Love and Respect

[LinkH]

I think Link is trying to dismiss my example of the Bereans as not being valid. They didn't blindly follow Paul, himself...instead, the Bible says, "they listened eagerly to Paul's message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to see if Paul and Silas were teaching the truth." I was using that as an example of how blindly following is *not* what's ever taught in the Bible.

As far as I'm concerned.......that's a good protocol.

But the Berean's protocol was to accept the Bible as a standard and compare Paul's preaching against that standard. It wasn't rejecting what the Bible teaches. I don't see how someone saying, "I don't follow the Bible blindly" when presented with what it says that presents a challenge to what they are saying is analogous to that verse about the Bereans.

The Bereans' canon was a bit shorter than ours, though. And the Bereans weren't noble enough to not run Paul out of town.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I think Link is trying to dismiss my example of the Bereans as not being valid. They didn't blindly follow Paul, himself...instead, the Bible says, "they listened eagerly to Paul's message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to see if Paul and Silas were teaching the truth." I was using that as an example of how blindly following is *not* what's ever taught in the Bible.

As far as I'm concerned.......that's a good protocol.

I don't get the whole "check your brain at the door" idea of being a "Good Christian". God blessed me with a brain, with intelligence...now, it'd be a shame not to use it, ya know?

I also didn't like the intimation that I "blindly followed" anything. I'm guessing he thinks I'm some knee-jerk atheist liberal...knee-jerk no, atheist-no, liberal, well...in some things...and very conservative in others. But, because I don't just march in lock-step...well...I guess that makes me the evil, liberal, heathen.

As I tried to explain (and I think I got ignored), there's a reason to do research and not rely on feelings about things. I gave the example of how I'd buy a car...or designing a bridge. I can believe all I want...BUT...if the math doesn't work...it doesn't matter. It won't work. Period. If I don't do my sums right, and if 2+2 doesn't = 4...then the bridge will fall down. In order to do it right, I have to do some research. There's a list of things I need to know, some educated assumptions I can make (based on past experience), and a whole lot of math just to make a bridge...Then I factor in the "safety factor" and over-engineer it a bit for the worst-case scenario. If it fails...I run the risk of losing my license. I lose my license, I can never work as an engineer again.

Too much rides on my research to be able to blindly follow anyone or anything. But then again, there's no one who understands how engineering types think than other engineers...we're an odd bunch.

 

[LinkH]

Stop putting words in my mouth, OK?

I created my own example of what the Bereans didn't say. You wrote you that you didn't blindly follow the Bible. The Bereans did use the Bible (Old Testament as we would call it today) as a standard. That seems to be what you were rejecting.

For many reasons, starting with he purports that "Love & Respect" will solve ALL marriage problems.

Where does the book say that? I don't recall reading that.

I do not understand the insistence on these rigid gender roles...they're an artificial construct and a stereotype that folks hold on to because it's easier than trying to figure things out on their own.

I'm not sure what you have in mind exactly for 'these rigid gender roles.' People can work in all kinds of jobs these days. I've focused on what the Bible commands for husbands and wives.

Now, I am 50, separated, probably headed for divorce court.

I do hope things work out well for the both of you, and I'm sorry to hear about your problems. But does that make you an expert on marriage?

I have 2 undergrad degrees and 2 graduate degrees. I have overseen projects worth millions of dollars. I've had crews, contractors and subcontractors working for me. I've bought houses, bought cars, crocheted baby afghans and rebuilt engines. Yes, I can do just about anything myself.

You still need God. You wouldn't have any of these abilities if it weren't for Him. And He still has the authority to tell you want to do.

So...if some man demands my "respect" by virtue of penis...well, i'd just have to laugh at him.

First of all, why be a bit crude about it? Kids 13 plus can read this forum, can't they?

And the issue isn't a man demanding you respect him. It's what is the Lord's will. God made male and female.

If you want something 'objective' that isn't revealed (except through creation) just look at how most societies evolved through history and did have gender roles. Some societies are matriarchal, but most are patriarchal.

Is there any kind of scientific reason to believe in egalitarianism? What about feminism? None of this stuff can be scientifically proven to be right.

But Christians accept that God has revealed Himself, through creation, through prophets, and through His Son. Christ sent the apostles with authority to teach and disciple the nations.

God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. And sometimes it takes some humility to learn and accept new teachings that run against our current way of thinking.

Now...if you have a problem with that, take it up with the Creator who made me.

Is everyone's attitude about everything God's fault or responsibility?

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I wasn't aware that using the proper term for a body part was "crude".

Why do you insist that I am not a Christian? Why? Just because I do not have the same POV as you do, why must you discount what I believe? Is it because I'm not buying the submission thing?

