This originally started as a comment on ReckNHavic's blog, but I realized it was more of a post, so I'm using it here. Reck posted about his grandma, and how she had to step up as a boy scout leader, because there weren't any men in their town who were willing to lead a scout troop with blacks in it. It reminded me of Deborah and I commented about the roles of men and women and how it's good that women step up to the plate when men refuse to take their responsibilities.
"Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time. She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites came to her to have their disputes decided. She sent for Barak son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali and said to him, "The LORD, the God of Israel, commands you: 'Go, take with you ten thousand men of Naphtali and Zebulun and lead the way to Mount Tabor. I will lure Sisera, the commander of Jabin's army, with his chariots and his troops to the Kishon River and give him into your hands.' "
Barak said to her, "If you go with me, I will go; but if you don't go with me, I won't go."
"Very well," Deborah said, "I will go with you. But because of the way you are going about this, the honor will not be yours, for the LORD will hand Sisera over to a woman." (Judges 4:4-9)
I will talk about leadership in the context of marriage, because I believe that is where it is in the most need of fixing in America today.
Leadership in marriage is designed (by God) to be done by the man. How tasks are broken up and leadership styles are going to differ depending on the personality of both. However (final) decision making needs to be with man, after he has taken input from his wife. This doesn't mean he is a micromanager, but major issues need to be discussed. With good communication a husband and wife can plan what they will do in certain situations etc, so that discussion about the minor details in life is unnecessary.
Every man and every woman have their own strengths and weaknesses. It is very likely that in most marriages, many of the man's strengths are many of his wife's weaknesses and vice versa. (opposites attract) A husband and wife have to do what is best for their marriage, but as Paul says in Ephesians 5 the husband is the head, the decision maker, and ultimately more responsible for successes and failures in the marriage.
"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 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. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body." (Ephesians 5:22-30)
Since the husband is the head, he has final say. However, he doesn't disregard his wife's point of view. If you stub your toe, the toe sends a signal to the head that says, "Hey I'm in a lot of pain". If you are holding a baby the head will say, 'I need to put this baby down before I take care of my toe'. If you are just walking, the head will say, 'let me take care of this now'. If you are in combat and bullets are flying, you may have to ignore the stubbed toe altogether. You understand the signal, you recognize it, but it has to wait. However, the head can't go anywhere without the body taking it there. If instead of the toe being stubbed, the foot is blown off, the head isn't going anywhere. (except hopefully to a hospital)
This is just an example but it is like the way Paul describes the relationship between Jesus and the Church, and a husband and a wife. A good husband loves his wife, takes her input and generally takes her advice. But he has to understand where her mind is. Sometimes the wife is not in a position to make a good decision. He has to listen, but not take her advice. Sometimes the husband is not in a good position to make the proper decision, or it is too critical to wait for the husband's decision if he is not there. In this situation, the husband has to defer to his wife to make a proper decision. With good communication, the wife will likely make a decision the husband would agree with.
In the end, it comes down to love and respect. A husband must love his wife. Care for her, put her needs ahead of his own and lay down his life for her the way Jesus did for the Church. The wife needs to respect her husband and respect the fact that God created her husband to be the leader of their marriage. She needs to understand that she doesn't make the final decision. She gives her input and has a lot of say in the decision process, but when the rubber meets the road, it is up to the husband to call the shots...and take the responsibility for successes and failures.
132 comments:
Very well put. The key is respect (both ways). Unlike Islam, for example, that mocks the relationship of a husband and a wife; Scripture teaches us the proper (and natural) roles for husbands and wives.
Nest, i wonder if you could list for me Scripture that speaks about women not prechn in church. I've come across (in 1st or 2nd Tim, can't remember) verses that state women shouldn't be deacons. My own personal feelings regardn a women on the pulpit is it just "feels" wrong. I'm unable to back ut up w/ Scripture tho. But (gut feeln wise) it's only in this role. Our old Bible study was led by a women, and it I really thought nothn of it. I've worked for women, no problem. And I wouldn't hesitate to vote for a woman for prez (Altho, she'd hafta be a conservative).
