A wife Led Marriage

[bimma360]

But.... The meaning of a quote out of context, can be and in this case is different then when it is in context to the actual subject matter. I specifically went into each of your quotes on post #128. So far, you haven't actually denied that you are quoting things out of context. Whether you presented an argument or not doesn't really change the fact of what you are doing, nor does it add any value to any of this. So basically you just throw quotes at people's responses, incorrectly referencing the subject matter.

If scripture holds no value to you or why, that's one thing. But if you are going to debate aspects of any religion and use that religion's own scripture in "support of an argument," use it correctly. Otherwise, once again, you do not add any value.

[bimma360]

Unfortunately with the Bible, you'd have to either fast forward or rewind 20 minutes in either direction to find the relevance to that quote. Literary genius! ;)

Can you teach me to only watch 15 minutes of a movie and know the entire plot? I think you are onto something.

Or wait I have another one....

A book you have to read in its entirety, imagine that.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Also, when I responded above, I forgot to say, that the Chapter:verse thing started about 500 years ago. Before that, it was not referenced as it is now, so accurate context is tough to deduce from the text around it.

[cale]

So far, you haven't actually denied that you are quoting things out of context.

You're still not grasping what I'm stating no matter how plainly clear I've laid it out for you, maybe I'm not clear in my statements. I said that verse was the center of the controversy, I did not get into details of said controversy nor did I make a claim to whether or not it was justified. Merely that a disagreement between two parties on interpretation and meaning does not bode well for either. I realize there are further statements in the Bible which may justify past ones, I'm not as ignorant to the Bible as you may think.

[z31maniac]

But.... The meaning of a quote out of context, can be and in this case is different then when it is in context to the actual subject matter. I specifically went into each of your quotes on post #128. So far, you haven't actually denied that you are quoting things out of context. Whether you presented an argument or not doesn't really change the fact of what you are doing, nor does it add any value to any of this. So basically you just throw quotes at people's responses, incorrectly referencing the subject matter.

If scripture holds no value to you or why, that's one thing. But if you are going to debate aspects of any religion and use that religion's own scripture in "support of an argument," use it correctly. Otherwise, once again, you do not add any value.

So instead of talking about how it's out of context, give us the context.

Show us the light instead of being pedantic.

[Q5Quint]

He can't because he isn't a biblical scholar.

I have some ordained friends that say they can never actually get a job as a preacher because their education was 'too liberal'.

Full ride scholarships to duke university- ordained methodist.

They are a joy to debate because they can tell you all the camps interpretation of a particular scripture, who wrote the scripture, when/how it was accepted into the general canon text, controversy surrounding, etc etc.

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' version of the text, as it is interpreted different ways, by different people, at different times.

Martin Luthor wanted to toss out Hebrews, James, and revalation, because he thought they went against other teachings.

Taking a scripture 'out of context' is exactly what the establishment of biblical canon was..... and a good example would be the council of nicaea 'deciding' that Jesus was actually the Son of God, thus separating themselves forever from the previous jewish canon, which refereed to him as just another false messiah and the true messiah is yet to come.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

Now, before you start talking about biblical context, I would appreciate if you told me what year, who wrote the text, and the surrounding issues following it as different groups within the same religion may or may not adhere to it at all, even within different branches of christianity.

I was brought up Methodist, switched to a Baptist church bc thats what mom was (but I was already baptized as a baby just like the Catholics, why do I have to be baptized again?), and eventually went to a Presbyterian church because many of my friends went there in high-school, and the Sunday school teachers were engineers and one had a sick 328. They don't give a rats ass about baptism, and were the only church with hispanic, korean, and sign language person for the deaf in our area. We also had a female and a male pastor.

You can never win the 'context' argument, because people will always interpret a passage their own way. Want to get divorced but the pope wont let you? Start a new church where you can.

Every time I see the 10 commandments displayed somewhere, I feel the need to reference the other laws in the passage directly after them. 3 festivals, how to deal with servents, how to build your earth alter etc, and then how those tablets got broken, and the good lord had to make a whole new set of tablets with new laws that nobody ever talks about. Again... 'context'.

Skip the context and make your point. The bible obviously supports slavery , the subjugation of women, 7 headed beasts and demons etc, but the context of those stories was different 2000 years ago. The point of the text, just as Jesus used parables in his teachings, is not the word-for-word text itself but the final lessons learned from them. Although the word-for-word text may not be applicable today, the deeper lessons still are.