Regarding patriarchal societies...women were looked at as little more than property. Men ruled and women did exactly what the men said they were to do. Men married a woman based on her social status. Men paid a bride price. They literally BOUGHT a wife.

These days, there are men who think they are still buying a wife...by demanding her subservience, her "submission" to him. This would seem to indicate to me that men need to get rid of that thinking and realize that women are not property to be bought.

However, you will never understand...so I'm leaving this discussion and your outmoded, patriarchal ideas.

 

[mkgal1]

But the Berean's protocol was to accept the Bible as a standard and compare Paul's preaching against that standard. It wasn't rejecting what the Bible teaches. I don't see how someone saying, "I don't follow the Bible blindly" when presented with what it says that presents a challenge to what they are saying is analogous to that verse about the Bereans.

The Bereans' canon was a bit shorter than ours, though. And the Bereans weren't noble enough to not run Paul out of town.

I haven't heard anyone is this thread "reject what the Bible teaches". The only objections I've heard are about what the author of this book has written (and maybe your take on what the author has written as well) as related to what the Bible says. As I posted previously---it's man's interpretations that are being rejected.


Also....I said earlier (and RedPonyDriver has also said)....God created us with brains...and the ability to reason. I am of the belief He'd like for us to USE them (and that includes things that have to do with Him as well).

 

[mkgal1]

God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. And sometimes it takes some humility to learn and accept new teachings that run against our current way of thinking.

That's a good word that applies to all.

 

[LinkH]

I wasn't aware that using the proper term for a body part was "crude".

I do find it a bit crude to throw out names of private parts for no legitimate reason like that. I don't mind someone using the term if there is a real reason to.

Why do you insist that I am not a Christian? Why?

I didn't say that. Re-read that part as a set of logical propositions and you can say you agree or disagree.

Regarding patriarchal societies...women were looked at as little more than property. Men ruled and women did exactly what the men said they were to do. Men married a woman based on her social status. Men paid a bride price. They literally BOUGHT a wife.

Those are lots of generalizations there for thousands of societies throughout history. But imagine there is or was a society that exactly fit what you described, math and science aren't going to say that such a society was right or wrong.

These days, there are men who think they are still buying a wife...by demanding her subservience, her "submission" to him. This would seem to indicate to me that men need to get rid of that thinking and realize that women are not property to be bought.

God had Israelites give a bride price for virgins in Israel. The price was set in the law of God. I suppose He could have omitted that law or given something different. So apparently, God didn't have a problem with the idea of bride prices.

But the Bible doesn't say wives are property either, or treat them like land or houses. I don't think Moses, for example, would have agreed if someone said that a wife was property.

 

[LinkH]

I haven't heard anyone is this thread "reject what the Bible teaches". The only objections I've heard are about what the author of this book has written (and maybe your take on what the author has written as well) as related to what the Bible says. As I posted previously---it's man's interpretations that are being rejected.

I was referring to RPD's statement that she doesn't blindly follow the Bible. Our differing approaches to scripture seems to be at the root of myself and her having differing opinions on this matter.

Also....I said earlier (and RedPonyDriver has also said)....God created us with brains...and the ability to reason. I am of the belief He'd like for us to USE them (and that includes things that have to do with Him as well).

The way I was reading that, she was saying she doesn't blindly follow the Bible, but relies on logic, facts, etc. I don't get how that kind of information leads to conclusions on these moral issues, and mentioned how most societies are set historically were set up along gender lines as an example of empirical evidence. I didn't see her saying she thought the Bible was saying something else.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I was referring to RPD's statement that she doesn't blindly follow the Bible. Our differing approaches to scripture seems to be at the root of myself and her having differing opinions on this matter.



The way I was reading that, she was saying she doesn't blindly follow the Bible, but relies on logic, facts, etc. I don't get how that kind of information leads to conclusions on these moral issues, and mentioned how most societies are set historically were set up along gender lines as an example of empirical evidence. I didn't see her saying she thought the Bible was saying something else.

Facts and logic DO lead to conclusions on moral issues...think about it REALLY hard...

 

[LinkH]

No. It does not. Not without the clarification I provided. It is respect - fear of God banishes all other fears.... ALL other fears. When we put this together with God's character - love - then we know that his perfect love casts OUT fear. So there is only one way to live this out... we love him because he first loved us.

When I read different passages of scripture, I don't try to read a contradiction in them. What I mean is, there are a lots of passages of scripture that say to fear God. We find it in Paul's letters. Peter commanded his readers to fear God. The Old Testament teaches it also. The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom.