When I think of women like Margret Thatcher, Phillys Shaffly, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, the late Barbara Jordon (I know she was liberal, but still) and a few others, I would have no problem seeing them in leadership roles.
As far as making big decisions, I've always looked at it as, 1 yes and 1 no means no. Regardless of who the no came from. If it can't be agreed upon, it's not in the best interest of the marriage. Like if a man wants another child and the wife doesn't, and you can't agree, ya gotta go with no. Same goes if the wife wanted another.
And sorry, but the toe analogy went right over my head.
I'd still like specific example of "big desicions" if you don't mind. I keep hearing "calling the shots" and "final word", but I don't know what kind of things you're talking about. Thanks.
The child question is a good one. My thoughts are if I wanted another child (and S didn't) the right decision for ME to make would be no child. As the leader of my family (which I am), I have to make the choice that best benefits the family as a whole, not the one that just satisfies my wants.
Now, if it's say a question of what movie are we gonna see and one of us really doesn't wish to see a particular movie, then 1 yes and 1 no equals no.
Feel free to ask my wife who calls the shots 'round our house... on second thought, don't ;)
Well actually, that's sort of an impossible example. I mean whatta gonna do if she doesn't want another? Make her? Using your hypothetical w/ you and S,I see it less as YOU making that desicion you spoke of, and more of you respecting hers. See what I mean? That's why I'm interested in specific examples. Tryin to figure out who "leads" this family. ;)
I've always seen it as a dual effort. I mean if something really means a lot to D and I don't want it, or don't want it to happen, I let it go. It's important to him. But he does the same for me. So I don't identify a clear leader.
I'm not convinced you need one.
Linda,
In your example of the extra child, ;) I would say no. There are more than two people involved in that decision. Also, the husband has to take his wife's feelings into consideration. Seeing as his wife is going to be the primary one involved in that child's life for a minimum of 9 months, her feelings should play a larger role in that decision.
I am trying to come up with a good example that is a real example. Not a totally hypothetical, that probably would never happen kind of example. I'll think about it.
As far as dual effort, you are absolutely right. I look at it like this; leadership is either 51/49 or 50/50 and the husband is given the tiebreaker. He absolutely has to take into consideration his wife's feelings and input, however, what he does with that is up to him.
Nestor -
> ... Seeing as his wife is going to be the primary one involved in that child's life for a minimum of 9 months
Well, the child's pre-life. And hopefully at least 9 months of the child's life as well. But your point within that the wife better be involved in the decision is valid. Not only that, it should be her opinion that rules when it comes to her choice about having a child or not.
Reck,
About your question on the scripture about women teaching.
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve." (1 Timothy 2:12-13)
The way I look at it is this. Women should not be preaching to men. Sharing is one thing. Preaching to women is another. Teaching children is yet another. But not preaching to men or the entire church or congregation. I am generally uncomfortable when women get up and share, but this is my personal discomfort that I know I have to deal with. However, you won't see, (in my church at least or any church that uses the bible as its standard) women giving the communion message (unless it is sharing and their husband is also sharing) or preaching the sermon. Now I don't think this means that women and men can't discuss scripture. My wife has tremendous insight into the bible, and it is helpful to me in my walk with God. However, you won't see my wife in front of men preaching or leading a group of men.
BTW Reck, you just voted for a woman for Prez. ;)
Stan,
If you're talking about abortion, you know that I believe that it is God's right to give life, and God's right to take it. If you mean that having a child should be a mutual decision between husband and wife, well, I agree with that. Of course it is only God that allows the child to be conceived anyway. If the husband and wife aren't in agreement and they are 'playing the game', God may give them a child, like it or not.
Ok, I got one. When we moved to San Antonio eight years ago, I made that decision (not that I didn't havta sell it alittle). But, once I had decided, it was a done deal. Same goes for our current residence in (omited), I had the final say there as well.
Stan,
Say what you *REALLY* mean. You're missn your target, per usual.
Stan said, " The child's pre-life"
STRAW MAN, attack the real issue.
"I love green eggs and ham, I do, I do, Sam I am."