Should you be stoned for not being a virgin when you get married? Well, no, but your relationship with your partner will be lessened because of it. ie it is still bad. People forget this and marriages fail left and right, because they are not really getting married, they are still just 'chasing mashed potatoes'.

This book is hilarious and will make you a better person, no matter if you are christian or not. http://www.amazon.com/The-Year-Livin.../dp/0743291484

[Dozyproductions]

... but your relationship with your partner will be lessened because of it. ie it is still bad. People forget this and marriages fail left and right, because they are not really getting married, they are still just 'chasing mashed potatoes'

Well, that's like your opinion... man. 100%

[z31maniac]

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' version of the text, as it is interpreted different ways, by different people, at different times.

So what you're saying is, even though it's been presented for 2000 years as the incontrovertible word of God, it's ok to interpret and implement as I see fit?

That seems kind of counter to entire point of God's word.

In reality, I don't care. But it's funny to see people try to backpedal their way through false logic and justifications to believe in the great bearded Zombie Jesus.


I mean, has it never occurred to any religious people how often "agents of God" visited the Earth when people were by and large infantile in their level of intelligence and understanding of science, and yet now, there have been no such visits to update the "New Testament" to the "Newer Testament" in the last 1500+ years?

[bimma360]

So instead of talking about how it's out of context, give us the context.

Show us the light instead of being pedantic.

Since you asked, of course...

This first quote was that of Ephesians 5: 22-24:

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Reading only this passage of Ephesians, I can see how anyone would close the Bible right there and be like "this is asinine, sexist, archaic, etc." I know I would. BUT...

If you read the verses in Ephesians 5 (21-33), which pertain to this whole topic you get:

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

(Right off the bat, verse 21 calls for BOTH husband and wife to submit to each other. It sets the tone for the rest of this passage that a marriage is a two way path. The rest of these verses continue to describe the individual roles.)

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

(Here, 22-24 appoints the husband as the leader of the household. Comparing it to "Christ being the head of the Church" is a very important principle. It puts a great responsibility on the husband as a leader. Verse 21 makes both husband and wife accountable to each other, but verses 22-24 make the husband accountable for everyone in the household. And sure many people have used verses 22-24 as reason to mistreat their wives or women in general, but that doesn't make them right and it doesn't mean that's what God wants or even commands. The rest of the passage below, really irons out how God expects the leader to act...)

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

(Verses 25 is huge as this time it commands husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Christ died for us (the church) and was perfect. In verses 26-28 it calls for the husband to be perfect and without blame as well. The rest of the verses in that passage command the husband to love his wife and to care for her as you would for yourself. This is actually pretty important to note when I brought up earlier of how certain people use verses 22-24 to mistreat their wives. This calls for just the opposite. The passage ends with once again reiterating that a husband must love his wife and that a wife should respect her husband.)

In my very first post in this thread I quoted:

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails."

This is from 1 Corinthians 13. You will note that although I do not quote the entire chapter, by reading everything in the context from which that quote came from the meaning does not change.

I bring this last quote up to show the kind of love that is expected. It is also a good definition of what love is, so that it may not be misinterpreted. It calls for the husband to be patient, kind, protecting, trusting, hopeful, and persevering. It tells you not to be prideful, boastful, envious, selfish, rude, easily angered, evil, etc. This is a tall order. And also remember that just b/c Ephesians doesn't outline every single aspect of the marital interaction to the T, doesn't mean that there isn't more instruction of how you should treat one another. Unfortunately, the Bible isn't written like a manual so if you are genuinely curious as to what it has to say you have to read it and study it.

People have, and will take only what they want to justify their actions in this world. It doesn't make them write, and it doesn't make them very good Christians either.

Personally, what I take from the above (Ephesians 5: 21-33), is that my wife and I are accountable to each other, partners in everything, and that I am also accountable for the well being of my family as a whole. By accountable, I don't mean as the supreme leader and only decision maker. I mean that regardless of who decides what, the outcome makes me accountable no matter whose decision it was. I think that any big decision should be made together, and I think that as long as both parties display the love described above a marriage will function wonderfully. No need to put any labels on it, just love and respect.

