Theological Opinions

[Nurvingiel]

Interesting RÃ*an. No time limit or anything. If I had to guess what Biblical submission is? Hm... I really don't have much of idea... but I have to admit that I am suspicious of this idea for two reasons.
1. the word "submission" - this does not have any positive connotations that I'm aware of
2. The pretty much non-existant status of women in the different cultures that wrote the Bible and/or were around when it was written. (I know it took a long time to write, but I don't think the status of women improved much over that period of time.)

Lastly, I completely fail to see why gender should determine one's role in the marriage. It should be a two-way street (which does seem possible by what you posted previously), but also we should play on our strengths and enjoyments in a marriage, not adhere to some bizarre gender code.

In short, I'd say that I see Biblical submission as a strange gender code with no apprent purpose (though I acknowledge that I don't know any possible purpose, this isn't the Bible's fault ).

That being said, I'll certainly keep and open mind to your explanations. Judgement will be reserved for understanding.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Also IMO it's incorrect to say that Biblical submission requires the wife to not think, or to obey something she thinks is wrong.

What if she thinks Biblical submission is wrong?

[katya]

Ok RÃ*an, enlighten me. What *is* the biblical submission? With the things you've ruled out I don't know what's left.

Nurvi, I think that gender makes a difference because it's in our nature. I wish I could remember those examples-I've been running around trying to do other things so I haven't looked it up. But some people are different. It's just in general, I think. Am I wrong?

[Nurvingiel]

Gender does make a small difference. If my husband and I are deciding who will breastfeed our baby, I think I'll field that one. But as to who would bottle feed our baby - we can both do that as fits the needs of our baby and us. Beyond biology, gender roles are determined by society. If you don't like the role set down for you, you don't have to follow it. Societies are fluid and changeable.

I think religion and the Bible are part of society. If Biblical submission is something I won't want to subscribe to, it is (yet another) gender role that I would reject.

I'm going to reserve comments on this now, until RÃ*an has explained more, since I still don't know much.

[katya]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

If you don't like the role set down for you, you don't have to follow it. Societies are fluid and changeable.

I think so too. But in this study they did, and I think it's been repeated, women are by nature more happy raising children than men are. Women get more joy out of feeding their children. Men were more driven by careers. This could support the whole submission thing, whatever it is... But you know, in a lot of ways I'm more like a man. I exhibit many symptoms of those girls who were exposed to slightly more testosterone in the womb, haha. And I hate kids.

[Nurvingiel]

Ah, but how much of that is biology and how much is culture? I'm sure at least part of it is biology, but certainly not all.

I think I too am one of those more testosterone-exposed girls. Hehe. Nature likes variation though it seems.

[Lief Erikson]

It's pretty broadly acknowledged that there are some definite differences between the sexes. Men and women have some rather significant differences between them. For example in a romance, men tend to have more physical needs while women more emotional. There are many other aspects. It's visible in many of today's books. There are books for men and books for women. If men and women were mentally the same (it's tough for me playing around with language at the moment- don't get the impression I'm saying either is inferior or superior!), books would be addressed to both together. You wouldn't find some books for one sex and some books for the other. Men and women have different emotional needs and different advantages. Give a woman a flower and it makes her day. Give a man a flower and it confuses him (and in our modern culture, might also worry him). Give him a roll of measuring tape and he'll be more happy . Many women love romance novels, while many men love James Bond. James Bond is more oriented toward men (though there are women that like it too) while romance novels are clearly a feminine thing. There's a scene in "Sleepless and Seattle" that captures this very well, where the men show their love for "The Dirty Dozen" and the woman shows her extreme emotion concerning "An Affair to Remember." What was described in that movie really is real .

The argument that these things are entirely related to culture doesn't fit the available data. The first evidence of this is that men and women have been noted to be different largely throughout time. There aren't exceptions. A second argument is largely simple genetics! It seems to me obvious that men and women wouldn't have brains that are exactly the same. Men and women certainly have different bodies- that they should have different minds and different natures is logical. You see the same thing in many other species aside from humans too- it is very rare that you'll find the male and female of a species having the same characteristics. They fulfill different roles, have different natures and different jobs. This is visible throughout all the species . . . I can't think of one where the male and female of a species have precisely the same role. You won't find any black widow spiders where the male eats the female . . . quite the reverse . . . . Off-topic. That's purely physical, like the breast feeding. Anyway . . .