Dr. Suess
Nestor -
> ... God ...
What (supposed) God?
Reck whines -
> [SNIP!]
Do what?
Stan argues- "Do what?" ..and makes his first valid point.
"I dream a genie w/ a light brown hair."
The I Dream A Genie W/ A Light Brown Hair.. singer people
Lin, what do you think about Nestor's not believing in equality for women?
I mean, at least Reck admits " ... my wife who calls the shots ... ".
lin -
> ... I've always looked at it as, 1 yes and 1 no means no. ...
Hmm., no wonder I don't get laid as much as I'd like!!!! :-0
Stan uses typical liberal argumentation and quotes part of a sentence to fit his *IL*logic.
Word up!
Stan,
I'm trying to understand this from his point of view. My immediate reaction to his comments on Reck's post was negative...that's why I'm trying to understand it better.
Nes: I just think the "tie-breaker" isn't neccesarily the man's. It depends on the issue. Every issue has weight. Some are more important to the wife, some for the husband. So, you weigh it out...like choosing your battles with kids. Give and take.
Still curious about examples...they don't have to be personal, just more specific, so I can look back and think about it.
Nest, Thanks for the reference, not sure if it fully applies to preachn. I mean, your example of (was it Deborah), can't remember, who was leadn the Jews for awhile seems to refute the point.
BTW, the reason I call the shots in my marraige is because that's the way John Wayne a done it ;)
Stan,
Yeah, the 1 yes, 1 no applies to that as well. Sorry! :)
Reg. the moving scenario...when D wanted to move, I wasn't ready. Too scared...family was close..lived there all my life. So we waited. A year later, after I'd gotten used to the idea, we found a great place and did it. By then the decision was mutual.
If I may be so bold, I think that maybe sometimes men think they're making the decisions, when really it's mutual.
But you DID move.
And, if I might be so bold as to say..perhaps the "men think they're makin the decision when it's mutual" is simply what we want yall to think.
"Plans, within plans, within plans." Dune
But if I wasn't ready yet, we wouldn't have. K, so if I guy wants to buy a thousand dollar bbq grill...and the wife's like...no way. 2 years later, when they can better afford it, they get it. That was him being a leader in the marriage? You understand this is a reeeaaaly foggy area and can be construed the way you want it to be. For whomever. Husband OR wife.
That goes both ways, Mr. Havic. There are times when we want you to think you're rulers of the universe..because you deserve it and we love you.
Reck continues to whine and bear false witness against his neighbor -
> Stan uses typical liberal argumentation and quotes part of a sentence to fit his *IL*logic. Word up!
lin -
> Yeah, the 1 yes, 1 no applies to that as well. Sorry! :)
No apology nec.!!!! You can't be responsible for those women in my life that said were so silly to say no. :-)
That last bit was very touchin.
I agree, we like to let yall believe it's a foggy area ;)
One could also argue (Nestor may have), that there are times when a man allows his wife to make a decision because she's more qualified in a certain area. A good leader should always be able to delegate authority properly.
OK, I'm comin off as a total chauvinist (sp) here.
It's the word "allow" that's hard to take for a woman OR a man. I should look up the def. for that...cuz I don't like the connotation.
Yes, "allow" could mean many things.
I'm gonna have some serious fun w/ you come April 1st.
Lol...thanks for the warning.
"Allow" is actually an interesting idea w/in a relationship. (I've never used my backspace key as much as I have tnite.) It implies permission. We're not kids...we don't need permission to do things..that's why it's a bad word to use, imo.
I'll bet you're not too upset about the "allow"ance D gives you tho, are you? He does give you an allowance, doesn't he?
See, this is the kinda stuff you can expect from me in a couple a weeks.
Har har har har har har har har har har har har har har har....
I can har...dly wait.
This was fun. Good night and Happy Easter to you, D and the kiddos.
You too darlin'...
Reck -
>> Good night
Linda -
> You too darlin'...
"You say 'Yes'
I say no
You say bye
And I say hello
Hello, hello
I don't know Y you say goodbye I say hello" - the Beatles
Happy Easter Nestor and family.