I really do want to conclude by saying, Christianity really isn't a religion but a faith. Like any type of faith, it is what you make of it. When you have a group of people that want to practice their faith a certain way, that is how you get religion (ie. Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc.) And whether we believe in a God or not, we all still hold faith in something. If what one person makes of Christianity, leads them to believe that there is no God, that's ok. And out of respect I wouldn't criticize them for it. Now if they want to discuss their beliefs and why, great! We should strive to be able to discuss our beliefs without expecting there to be a right or wrong type of resolution in the end. And the reason's behind why someone believes something I may not be able to understand after a short discussion. And I mean that both ways too.

I don't have time to go into the verses quoted from Matthew, but I can if you want. Its use was grossly out of context as well.

[bimma360]

I mean, has it never occurred to any religious people how often "agents of God" visited the Earth when people were by and large infantile in their level of intelligence and understanding of science, and yet now, there have been no such visits to update the "New Testament" to the "Newer Testament" in the last 1500+ years?

You bring up several points here. Mormonism is an example to "agents of God" and "Newer Testament" within the last 1500 years. It's very recent actually. Whether I believe in that particular religion or not is not the point. So I will refrain from adding my opinion on it.

Now I like to challenge your thinking. For the sake of the argument lets just assume there is a God. And lets say he actually did send an "agent" of his to a group of say 10 people. If one of those people approached you and told you about it, and what they learned? Would you believe them? For those that do, its solely out of faith. Faith by its sheer virtue is something that can't be empirically proven. Just like in what I wrote above about love, the bible also spells out what faith is as well.

As far as the "New Testament" and "Newer Testament" talk. For the Christian FAITH, the NT is it. Nothing more, nothing else. Everything else is your personal relationship with God based on Faith. If you misinterpret something out of ill will or pride or selfishness, that is between you and God. He'll hold you accountable for it. If you misinterpret something without any ill intent, then hey if you believe in a higher power God he'll show you the way. But it all comes down to faith and a personal relationship with God. You either practice it or you don't.

Just a little tidbit on faith. If there was a God, and he came right now at this very second and appeared to everyone on earth. As in we all shared this profound experience together. And he says "here I am believe in me, and i want you to live you life in this way..." Would you actually posses any faith after that point?

An interesting thing to think about. Lets say the above actually happened like it supposedly used to 1500+ years ago. How long would you say it would take before people have to go back to taking his existence on faith? 2 generations? 10? 2013 years? 3000 years? Do you think a God owes us to show himself every few generations so we can believe in him on something other then faith? Remember that love verse I quoted above here is how that chapter ends:

"And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

[cale]

I really do want to conclude by saying, Christianity really isn't a religion but a faith.

Faith is an aspect of religion, one of many, Christianity most certainly is a religion. Why is it I so often see theists either claiming their beliefs are not religious, or that atheism itself is a religion? I'm not sure of the motive behind it, but to me it appears as though many do like being bound by the stigma of religion. You do not possess generic philosophical beliefs of a deity, you're a group of like minded individuals who follow a specific set of beliefs unique to that particular system. That's the definition of religion!

Just a little tidbit on faith. If there was a God, and he came right now at this very second and appeared to everyone on earth. As in we all shared this profound experience together. And he says "here I am believe in me, and i want you to live you life in this way..." Would you actually posses any faith after that point?

How do we know that this individual is actually the creator of the universe? Even in the presence of an entity possessing what we know to be supernatural abilities the question arises how did his entity himself come to be. All this would prove is that the universe holds secrets beyond what we thought possible.

[Dozyproductions]

As far as the "New Testament" and "Newer Testament" talk. For the Christian FAITH, the NT is it. Nothing more, nothing else. Everything else is your personal relationship with God based on Faith. If you misinterpret something out of ill will or pride or selfishness, that is between you and God. He'll hold you accountable for it. If you misinterpret something without any ill intent, then hey if you believe in a higher power God he'll show you the way. But it all comes down to faith and a personal relationship with God. You either practice it or you don't.

So the old word of god is ignored completely and only the new word of god is heeded? Not trying to start an argument just want to ask. I've gone to youth groups, church and christian retreats and camps and everyone seems to have this approach as well.

But as long as they say that god is omni-everything then why such focus on the NT only? Isn't all of his word perfect? Are these allegories and other stories that should be 'loosely' translated just human error from copying the word of god or what then? No disrespect but these questions are always usually either poorly answered or ignored by the supposed experts of the religion and all the inconsistencies is what really drove me away from christianity.