I believe John is talking about a different kind of fear, not the good fear of God. Like the passage in I John 4 says, he addresses the fear of punishment. The epistle also deals with how you can know you have passed from death unto life.

I don't think John is cancelling out previous teachings about fearing God. Jesus Himself taught people to fear God. I don't take John's statement as cancelling out Paul's instructions for wives to 'fear' their husbands either. I think it's talking about a different kind of fear.

So yes, it is absolutely up to the husband to initiate this dynamic in the marriage because God love us first. And a wife should respond to that love with the same respect that he initiates by loving her.

I agree that a husband should take the lead. But I Peter 3 shows us that a wife is still to do her part even if her husband does not obey the word. Some women are married to unbelievers who do not imitate Christ. But there is a possibility that a husband can be won by his wife's lifestyle.

A husband not being like Jesus is not a license for a wife to sin by not treating her husband the way God wants. And a wife not reverencing her husband is not an excuse for a husband to sin by not loving her as Christ loved the church.

 

[LinkH]

Facts and logic DO lead to conclusions on moral issues...think about it REALLY hard...

You've got to start at some point in your reasoning, though. The starting point for a lot of believers in a lot of cases is what God has revealed.

I suppose someone could try to reason that murder is wrong without some kind of special revelation (e.g. from the Bible.) They could argue a number of reasons why not to murder. But someone could also argue that people are just animals and animals kill each other, and argue that it is okay or morally neutral.

Fortunately, God has revealed enough to us that we should know not to murder.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I've come to the conclusion that those who go on and on about this, refusing to look at any other point of view are the ones who, if we could be a fly on the wall, do not have a marriage that operates this way.

I've known some with the "submissive" wife and the truth is he is just a tyrant. I've known others that play a passive-aggressive game of this.

Therefore, I conclude that this passage of scripture is something that cannot be universally applied in only one way. Each couple is different, each couple has a different dynamic. For someone to tell someone else that they way they handle their marriage is "not biblical"...they need to jump back. Each couple has to figure out how their marriage is going to work, taking the personalities involved into account.

What may work for one couple may not work for another. That is the danger inherent in all these books...they all claim to be the answer to whatever issue there is in the marriage.

 

[mkgal1]

When I read different passages of scripture, I don't try to read a contradiction in them. What I mean is, there are a lots of passages of scripture that say to fear God. We find it in Paul's letters. Peter commanded his readers to fear God. The Old Testament teaches it also. The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom.

I believe John is talking about a different kind of fear, not the good fear of God. Like the passage in I John 4 says, he addresses the fear of punishment. The epistle also deals with how you can know you have passed from death unto life.

I don't think John is cancelling out previous teachings about fearing God. Jesus Himself taught people to fear God. I don't take John's statement as cancelling out Paul's instructions for wives to 'fear' their husbands either. I think it's talking about a different kind of fear.

**I already sense that I'm going to regret engaging in this conversation---but my curiosity is getting the best of me.

What are you bringing up "contradictions" for? What I understand VG to be saying (which is what I believe) is that any time we transfer any of our fear into other areas (or thoughts) besides God---there is going to be a loss of some kind (IOW.....we'll be missing out on being in His will). It will be a different kind of fear when it's placed in something besides God (because only He transforms fear into something good).

For instance.....if I fear what others think about me, instead of fearing God foremost (and wishing to ONLY be in step with what He'd have for me).....that may cause me to make decisions that will veer me off His path. I may agree to certain obligations that, if I really thought and prayed about it, I wouldn't agree to. That may cause resentment......weariness.....I may miss out on spending some great time with family or friends......or be able to see someone with a need that I could have helped with.

I just don't see anything contradictory. If God is supreme---that only adds to our relationships. It never takes away from them (unless the people that get offended would rather be the one on that "throne" in our life).

 

[RedPonyDriver]

You've got to start at some point in your reasoning, though. The starting point for a lot of believers in a lot of cases is what God has revealed.

I suppose someone could try to reason that murder is wrong without some kind of special revelation (e.g. from the Bible.) They could argue a number of reasons why not to murder. But someone could also argue that people are just animals and animals kill each other, and argue that it is okay or morally neutral.

Fortunately, God has revealed enough to us that we should know not to murder.

Logic: Each human being has a certain intrinsic value therefore it is wrong to hurt, maim or kill another human being.

Ya know...I don't really care one whit what others think or do...I really don't. I operate in a certain moral way. If someone else doesn't...not my problem.

I wasn't raised with churchianity...I was raised with certain principles of right and wrong...

And...regarding your ideas of "God has revealed to us..." then please explain why murder is pretty much a universal wrong...even in cultures that have never even thought of the Christian God.

Again...I don't care what others do or don't do...I have my hands full trying to keep myself out of trouble...