Reck mentioned briefly about this. If there is an area where one person is more qualified, better or just likes more than the other, they can make the decisions in that area. For instance I cut the grass. I don't mind it and my wife really doesn't want much part in it. It really is up to the couple which areas are done by whom. It is however the man's responsibility to lead. How that is done is going to differ for each marriage. I know people where the husband makes the bulk of the decisions. Other marriages (mine included) are very evenly split. I rarely, if ever, overrule my wife if she has a valid point of contention on a subject. However, if I felt it necessary, I would overrule her. I hope I don't ever have to, but I'm sure I eventually will at some point. BTW, I don't get a macho feeling about it, but that's how God designed marriage. Every time I try doing things my way or the world's way, it doesn't work out. When I do things God's way, it does work out.
I'll end with this. I take my wife's perspective, advice, POV, whatever you want to call it VERY seriously. I love and respect her, and as such, do not want to hurt her. Therefore I wouldn't want to do anything that makes her uncomfortable. But, God has given me the authority to be the decisionmaker in our home. I'm getting longwinded again. I hope I've made it clear. Probably not though.
In reality, how our marriages work are probably very similar, it's how you and I view what is happening that is different.
Obviously we don't think about how "God designed marriage", cuz we've never subscribed to that. I think, whatever works.
You made it clear just fine. You made a point earlier about couples you know who've done it backwards (my words, I can't remember yours), and they've failed. Can you think of examples as to what happened there?
Nestor -
> ... God ...
What (supposed) God?
BTW to those that celebrate it: Happy Easter! I do realize that it's a big holiday for ya'll.
Happy Easter everybody. Thanks Stan.
We had a pretty cool service. A brother in the church had produced a play called Thomas the Believer. It was Thomas in his old age telling about his life, how he came to follow Jesus, his experiences with Jesus and the disciples and his belief. It was really good. It was really a one man play for an hour. I thought it would be much shorter, but it was really good. I'm impressed that the did the whole thing from memory.
Linda,
What I mean is this. There are many couples nowadays where the wife calls the shots. ALL of the shots. What probably happens in many cases is that a strong-willed woman and a quiet man get together (opposites attract) She exerts control over the relationship and he lets her. Neither go out of their comfort zone. But most women deep down inside don't want that. When they step out of line they want a man to put them in their place. (I know this sounds chauvanistic, but it's true) They want to know that their man has the guts to stand up to her and to anyone for her. God did not design women to have control over their husband. Men shouldn't have control over their wife in the way most people think, but they are designed to lead, to set the pace and to make the tough decisions when necessary. However, a good leader always looks out for his subordinates needs before his own.
"With great power comes great responsibilty." -Ben Parker from Spiderman
"All Soldiers are entitled to outstanding leadership; I will provide that leadership. I know my Soldiers and I will always place their needs above my own." - taken from the Army's NCO Creed
"When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. "Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them. "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them." (John 13:12-17)
Jesus, our Lord and Master, made himself a servant to His disciples. The example he set is that if anyone wants to follow His example, they must serve others. Being a leader does mean setting the tone and making the tough decisions. It also means sacrificing your needs and wants for those you lead. You put your needs last. That doesn't mean you don't have hopes and dreams, but they do not supersede those of your family.
Hope my example was good enough.
So do you have a thing for feet? Stubbed toe...washing feet...I'm just sayin. ;)
"Step out of line"...that's brilliant. No really, women love to hear stuff like that. It's a good thing you found your wife before you found God. I'm just teasin you. YES, I know what you're saying. And 'stepping outta line' aside, I for the most part agree with you. It's just how you put stuff sometimes.
I like how you can quote Spiderman and the Bible in the same post! :)
On equal rights -
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/play.shtml?mea=31746
A great example of a man in the leadership role (and a solid flick sugg for L) is John Ford's, The Quiet Man. Stars the Duke and (perhaps the best lookn redhead of all time) Maureen O'Hara. It's set in Ireland (and it's not a western btw). Great comedy.
