Theological Opinions

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

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.

The reaso why is because the wife believes 100% in what the bible says. Also- the reason why it is in the bible is because during that time frame - men were considered superior and above woman. Surely you know know your history too.

If either of them did not believe in Biblical submission, it would not be part of the marriage.

I seriously doubt a man who believed in the wife being submissive - and by the way - rian sort of made up the word "biblical submission to take away the negative context - woudl marry a wife who was strong willed and independent. it would not make for a good marriage and it would not last long. So it's not like it wouldn't be a part of the marriage if both didn't believe in it - there just wouldn't be a marriage period.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

The reaso why is because the wife believes 100% in what the bible says. Also- the reason why it is in the bible is because during that time frame - men were considered superior and above woman. Surely you know know your history too.

I seriously doubt a man who believed in the wife being submissive - and by the way - rian sort of made up the word "biblical submission to take away the negative context - woudl marry a wife who was strong willed and independent. it would not make for a good marriage and it would not last long. So it's not like it wouldn't be a part of the marriage if both didn't believe in it - there just wouldn't be a marriage period.

I disagree about a few things here JD. Maybe a Christian wife believes it because the Bible says so - but I don't see what's wrong with that. Yes - when the Bible was written, men were considered superior to women... the Bible began to change all that. As Paul wrote in one of his epistles, "in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female..." Christianity was revolutionary in this... never before had women been viewed as equal to men.

Rian didn't make up the term 'Biblical submission' - it's a term that any of us Christians might use to talk about submission in a Biblical context - because there IS context. Context is very important in understanding the Bible. Maybe the worst way to try to understand it is to take one small verse, or one small part of a verse (ie, "a wife must submit to her husband") without looking at the whole context - first of the passage where the phrase is found (and from this one in Ephesians, Paul makes this one statement about what the wife has to do - then 'harps on' for several verses about the husband's responsibilities - basically implying that the husband must love his wife enough to be willing to die for her... woman inferior? I don't think so!), then it's good to look at what a book is saying in its entirety - and finally, any part of scripture must be understood in light of the whole of scripture. Just looking at the context in these various levels can greatly change the understanding you get from reading the one verse.

There's something else. Submission is the way of life for all Christians. We are all to 'submit' to, at various times, parents, elders, etc - and at all times to Christ. To take 'submission of the wife to the husband' outside of the context of mutual submission to Christ is what would make this UN-Biblical submission - or UN-Christian submission.

Finally - marriage to a strong-minded women, even in the context of marriage along Biblical guidelines, is not doomed - not hardly. Every marriage will have its rough times anyway. The greater context of Christianity (when applied - and sadly, too few who take on the label of 'Christian' these days really seem to live out what they're claiming) when applied to marriage, will likely ensure a better marriage.

(EDIT: Did you notice I even had to " submit reply"?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

if women were so equal, then how is it that until the late 1700's a man could sell his wife, should he desire, and maybe trade in for a newer model?

(BTW that isn't supposed to sound as arrogant as it does, my usual problem of not being able to phrase words well)

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Valandil

I disagree about a few things here JD. Maybe a Christian wife believes it because the Bible says so - but I don't see what's wrong with that. Yes - when the Bible was written, men were considered superior to women... the Bible began to change all that. As Paul wrote in one of his epistles, "in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female..." Christianity was revolutionary in this... never before had women been viewed as equal to men.

Rian didn't make up the term 'Biblical submission' - it's a term that any of us Christians might use to talk about submission in a Biblical context - because there IS context.

Well I grew up christian - unless you don't consider going to 12 years of catholic school as being christian so it's not like it's "Us christians" who use it. I never even heard it before.

