Elect Gov. Perry - Page 12 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

elchivito · #**166** 08-16-2011, 12:35 PM

"Spiritual Pathogens"?

I reckon that makes Jesus a "spiritual antiseptic".
Well bleach my soul.

kerry · #**167** 08-16-2011, 12:52 PM

While the physical pathogens that European Christians brought to North America may have wiped out a significant percentage of the Native population, the spiritual antiseptic which the European Christians brought to North American reduced the demon population living here as a result of the Native American heathen religions. So Native Americans ought to be thankful for the reduced demonic oppression brought to them by the spiritually superior Europeans.

That's what I mean by cultural imperialism.

MS Fowler · #**168** 08-16-2011, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

Not sure what you mean by this? Are you saying that it is the loving thing to do to forbid women to work outside the home, be educated, own property, have political power etc? If so, can you elaborate on it some more. Seems to me to be oppression, domestic slavery so to speak. (I also think that owners loved their slaves in some instances)

I say "selfless love" and you come back with a list of oppression. Those are your words; not mine.
I do not doubt that Bible-believers have said what you write. Did you forget that I prefaced this with the statement that "submission" was misunderstood both by critics, and believers. Men are still fallen/ sinful creatures, and some will use whatever they can to dominate their wives. Submission is not domination.
If you take the "selfless love" out of the equation, the submission part no longer works as intended.

kerry · #**169** 08-16-2011, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I say "selfless love" and you come back with a list of oppression. Those are your words; not mine.
I do not doubt that Bible-believers have said what you write. Did you forget that I prefaced this with the statement that "submission" was misunderstood both by critics, and believers. Men are still fallen/ sinful creatures, and some will use whatever they can to dominate their wives. Submission is not domination.
If you take the "selfless love" out of the equation, the submission part no longer works as intended.

So if submission was not those things I listed which it obviously was taken to mean for many hundreds of years, what does it mean? Most Christians over the years thought it meant women could not hold positions of authority in the Church. (as well as in society). Do you think that was a legitimate interpretation of submission?
Submission seems pretty clear to me--do what someone else tells you. That seems like a bad idea to me regardless of whether the person telling you what to do loves you or not.

davidmash · #**170** 08-16-2011, 01:01 PM

Unless I missed something in the definition of the word, submission is not free will. Regardless of how well you treat me, my free will is limited. I am still under the control of another. How much I am loved does not change that fact. It may make the submission more acceptable, but it is still submission.

elchivito · #**171** 08-16-2011, 01:11 PM

Sister Michelle Bachman says submission means "respect".

Pooka · #**172** 08-16-2011, 01:20 PM

Much of this discussion leaves out the part that no one likes. Read Ephesians, Chapter 22, and you will see that a wife should not only submit to her husband but he also to her. He should love her as he loves himself because who hates themselves? And both of them should submit to each other as they submit themselves to Christ.

In other words: Being married is being in a partnership where both are equal.

To take the one verse and just run with it might suit the values of one group or another, but it is not what the writer was trying to get across to the reader.

By the way... I am not holding myself up as a religious expert or anything, but I used to travel a great deal and every hotel room has a Gideon Bible in it. I must have read it cover to cover ten times so I have picked up a few things out of it over the years.

kerry · #**173** 08-16-2011, 01:29 PM

Ephesians 5 doesn't say anything about husbands submitting to wives. Only wives to husbands. It does say husbands should love their wives but never tells them to be subject to their wives. Ephesians 6 says slaves should be obedient to their masters. Is that a good idea?

kerry · #**174** 08-16-2011, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchivito

Sister Michelle Bachman says submission means "respect".

A dodge. Submit and respect are two different words used in Ephesians to describe how wives should relate to husbands. If the words are synonyms, why bother with the repetition.

Botnst · #**175** 08-16-2011, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

Unless I missed something in the definition of the word, submission is not free will. Regardless of how well you treat me, my free will is limited. I am still under the control of another. How much I am loved does not change that fact. It may make the submission more acceptable, but it is still submission.

To the contrary, submission is when you choose to subsume your wishes to the wishes of another. It maybe coercively induced or it maybe by free choice. For example, to freely choose to submit your will to the will of God is Islam.

I submit to government taxation. It is coercively induced, but it is still my choice.

Etc

B

Botnst · #**176** 08-16-2011, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

A dodge. Submit and respect are two different words used in Ephesians to describe how wives should relate to husbands. If the words are synonyms, why bother with the repetition.