Side note: Ford was Irish, I believe his last name was actually Finney.
Question for you guys. I've read that it says in the books of Moses, that God is without human form. But I also remember that God made man in his image. So I'm confused.
The Quiet Man, eh? I'll check it out.
"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness.." Gen 1:26
Actually, God did take a human form in the person of Jesus Christ.
Likeness or image, used in the above verse as I understand it, means "like"; as in character, thinking beings capable of discerning right and wrong. ""..and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness" Eph 4:24
God the Father is not flesh. As far as how He appears, none have seen Him except Christ. But we will one day. "..and what we will be has not yet been known. But we will know that when He appears, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is." 1 John 3:2
"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness.." Gen 1:26
Actually, God did take a human form in the person of Jesus Christ.
Likeness or image, used in the above verse as I understand it, means "like"; as in character, thinking beings capable of discerning right and wrong. ""..and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness" Eph 4:24
God the Father is not flesh. As far as how He appears, none have seen Him except Christ. But we will one day. "..and what we will be has not yet been known. But we will know that when He appears, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is." 1 John 3:2
Linda,
I think Reck pretty much nailed it. I believe that the character of humans is the likeness of God. Part of the nature is the nature of men. Part of that nature is the nature of women. God wants to be loved and sought after the way a woman does. He is forgiving and gentle. Yet He is also rugged, tough and downright fierce at the same time. Throughout the bible, especially in the Old Testament, you see both of these part's of God's personality.
Thanks..I get that.
So, just outta curiosity, if you feel you'll "see" him one day, what are you expecting? When you envision it, what do you envision? Is it hard to envision anything but a human form?
While I'm at it, why do you feel that God would have the same sort of nature as humans? I see us as so flawed, always working on being better. Why would an allknowing God, who created everything be like us? It doesn't seem logical to me. I guess your answer would be cuz that's what it says in the Bible. Did I answer my own question?
Personally, I think God will look alittle like Gandolph, but talk the guy that used to do the voice-overs for Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom.
We are like God's image, but (you're right) we're flawed. God is completely holy (w/out sin).
Jesus said that the greatest commandments are to love God and to love others. "No greater love does a man have than to lay down his life for another." If God is love (or as C.S. Lewis said, love is God), than perhaps the fall of man (forseen by God in creation) was so that God could express the ultimate act of love (dieing on the cross for our sins).
Ufff. How much do I love Gandolf the White? I was devistated when I thought he'd died.
What if he's 2 ft. tall and green? Not bein disrespectful, but really. Are you prepared for that? If it happens will you give me a shout out? ;) I'm still thinking, that because the scope of the universe is beyond comprehension, that if there is a creator of it, he's done it somewhere else, too. I'm not sure why he wouldn't.
Linda, my explaination is that it's a book of fiction designed for men superiority over women, IMHO. Of course a book of fiction is gonna have contradictions.
Nestor -
> The Blogosphere Starts Now (Caution: Massivie amounts of liberal propaganda on this site. ;)
You really didn't need to wink there, my friend. What you said is true. But you do know (or do you?) that there's lying type propaganda, and there's truthful type propaganda? :-)
Stan says while speakn of the Bible, "Of course a book of fiction is gonna have contradictions."
Name one.
Or cop out as per usual w/ your straw man, so and so whines, missn your target nonsense.
For a great example of a man's role as the leader go to the first books of the Bible (Gen).
"The Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper for him.'" Gen 2:18
What's important to remember tho is that both men and women have equal value. "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created them; male and female He created them." Gen 1:27
But what did God call us all? "He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, He called them 'man'". Gen 5:2
Food for thought. When a husband and wife are introduced it's always as Mr. and Mrs.; never Mrs. and Mr. This is a reflection of God's design.
Or it could be argued that those sort of societal etiquettes stem from the idea of men being physically stronger than women. A survival of the fittest of sorts. Still, those roles of men and women go back to the caveman days (;))probably based on pure strength. How women got smarter, I'm not sure. :)
I'm gonna look into this more me thinks.