So that human males and females differ seems to me pretty obvious. The Bible sets out describing how those differences support one another, how those difference fit one another's weak points. Men have some weak points that we need women to help us fill. Women have some weak points that they need men to fill. This I think is one of the things that makes marriage beautiful too, truly beautiful, and which any homosexual marriage by definition would be lacking.

Anyway, what the Bible is talking about is masculinity and femininity. It acknowledges the fact that men and women are different, with different strengths and weaknesses ingrained in them, and it shows how they can best work together and fit together. From here on I will definitely prefer to leave it to RÃ*an.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

genderisation is an Ideological State Apparatus, pure and simple
as is every other aspect of life, most of which is aimed at furthering
the proletariat submission, in order to keep the bourgois in power.

[Lief Erikson]

Are you arguing that all the gender-specific books out there can apply equally to male and female? (Lifts eyebrows a fair distance)

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i dont know, i dont know anything anymore, everything i thought i knew is on it's head, why oh why did i take a-level sociology??

[Lief Erikson]

Lol!

[Nurvingiel]

Interesting post Lief. I wasn't saying it was 100% culture and society, I just think it is largely culture and society. Of course there are biological differences. I also think it's exceedingly difficult to separate cultural and biological influences since both have been acting on humankind since we have existed.
As a side note, what on Earth is a gender-specific book? You mean like Lurlene McDaniel romance (I think she writes) books?

I think you listed a significant amount of generalizations in your first paragraph that, of course, do not apply particularly well to an individual person. And it's individuals who get married.

Also, an important part from the end of your post:

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Anyway, what the Bible is talking about is masculinity and femininity. It acknowledges the fact that men and women are different, with different strengths and weaknesses ingrained in them, and it shows how they can best work together and fit together. From here on I will definitely prefer to leave it to RÃ*an.

I'll just ask you the one question and then wait for RÃ*an to field the question. If a relationship needs a man and a woman to not be lacking, what does that say about unmarried people? Would a single woman not 'lack' masculinity/a man as much as two married women? And of course, women and men are both masculine and feminine to varying degrees depending on the individual, so really, neither gay couples nor single people would be lacking anything. Or am I missing something here?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Interesting post Lief. I wasn't saying it was 100% culture and society, I just think it is largely culture and society. Of course there are biological differences. I also think it's exceedingly difficult to separate cultural and biological influences since both have been acting on humankind since we have existed.

That makes sense to me. I'll want to think about it.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

As a side note, what on Earth is a gender-specific book? You mean like Lurlene McDaniel romance (I think she writes) books?

I was referring to "help" books. There are books out there like, "What a woman wants in a man," and "What a man wants in a woman." They tend to be gender specific. "What a woman wants in a man," is designed to instruct and help men rather then women.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I think you listed a significant amount of generalizations in your first paragraph that, of course, do not apply particularly well to an individual person. And it's individuals who get married.

In my view though, they apply to most people. All but one of the family structures I personally am acquainted with fits with that pattern.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I'll just ask you the one question and then wait for RÃ*an to field the question. If a relationship needs a man and a woman to not be lacking, what does that say about unmarried people? Would a single woman not 'lack' masculinity/a man as much as two married women?

You know what: at present my mother is praying that I will get married. She's praying that because she knows my weaknesses, how I am not an engineering or down-to-Earth sort of person at all. I'm like my father in that respect, some. My mother on the other hand is extremely hands-on. I have other weaknesses too that my mother is concerned about; hence she prays that I will end up with a partner who will possess the qualities I lack.

I think that someone who is unmarried is missing out on something that would enhance their lives. There can be good reasons for doing this, nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

And of course, women and men are both masculine and feminine to varying degrees depending on the individual, so really, neither gay couples nor single people would be lacking anything. Or am I missing something here?

Yes, a simple fact. While you are right that I was generalizing in what I said earlier-there are some men that are more feminine and some women that are more masculine-these are the exceptions. Most women are more feminine. Not all, but definitely most. Most men are also more masculine. It would be a rare gay couple that has one member able to replace someone of the opposite sex. Take that as a compliment!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by lief

I was referring to "help" books. There are books out there like, "What a woman wants in a man," and "What a man wants in a woman." They tend to be gender specific. "What a woman wants in a man," is designed to instruct and help men rather then women.

it could be argued that books like that, and the 'bridget jones' films, and the such like put feminism back 10-20 years

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

You know, I knew you'd made a comment like that - I could have NOT said what I did, but I'm interested in the truth, so I said it. Yay truth! Yay talking! And I agree with you, btw, but I extend that to evolutionists, too, and their "bible", which is the assumption of naturalism.