I completely agree. Bachman tried lawyerly weasel words and failed. Good.

On another note, if I were asked if I submit to my wife I would have to say, "Yes, by choice, out of love, trust and respect."

MS Fowler · #**177** 08-16-2011, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

So if submission was not those things I listed which it obviously was taken to mean for many hundreds of years, what does it mean? Most Christians over the years thought it meant women could not hold positions of authority in the Church. (as well as in society). Do you think that was a legitimate interpretation of submission?
Submission seems pretty clear to me--do what someone else tells you. That seems like a bad idea to me regardless of whether the person telling you what to do loves you or not.

You are going pretty far afield, here, but let me try to respond, although I doubt you will like it.
ALL of Christianity is about submission. The failure in the Garden of Eden was Man saying," Not your will, God; but mine." Since that point in time, man has no free will. Man has only the will to do what is his nature to do. But everything is bound by its nature--we say "free as a bird"--but what is a bird "free" to do? Only what its nature allows it to do--fly. Birds cannot write books, or man the space shuttle, or a great many other things. Even God is bound by His nature--he is holy and just, and cannot lie. Those are His nature and limit what He can or cannot do.
Man's nature, since Eden, is corrupted. That does not mean that every man is as evil as he can be, but that every facet of man is corrupted, and no longer seeks the Creator.
Other verses bring clarity to the idea of submission--we are also called to submit to each other. We are called to consider others more highly than ourselves. We are further called to be like Christ, who, although he was God, he did not cling to the glory due Him, but gave it up and became like one of His creatures.
Yes, the "submission" has been misused by ignorant, or even evil people over the years. But it has also been correctly understood over the years, by godly men and women.
But, unless you can get your mind around the concept of selfless love, the submission part will seem like a battering ram to compel others to do your biding--and it has been (wrongfully) used in that manner.

Your history has shown you some of the errors of parts of Christianity, and I think, you tend to make your experience normative for all.

Through all this, I am simply trying to explain what the Bible means. I am not trying to convert anyone, or even argue. If you reject what I write, that is on you. I condemn no one.

kerry · #**178** 08-16-2011, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

You are going pretty far afield, here, but let me try to respond, although I doubt you will like it.
ALL of Christianity is about submission. The failure in the Garden of Eden was Man saying," Not your will, God; but mine." Since that point in time, man has no free will. Man has only the will to do what is his nature to do. But everything is bound by its nature--we say "free as a bird"--but what is a bird "free" to do? Only what its nature allows it to do--fly. Birds cannot write books, or man the space shuttle, or a great many other things. Even God is bound by His nature--he is holy and just, and cannot lie. Those are His nature and limit what He can or cannot do.
Man's nature, since Eden, is corrupted. That does not mean that every man is as evil as he can be, but that every facet of man is corrupted, and no longer seeks the Creator.
Other verses bring clarity to the idea of submission--we are also called to submit to each other. We are called to consider others more highly than ourselves. We are further called to be like Christ, who, although he was God, he did not cling to the glory due Him, but gave it up and became like one of His creatures.
Yes, the "submission" has been misused by ignorant, or even evil people over the years. But it has also been correctly understood over the years, by godly men and women.
But, unless you can get your mind around the concept of selfless love, the submission part will seem like a battering ram to compel others to do your biding--and it has been (wrongfully) used in that manner.

Your history has shown you some of the errors of parts of Christianity, and I think, you tend to make your experience normative for all.

Through all this, I am simply trying to explain what the Bible means. I am not trying to convert anyone, or even argue. If you reject what I write, that is on you. I condemn no one.

Agreed. Submission is on of the most central ideas of Christianity, even more so with Islam. That's why I was arguing in the Religion and Democracy thread that those theisms are incompatible with democracy.
I think it's also why a lot of Christians aren't bothered by wives submitting to their husbands either. Everyone's submitting to god so what the's big deal with wives submitting to husbands.
Of course, if there isn't a god, all this submission language has to be playing another social role. Even if there is a god, the submission language is playing a central role in the attitudes of the people who accept it.

MS Fowler · #**179** 08-16-2011, 02:14 PM

^^^ And that is a well-stated view for a secular humanist.

kerry · #**180** 08-16-2011, 02:20 PM

Could also be the views of a deist, pantheist or certain modern christian.