I'm not sure what God will look like. Gandalf sounds good. Maybe like Dumbledore. I don't know. Maybe not human. It could be that God will look something like what each person expects him to look like. Maybe He'll look like Gandalf to Reck, Dumbledore to me, and a 2 feet tall and green to Linda. I don't think it really matters what He looks like though, but what He feels like. I look forward to that.
Back to movies.
We watched Batman Begins last night. They did a great job building the back story. It was much cooler than any Batman backstory I had seen before, though I'm not a comic fan, so I have no idea what the real backstory is. Good movie. I hated seeing Gary Oldman speaking with that 'cop accent' though. When British actors speak with American accents they usually speak with a very deep voice. But, I guess I wouldn't have noticed if I didn't know who he was. Anyway throughout the whole movie I was trying to get this out of my head. But it would pop up from time to time.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JoX-HkOcEuE
Lol...that was really funny! I hadn't seen that.
I saw BB. Didn't care for the dark, realistic take. I prefer the somewhat campy ones. J.N. as The Joker I thought was the best. (Except for all the short,yelpy screams from Kim Basinger. If you ever catch that one again, listen for em. It'll drive you nuts after awhile. She overdid it.)
I have a question for you Lin. Would you like a world where, when a man and women get married, the husband assumes the wife's last name? Or do you prefer it the way it is? Ok, that was two questions.
Nest,
I was lookn back at your reference to 1 Tim 2:12-13 and I think it's very interestn that Paul sites Genesis. He understood that God had already devised a plan for the roles of both man (leader) and woman(helper).
In fact, God had already given Adam a task (which showed his authoruty over the earth), naming all the animals. And this was before woman had even been created. You know, He could have created both at the same time, but didn't for a reason.
Maybe it was cuz he knew he messed up w/ man, so he decided to take his time before he perfected woman. ;)
It was sorta sad to lose my last name (so I made it my middle as I didn't have one), but I never thought about keeping it or hyphenating it. It's just a name. It's fine the way it is.
But I'll pose this to you: if we lived in a world where the man took the woman's name, we probably wouldn't think much about it. That's the tradition of our society. You'd get some men that would keep theirs (as do some women), and some would hyphenate (as do some women), but if that's the "norm" I don't think I'd care either way. Get where I'm comin from on that?
I was thinkin about this tday...I find it funny that a lot of times when I read people's critisisms about creationism, they bring up the 6 days thing. I mean, THAT'S what bothers you the most?? We're talking about a supernatural being, creating the ENTIRE universe and you're bothered by how LONG it took him??
What's more appropriate? 6 weeks? 5months? 9 years? When would they nod their heads and go, "Oh! Well, that's better. I mean 6 days was silly, but 6 weeks, yeah, that's more like it!"
I'm more bothered my the fact that he needed to rest on the 7th day. I think that, if it's true, than he pretty much snapped his fingers and made it so. I don't think a God with the capabilities we're talking about would need to rest up.
;)
Reck,
I don't think I answered your question..think I skirted it. Ha ha
I would not be in support of changing. No point.
I think it's goofy when a woman keeps her own name. It feels somewhat disrespectful to the guy. Mostly cuz it IS a tradition in this country and you'll stand out as not accepting it, which I would think is at least somewhat hurtful.
As far as "would you like a world where"...that implies the world didn't change, but that tradition was always in place. If that's the case, don't think I'd care either way, as I wouldn't know differently.
Trying to respond to your questions and points but I keep crackn up over your creation bit.
Ok, you seem to go back to the point of tradition. And while I'm sure that some things are done as a tradition, like calln Mark Cuban the anti-christ (which he is btw); I believe that some things are inherent to our nature. This goes waaaay back to our conversations about the Law of Human Nature.
I think, probably, we're lookn at these things through different lenses. The things that you see as, "that's just the way it is because it's always been that way", I see as proof of God's plans.
I base my belief on an ancient text (devinely inspired IMO). A startn point. Please take me back to where you base your "it's just tradition" startn point. Don't know if I'm bein clear here. Frankly, two sentences back is a poor sentence. I guess what I'm askn is, where does this tradition begin?