Science needs faith for it as well but the beauty of it is that it's always being challenged. I believe that for spiritual science, which would be the ying to the yang ;)

Back to the OP though, I can agree with a lot of people in this thread already. You should be a team and good friends. I know that people can get on each other's nerves but it's key to be able to step out of the situation and embrace the reality of the situation to enable your relationship to grow on trust and looking out for each other. You get married because of love right?

I see it more as an issue with societal built expectations. People start thinking the way others have suggested they think and that's where the problem starts. Selfishness seems to be a natural byproduct of our economic and political structures. The need to blindly build on top of a unstable foundation.

Wanting the other to be happy should be perceived by wife and husband and both should be willing, not to compromise but, to understand each others needs and be willing to do something about it. All my failed relationships came from the fact that my gf would never want to talk about what was bugging her and would just resent me without me knowing. Since I say everything with no filter my real concerns just started translating, to her, into all to common 'complaints' and really just a nuisance for her. Communication is too uncomfortable for people these days. That's the real cancer.

[bimma360]

Faith is an aspect of religion, one of many, Christianity most certainly is a religion. Why is it I so often see theists either claiming their beliefs are not religious, or that atheism itself is a religion? I'm not sure of the motive behind it, but to me it appears as though many do like being bound by the stigma of religion. You do not possess generic philosophical beliefs of a deity, you're a group of like minded individuals who follow a specific set of beliefs unique to that particular system. That's the definition of religion!

If you quoted the rest of that paragraph apart from the first sentence ;) you will see that I describe what a religion is when referring to Christianity. We can totally disagree on this point, I am fine with that.

How do we know that this individual is actually the creator of the universe? Even in the presence of an entity possessing what we know to be supernatural abilities the question arises how did his entity himself come to be. All this would prove is that the universe holds secrets beyond what we thought possible.

With the very last sentence you wrote there, you are empirically deducing what you infer of the world around you. To answer your question, how do you know? You don't. You have faith in what you choose to believe. If the only thing you want to believe from that scenario, is what you can empirically derive from it, that is that there are secrets beyond what we thought possible... then thats that. But like I have already stated, faith can not be empirical. If you personally don't believe in something that can't be derived in an empirical manner then great, I know where you stand.

Also you quoted the first half of that statement ;) instead of everything I wrote for that particular example. I used it to illustrate the importance of faith when believing in something like a God, in a scenario where God presented himself as himself. You are not really challenging what I was saying, you just used it to question the existence of a God altogether by ignoring the hypothetical part of that scenerio. If a train of thought is ABC, I don't understand how you can discuss A in a manner the makes it separate from B and C.

Value value value. Your statement was great in expressing the challenges one might have if a being presented itself claiming to be God. But it really has nothing to do with what I was talking about. If anything, it shows one person's thinking to illustrate the importance faith plays in believing in God.

[bimma360]

So the old word of god is ignored completely and only the new word of god is heeded? Not trying to start an argument just want to ask. I've gone to youth groups, church and christian retreats and camps and everyone seems to have this approach as well.

But as long as they say that god is omni-everything then why such focus on the NT only? Isn't all of his word perfect? Are these allegories and other stories that should be 'loosely' translated just human error from copying the word of god or what then? No disrespect but these questions are always usually either poorly answered or ignored by the supposed experts of the religion and all the inconsistencies is what really drove me away from christianity.

Science needs faith for it as well but the beauty of it is that it's always being challenged. I believe that for spiritual science, which would be the ying to the yang ;)

Hey man no disrespect taken at all. We are having company for the weekend, so if I can't get to you today, I'll write my opinion later.

[cale]

If you quoted the rest of that paragraph apart from the first sentence ;) you will see that I describe what a religion is when referring to Christianity. We can totally disagree on this point, I am fine with that.

Your reasoning behind misdefining a word is of little difference, you're still choosing to use a word incorrectly. Belief in a deity may not be religious however belief in the Christian god, heeding Christian scripture and promoting Christianity most certainly is religious in nature. Christianity by definition qualifies as a religion, there is no interpretation of the word religion to exempt it from earning that label.

Agnostic theism or to a lesser extent deism are legitimate philosophical beliefs addressing the proposition of a god which do not qualify as a religion in that they are lacking several key components of what makes a religion.