AGAIN YOU ARE WRONG. It is NOT about Naturalism - it is ABOUT the FACT you can NOT bring god into scientific theory. They don't attempt to answer the question of god. I don't get what you say all the time about 'to evolutionists, too, and their "bible", which is the assumption of naturalism'. As I said in the creationism thread - you seem to be very much stuck on this and erroneously so. Whereas you NEED to bring god into creationism - neither god nor nature is brought into evolution - but is merely describing the changes that take place during the course of billions of years.

I really wish you would stop with these false claims about evolution and an "assumption of naturalism"

As for dinosaurs developing into reptiles and is supported by the bible. The problem with that is that is the OLD scientific theory. It is NO LONGER felt that dinosaurs developed into repitles - but actually developed into birds. Isn't SCIENCE great!!! YAY Science!!! It changes it's hypothesis when the evidence suggests something else and does not stick endlessly to the old thoughts.

[Nurvingiel]

This is the Theology thread JD... (I'm just not sure what you mean or where that quote is from.)

Lief, one comment for you - I don't think "What a Woman Wants in a Man" et al accurately represents gender differences. There are differences between men and women, but they are not the same for everyone, nor does a random "help" book define what they are. I know you were just citing this as an example but it does bring up a good point.
Men and women and individuals and human beings. Gender is part of one's identity (and of varying importance depending on the person); it is not the sole definition of a person's identity.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

This is the Theology thread JD... (I'm just not sure what you mean or where that quote is from.)

It's right there on the PREVIOUS page (post #155) where Rian says it - so I responded to it. That is my whole argument with Rian in the creationism thread and what she demonstartes here - she seems not to be able to seperate RELIGION from CREATIONISM. She says she can, but actions don't demonstrate this in my mind.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It's pretty broadly acknowledged that there are some definite differences between the sexes. Men and women have some rather significant differences between them. For example in a romance, men tend to have more physical needs while women more emotional. There are many other aspects. It's visible in many of today's books. There are books for men and books for women. If men and women were mentally the same (it's tough for me playing around with language at the moment- don't get the impression I'm saying either is inferior or superior!), books would be addressed to both together. You wouldn't find some books for one sex and some books for the other.

A huge amount of literature is addressed to both men and women - most poetry, for example, is fairly unisex. Of course there are interests which are stereotypically either masculine and feminine, but lots of things fall squarely in the middle, and there are thousands of living exceptions to the rule. Not to mention that we'd have a pretty odd view of gender if we based all our knowledge on self-help books

So that human males and females differ seems to me pretty obvious. The Bible sets out describing how those differences support one another, how those difference fit one another's weak points. Men have some weak points that we need women to help us fill. Women have some weak points that they need men to fill.

It sounds very nice when you put it like that, but doesn't that mean that people would always be better off marrying someone who is their polar opposite? Speaking from a position of no experience whatsoever I would imagine that a marriage would work best when the partners have some things in common. Is a marriage between two engineers less likely to succeed than a marriage between an engineer and a flower arranger?

RÃ*an, I'm looking forward to your thoughts on submission, since it's one of the parts I was never convinced by in Mere Christianity

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sun-star

A huge amount of literature is addressed to both men and women - most poetry, for example, is fairly unisex.

Male and female, we're all human. All the same species. Just with somewhat different and complementary natures that cause tendencies in each of us toward certain things.

Originally Posted by sun-star

Of course there are interests which are stereotypically either masculine and feminine, but lots of things fall squarely in the middle, and there are thousands of living exceptions to the rule. Not to mention that we'd have a pretty odd view of gender if we based all our knowledge on self-help books

. I agree. And the common gender-oriented books (Romance novels or James Bond thrillers) certainly have a long way to go before they can be called good literature . Somehow a lot of us seem to love them anyway! Including me (blushes). James Bond is extremely enjoyable to me, while "chick flicks" are not. That's me . Doubtless partly because of my masculinity . Bad luck for me .

Like Nurvi said, there is some masculinity and some femininity in both men and women, to varying amounts in each. However, the vast majority of men are strongest in the masculine side, while the vast majority of women are more toward the feminine side. Thank goodness for that, for us men! We couldn't do without you. And I'm not talking about the biological sense.

Originally Posted by sun-star

It sounds very nice when you put it like that, but doesn't that mean that people would always be better off marrying someone who is their polar opposite? Speaking from a position of no experience whatsoever I would imagine that a marriage would work best when the partners have some things in common. Is a marriage between two engineers less likely to succeed than a marriage between an engineer and a flower arranger?