Context is very important in understanding the Bible. Maybe the worst way to try to understand it is to take one small verse, or one small part of a verse (ie, "a wife must submit to her husband") without looking at the whole context - first of the passage where the phrase is found (and from this one in Ephesians, Paul makes this one statement about what the wife has to do - then 'harps on' for several verses about the husband's responsibilities - basically implying that the husband must love his wife enough to be willing to die for her... woman inferior? I don't think so!), then it's good to look at what a book is saying in its entirety - and finally, any part of scripture must be understood in light of the whole of scripture. Just looking at the context in these various levels can greatly change the understanding you get from reading the one verse.

And as I said - there is really no difference in what that verse says - even if you take the whole context of it - of how parents relate to their children. Also - again maybe you need to remember - i had 12 years of religion clasess.

There's something else. Submission is the way of life for all Christians. We are all to 'submit' to, at various times, parents, elders, etc - and at all times to Christ. To take 'submission of the wife to the husband' outside of the context of mutual submission to Christ is what would make this UN-Biblical submission - or UN-Christian submission.

"Biblical"submission has nothig to do with the wife being submissive to Christ 0 it has her being submissive to the husband. You can spin this anyway you want. You and Rain seem to be trying to spin this every which way you can. And I agree - submission is a way of life to ALL Christians - but only to god.

Finally - marriage to a strong-minded women, even in the context of marriage along Biblical guidelines, is not doomed - not hardly. Every marriage will have its rough times anyway. The greater context of Christianity (when applied - and sadly, too few who take on the label of 'Christian' these days really seem to live out what they're claiming) when applied to marriage, will likely ensure a better marriage.

if she doesn't believe in 'biblical" submission and the husband is hell bent (don't you love how I threw that in there ) on having her be submissive - then the marriage is doomed. I also don't agree with your implication that a marriage that adheres to Christian principals would be a better marriage. There may be less conflict - sure - but a better - I don't think so based on my experience with my family and relatives.

(EDIT: Did you notice I even had to " submit reply"?

It's submit as in "send"

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by Valandil

(EDIT: Did you notice I even had to " submit reply"?

O, no! Val pun!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

O, no! Val pun!

yueah I know and a bad one too - he's trying to throw of the argu - - discussion.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well I grew up christian - unless you don't consider going to 12 years of catholic school as being christian so it's not like it's "Us christians" who use it. I never even heard it before.

And as I said - there is really no difference in what that verse says - even if you take the whole context of it - of how parents relate to their children. Also - again maybe you need to remember - i had 12 years of religion clasess.

"Biblical"submission has nothig to do with the wife being submissive to Christ 0 it has her being submissive to the husband. You can spin this anyway you want. You and Rain seem to be trying to spin this every which way you can. And I agree - submission is a way of life to ALL Christians - but only to god.

if she doesn't believe in 'biblical" submission and the husband is hell bent (don't you love how I threw that in there ) on having her be submissive - then the marriage is doomed. I also don't agree with your implication that a marriage that adheres to Christian principals would be a better marriage. There may be less conflict - sure - but a better - I don't think so based on my experience with my family and relatives.

It's submit as in "send"

Those kinds of terms are probably used more among Protestants, I would guess. There was no spin intended on anything. I am not even trying to debate you on this - just to correct some of your misconceptions. Yes, yes - I know you went to Catholic schools (many millions have), but that doesn't make you eminently qualified to speak to what Christians believe - and to discount what practicing Christians say they believe. And maybe you had 12 years of classes - being taught things you now reject (and I reject much of Catholic doctrine myself), I have had 27 years as a Christian to learn what we believe - and I started at 15, so those were mostly adult years.

We seem to be at an impasse - and I think it starts with where we start.

One thing I know though is... I need to take a REAL fast shower if I'm going to get to work on time.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

if women were so equal, then how is it that until the late 1700's a man could sell his wife, should he desire, and maybe trade in for a newer model?

(BTW that isn't supposed to sound as arrogant as it does, my usual problem of not being able to phrase words well)

I have NO idea what you're talking about... or which church THAT was!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Valandil

I have NO idea what you're talking about... or which church THAT was!

it's called english history, which up to 1800's was dominated by religion, and before 1700's it is also your history (you as in generic former colonies, not just val ), and before the late 1700's a wife was legally owned by her husband, and could be sold, ok so it didn't apply to the aristocracy, but all us peasant scum it did.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Valandil

...but that doesn't make you eminently qualified to speak to what Christians believe - and to discount what practicing Christians say they believe.