 

[LinkH]

Logic: Each human being has a certain intrinsic value therefore it is wrong to hurt, maim or kill another human being.

It makes sense if one accepts the premise. A jaded atheist could say that humans don't usually kill each other because that's generally bad for the preservation of society and humans evolved that way, but that they kill also for evolutionary reasons. From that perspective, we can't say it's immoral. If we were only clumps of molecules, it wouldn't matter. If one tom cat kills another, we don't protest or have a murder trial.

And...regarding your ideas of "God has revealed to us..." then please explain why murder is pretty much a universal wrong...even in cultures that have never even thought of the Christian God.

Man is made I the image of God and has some idea of morality. Man is also fallen and is sinful.

You'll notice your question is very similar to my point that most cultures are patriarchal. If most societies banning moral proves it's wrong, what does most societies being patriarchal prove?

There have been some societies where murder was the norm. The missionary Jim Elliot ministered to such a tribe in the Amazon, but they killed him. Societies like this have a tendency to die out.

But we can agree, can't we, that God has revealed that murder is wrong, and based on that, we shouldn't murder, right?

 

[mkgal1]

You've got to start at some point in your reasoning, though. The starting point for a lot of believers in a lot of cases is what God has revealed.

The trouble is when we confuse "what people have revealed and claimed it's from God" and "what God has truly revealed to us".

You'd brought up the crowd that'd been following Paul and Silas---and how they soon turned and, instead of praising them, they tried to kill them. This was all because of the stirring up from other people. Sincere, devoted people get deceived---Paul even warned against it, here:

But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by its cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.~2nd Corinthians 11:3

People that our enemy is using aren't going to be blatant about it---they're going to try to convince us that, "God says" what they're trying to deceive us with.

**Sorry. I got off on a bit of a tangent there.

 

[ValleyGal]

Reverence (the fear of God) is for God and God alone. To reverence my husband this way is to elevate him to a position reserved only for God. Out of this reverence for God, I have respect for my husband. Why? Because when you are in communion with God and your reverence for him, his very nature (love) casts out all other fear. All other fear...therefore, if I am walking in the Spirit, I am walking in love, not in fear. But when you walk in the love of Christ, you know that the manifestation of that love is respect...not the "awe" type of fear (which is reverence) that one should have for God and God alone. My husband is not God, and I will not revere him the way I revere God. I also do not "fear" my husband, but rather respect him. Again, this respect is borne out of the fact that I walk in step with the Spirit, and also from the fact that my husband loves me first - the very way that Jesus does - my husband initiated this love, and does so on a daily basis by initiating relationship (pursuit), by making sacrifices to be with me, by initiating reconciliation when there is strife, by still behaving loving towards me even when I do not deserve it...etc.

When you revere (fear) God, there is no other fear because his love casts out ALL fear - and perhaps this is part of that reverence I have for God.

 

[LinkH]

ValleyGal,

I don't have a problem with using 'reverence' in other contexts, showing reverence at a funeral, for example. Some people heard 'reverence' used in reference only to God growing up and think of it as a word used only for God.

That's an issue to take up with some of the translators of Ephesians 5:33.

But it is a 'heavy' word. Men aren't supposed to 'fear' their wives. But wives are to have this kind of fear for their husbands. It also underscores the fact that the passage is talking about a hierarchical relationship.

 

[ValleyGal]

I disagree. When you take a passage like the one in Ephesians out of context of the whole Bible and all of the other commands about not only how husbands and wives should treat each other, but also how we should treat all of our brothers and sisters in Christ, then you end up with books like Love and Respect. It is little more than a fragmented, biased, and poorly translated portion of the whole, like sauce without the meat.

This thread was supposed to be about the book, not the meat of the book - if it is about the meat of the book, it boils down to the whole submission theme again. The book, imo, is poorly written, based on biased bits and pieces of scripture that have been taken out of context and poorly translated. It does nothing more than contribute to the divide between men and women rather than unite them in Christ, where there is no male, female, rich, poor, etc.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I disagree. When you take a passage like the one in Ephesians out of context of the whole Bible and all of the other commands about not only how husbands and wives should treat each other, but also how we should treat all of our brothers and sisters in Christ, then you end up with books like Love and Respect. It is little more than a fragmented, biased, and poorly translated portion of the whole, like sauce without the meat.

This thread was supposed to be about the book, not the meat of the book - if it is about the meat of the book, it boils down to the whole submission theme again. The book, imo, is poorly written, based on biased bits and pieces of scripture that have been taken out of context and poorly translated. It does nothing more than contribute to the divide between men and women rather than unite them in Christ, where there is no male, female, rich, poor, etc.

QFT