my brother and I. The reason the husband would have the final say in a marriage with Biblical submission is because the wife allows this to be so. If either of them did not believe in Biblical submission, it would not be part of the marriage.

For example, buying a car with different family structures:

Parents with kids:
When we bought our Volvo 10 years ago, my borther and I were about 10 and 11, and all we knew about the car was that it was a blue station wagon with a sunroof. (That's not the knowledge base one should use to buy a car.) Plus, a decision like this is the responsibility of the parents, not 10-year-olds.

Marriage without Biblical submission:
If my husband and I were buying a car, we will both have an equal say in the final decision. Both of us know something about cars (I would research more in the event of buying a car though), and we are both mature enough to be responsible for such an important decision (otherwise we wouldn't be married). He would probably contribute more knowledge since knowing things about cars is one of his hobbies and he hopes to be a mechanic. If we were buying a forestry machine, I would contribute more knowledge. However, in either case, we would make the decision together.

Marriage with Biblical submission:
The scenario would be exactly the same as above except for one important difference. (This is imagining that my husband and I from the above example do believe in Biblical submission.)
Instead of making the decision together, my husband, in the final analysis, would consider all the knowledgeand research we both contributed, and both of our opinions, for the final decision. If we were buying a forestry machine, he might say I could make the final decision.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Actually RÃ*an has only said, IIRC, that she wouldn't go along with something she didn't believe. I have wrapped my brain around this concept (among other things, I rock at social sciences) and I think it can be explained like this: though the husband, as the head of the household, has the final decision, the wife is not a wuss who will do things she believes is wrong. It's a more complicated dynamic than the husband bossing the wife around.

She corrected Butterbeer on that poiont you just said where he used the term "wrong" and she said things she found "MORALLY wrong" - there is a differnce between just not believing something is right and finding it morally wrong. BTW - I'm great at social sciences too.