See - I also don't think anyone is emminently qualified ot state what christians beleives and whether I am practicing the religion right now is not an issue. it's not like my mind was wiped clean you know. however - there are MANY different beliefs in christianity - and for people to say that christians believe this or that is completely wrong.

And maybe you had 12 years of classes - being taught things you now reject (and I reject much of Catholic doctrine myself), I have had 27 years as a Christian to learn what we believe - and I started at 15, so those were mostly adult years.

Actually - musch of what we weree taught I don't reject. I just don't believe in a mythical being or heaven and hell. it has nothing to do with what I was taught though. You sound like you think it's catholicisms fault that I became atheist. If you actually want to know the truth - it was when I moved out to Indiana and was surrounded by all the very religious christians who never seemed to have met another person other than a christian before. With all their arguing about "Christianity" and lutherans makinig fun of catholics and bapstist making fun of people and the pentecostals thinking they were the only true religion (and talking about people who back-slid) - it made me look at religion more closely and I asked myself if any of it really made any sense. My conclusion was no. The beliefs were not less fansiful than the greeks or the roman or the egyptian beliefs.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

it's called english history, which up to 1800's was dominated by religion, and before 1700's it is also your history (you as in generic former colonies, not just val ), and before the late 1700's a wife was legally owned by her husband, and could be sold, ok so it didn't apply to the aristocracy, but all us peasant scum it did.

A. That's the first I've heard of it. Did it actually happen?

B. Christianity has often been misused and 'the church' has often had it's corrupt times, sadly enough. Those responsible will have to answer for it one day. God's "mistake" (I'm being 'tongue-in-cheek' here) was to leave people in charge of it. Anyway, this was CERTAINLY not a policy espoused in the Bible - nor would it be advocated by responsible, conscientious Christianity.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

yes it did happen, i would hardly make it up, a scientific chappie like me,

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

See - I also don't think anyone is emminently qualified ot state what christians beleives and whether I am practicing the religion right now is not an issue. it's not like my mind was wiped clean you know. however - there are MANY different beliefs in christianity - and for people to say that christians believe this or that is completely wrong.

Actually - musch of what we weree taught I don't reject. I just don't believe in a mythical being or heaven and hell. it has nothing to do with what I was taught though. You sound like you think it's catholicisms fault that I became atheist. If you actually want to know the truth - it was when I moved out to Indiana and was surrounded by all the very religious christians who never seemed to have met another person other than a christian before. With all their arguing about "Christianity" and lutherans makinig fun of catholics and bapstist making fun of people and the pentecostals thinking they were the only true religion (and talking about people who back-slid) - it made me look at religion more closely and I asked myself if any of it really made any sense. My conclusion was no. The beliefs were not less fansiful than the greeks or the roman or the egyptian beliefs.

Again I disagree - and I wasn't necessarily thinking that it was Catholicism that drove you to atheism - I've known plenty enough Protestants who have left behind what they came from.

As for believing what you were taught - you're rejecting the whole BASIS for believing what you were taught, aren't you?

What you experienced in Indiana sounds to me more like what could happen (and often does) in more isolated and insular communities - regardless of the predominant religion. And yes - people are prone to stray... some do so by openly leaving their church and calling themselves atheists... others by 'flirting with the edges' maybe, like those pentacostals you met. Unfortunately, no group is immune to that, and it often seems to happen in those young adult years.

Yes - there is variation in Christian beliefs - but there is also a lot that is common among all or almost all Christians. The distinctions are usually on the finer points - and the less substantial ones.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

yes it did happen, i would hardly make it up, a scientific chappie like me,

I dunno... I think LOTS of scientists make things up!