I'll take my mother and father's marriage as an example, in answering your question. They are opposites in many ways and complement one another. My mother is of a very emotional nature. She really, really feels things. She is incredibly compassionate. She has a rather blunt way of seeing things though, rather narrow, I sometimes feel. That is part of the way she is. When she feels that something is just completely wrong, like abortion, for example, then she'll not look from someone else's perspective much. She is so compassionate and loving for the children killed that it is a terrible tragedy that reaches her soul, (an amazing gift, really) but she doesn't see from the perspective at all of those people who are perpetrating those acts.

My father, meanwhile, is highly intellectual. The Lord has blessed him with gifts of wisdom and understanding. He is amazingly perceptive and is capable of looking at any kind of issue objectively, seeing it from many angles and analyzing it. He complements my mother perfectly. She has the tremendous heart of love, combined with magnificent gifts for art and music, as well as knowledge of language and down-to-earth things that make the house function. My father meanwhile, the leader of the family, is of course still loving, though not the same way as my mother. He fills the different areas my mother lacks. What my father lacks in overwhelming compassion, my mother has. What my mother lacks in broad vision, my father is overflowing with. He is a mathmetician, a technician and an engineer. He is studying geology, history, geography, science, and is very knowledgeable in all of these.

Meanwhile, my parents continue to live in harmony with the Biblical model. They discuss decisions together and make decisions together, as one. My father really is the leader of the family though, the head my mother . . . "bends to" is not the right way of saying it. She leans on him more then she bends to him. They work together as one, and in matters of major decision she relies on him. She does this from her own desire, her own will, and it is her form of "submission".

Now as to them having common interests and tastes. They do have common interests and tastes. We recently had our house remodelled, and their tastes were the same. Their tastes in music and art are all the same. They seem to agree on just about everything. However, they still have strong suits and weak suits that complement one another. That, in my opinion, is God's ideal for marriage.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Men and women and individuals and human beings. Gender is part of one's identity (and of varying importance depending on the person); it is not the sole definition of a person's identity.

I absolutely agree with this.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Like Nurvi said, there is some masculinity and some femininity in both men and women, to varying amounts in each. However, the vast majority of men are strongest in the masculine side, while the vast majority of women are more toward the feminine side.

I'd like to know if there's any way of proving this - particularly with regard to gender roles in different cultures and societies. As others have said, if we believe that men are (or should be) masculine, and women feminine, we privilege those characteristics in our observation and ignore others. We also encourage people to hide the characteristics which are seen as inappropriate to their gender. If a little boy enjoys playing with dolls, for example, he quickly learns to keep quiet about it.

I'll take my mother and father's marriage as an example, in answering your question. They are opposites in many ways and complement one another. My mother is of a very emotional nature...

My father, meanwhile, is highly intellectual.

(I've snipped all that because, for obvious reasons, I don't want to comment specificially on your parents ). It seems to me that while this combination works for your family, there are possibilities for huge problems in the 'opposites complement' model, just as there are in a model where the partners are too alike. If two people have diametically opposed ways of approaching the world, they can very easily begin to misunderstand each other. For example, the emotional partner might expect the analytical partner to be very demonstrative about their feelings, but find that their partner prefers not to show how they feel, or doesn't react in an emotional way to an issue like abortion. The emotional person may then start to believe that their partner is in some way heartless or cold, and not give them credit for having feelings which aren't openly expressed. Similarly, the analytical person may think that their partner is narrow-minded or weak because they can't take a step back and consider an issue dispassionately. People who approach the world in similar ways, on the other hand, may be able to comprehend each other's motivation better.

This doesn't mean that I'm saying people should marry their identical twin - just that it's not possible for us to say that a marriage between opposites is the ideal marriage. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. How then can it be the ideal? Since it is so difficult for us to create a model for the ideal marriage between two hypothetical, highly stylised extremes of behaviour - emotional and analytical - it is far more difficult to prescribe an ideal based on supposed male/female characteristics which we can't even all agree on. Incidentally, I don't think the terms 'emotional' and 'intellectual/analytical' are opposites, and I don't think it's possible to categorise people as either feminine and emotional or masculine and analytical. It's a spectrum - and unless you know where each individual falls on the spectrum, you can't prescribe their ideal marriage. To be honest, I'm rather dismayed by the concept of a Christian ideal which can't possibly apply to everyone. Is a marriage between a man and a woman who don't precisely fit the typical masculine/feminine roles a failure, in Christian terms?