But please give more specifics - particularly how you think Christianity was involved or to blame.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

well how about the fact that it was authorised by monarchs (divine representative) and religious figures, such as bishops

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Valandil

As for believing what you were taught - you're rejecting the whole BASIS for believing what you were taught, aren't you?

Why? I see no reason to reject everything just because I don't believe in a mythical being or that i will be punished after I die if I don't "behave".

What you experienced in Indiana sounds to me more like what could happen (and often does) in more isolated and insular communities - regardless of the predominant religion. And yes - people are prone to stray... some do so by openly leaving their church and calling themselves atheists... others by 'flirting with the edges' maybe, like those pentacostals you met. Unfortunately, no group is immune to that, and it often seems to happen in those young adult years.

Nope -it wasn't that I "strayed" - it was more like it wasn't very believable to think that some mythical being created everything. I mean - if the tooth fairy isn't believable - then why is god believable? The people I met out in indiana would had me going to church 5 times a day. The pentacostals I met were the most extreme religious of the bunch. They in no way were flirting with the edges.

Yes - there is variation in Christian beliefs - but there is also a lot that is common among all or almost all Christians. The distinctions are usually on the finer points - and the less substantial ones.

Having met a lot of different religions - I really don't think that is much of the case in many instances. Take the issue of Mary for instance - what her role was and her importance. That is looked down upon by other religions - yet it is a very important point for Catholics. Luthers use grape juice for communion. They're claim is that jesus only used wine as a metaphor and that it was really just grape juice - hence they only use grape juice for communion. I also don't understand christian religions where they only have communion during certain masses. In the catholic church - communion is every mass. Of course then everyone says that Catholics are a bunch of alcoholics. But hey - I think most of the complaints about catholicism is from lack of understanding anyway. Also - religion isn't so much about believing - it's about inheriting what you are taught and the environment you were brought up in. The die hard christian if they were born in the Middle east - would most likely be Muslim and believe just as strongly that they were right, if they were born in India - they would most likely be Hindi. So religion has more to do with where one was born - than what one actually discovered and learned on one's own.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

well how about the fact that it was authorised by monarchs (divine representative) and religious figures, such as bishops

This goes back to my points about religion being used by governments to control the masses. or was that another thread. Damn there are so many religioous threads here.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

no i think that one was in here
but then i keep forgetting which one i am in

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

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

I can certainly try to express what I think is true, and that's what I did. There are such things as peer groups with an assigned leader, and that's how I feel a marriage operates.

When I was working as an engineer at the military radar company, I was in charge of my group of software developers, because I was senior to most of them, and frankly I was quite good But sometimes I would be in a peer group with engineers in other areas, and we would choose a leader to run things, even tho we were peers, because it went more smoothly. Sometimes I would be the head, sometimes I wouldn't; I didn't care either way, because I knew we were all peers. It's that simple.

So I repeat what I said: leader, yes; leader in the sense of superior, no.

[Rían]

To clarify why I used the term "Biblical submission" - I wanted to discuss, specifically, the type of wife-to-husband submission concept that I think is a good one, and is specifically described in the Bible, as opposed to other types of wife-to-husband submission concepts that are around. For example, in Islamic scriptures, the wife is told to obey the husband, and their scriptures say the husband should beat her if she doesn't. Another example is a person that has heard somewhere that the Bible said that a wife should obey her husband, and has no idea of the context or the accompanying verse that says the husband should love his wife as Christ loves the Church, and uses this to give himself a bad excuse to abuse his wife and treat her as a second-class citizen. NEITHER of these are "Biblical submission" - i.e., submission as specifically described in the Bible and in context (as opposed to an isolated verse). If I just said "submission", as opposed to "Biblical submission", then how would you guys know which one I'm talking about?

So the charge that I "sort of made up the word "biblical submission to take away the negative context" is just not true. I'm just trying to be very clear about which concept of submission I'm talking about, because there are many ideas out there, and IMO some are harmful and wrong.