I have no way of knowing where the starting point is for many things we now consider tradition, being "wired", or even 'inherant to our nature', as you put it. I hate to always use the word "evolve" cuz it implies apes and things, and that's not where I'm going when I use that term. I'm not speaking to the evolution of man in physical terms or even intellectual terms, I mean it in sociological terms.
Man has evolved in societal ways, surely we agree on that. So I'm not sure why I need a starting point. It just happened.
Let me do this, let me turn the tables on you. I'm always willing to consider the idea that all that we are stems from God. So keeping that in mind, do you think that if there is no plan for us, no creator who loves us, do you think we humans, in our society, wouldn't be where we are today? And if you don't where do you think we'd be?
re-readin...I meant 'we stem from God', not "we are stems from God". Might be minor, but it sounded silly.
Actually, "we are all stems from God" works for me.
"Each tree is recognized by its own fruit." Jesus
Yes, societies "evolve". When they follow the Lord, it's for the better. When man trusts only in man, for the worse.
To answer your "no God" question, I think we'd be a bunch a savages. Really, no tongue-in-cheek implied. I don't think it would be some sorta Star Trek utopia. Lookin at societies that don't recognize God (or follow false gods), they seem to bring out the worst in man.
I guess I have a hard time subscribing to that, as history has shown us to be savages (sometimes in the name of religion). I said sometimes. And yet, I can come from a family of no spiritual upbringing, and feel like I'm raising a really just family. I can't see the way I'm doing things as detrimental to our society.
You know, this takes us back to the old debate of where do our morals or standards come from. And possibly even further. where do we come from?
But I hear ya. Your "turn the tables" questions are valid.
Lin,
I think if there were no creator who loves us, we'd be rocks, water and gases swirling around the Earth, that is if the world or universe was formed at all.
However, assuming that humans evolved, which we didn't, but assuming we did, then I think we would have destroyed ourselves by now, or, we would never have reached this point without God. The moral attitudes we have, our respect of life, etc. comes from God. God has put it into our soul. We have an eternal longing for God, and a hard-wired respect for life and morals. Without God, I don't think we could have democracy and I don't think we could have attained the amazing things that have been attained. (though certainly not all of it is good, he hasn't allowed us to destroy ourselves)
I think this is evidenced by the Communists and Fascists. The hard left-wing movements had to remove God, and sear out the morals from people before they could commit the atrocities that they did.
Been there. I raised my kids most of their lives w/out a belief in God. I'm not impling that non-belief breeds unjust families (in individual cases). We were talkn about societies. As far as those who did bad in the name of "religion", seein that religion comes from man, I'm not surprised.
I trust that the values you hold (and teach your children) are good. I just don't believe that they come outta an evolvn society. We are born w/ a sense of right and wrong; imbeded in our DNA by God.
Nestor,
I think a lot of destroying went on that's not documented. It just didn't finish us.
I know, we WERE talkin societies. Sorry. I got personal, cuz I don't know any other way to do it.
We talked about this on Sharp's blog. Whether or not our sense of right and wrong is embeded in our DNA via God, I don't know why it matters, except for eternal life. I know it's the ultimate "except" for y'all. So it must be all about that. If one doesn't believe in eternal life, than what's the real point in believing in a creator?
The reason is because it's more than about eternal life. This is hard to explain. But, it's the fellowship that I have w/ the Lord that brings me joy that I can't justly testify too. This life is a gift, and to live to it's fullness (IMHO) is to live it w/ a realtionship w/ God.
Yes, this life IS a gift. But if one chooses to live it without a relationship w/ God, does it make that life less...less worthy, less important, less moral, less giving?
Less?
At our midweek we were in Proverbs, talking about the fear of the Lord.
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." Proverbs 9:10
The way I get what Solomon is saying is this. If you do not have a healthy respect for God, (this is how most people interpret the phrase 'fear of the Lord') you don't really know anything (worth knowing at least) All of the world's knowledge is nothing without God. Once you know God, you begin to discover an entirely new wisdom, one far better than what the world is offering.
I used to think it was all about heaven and hell (golden streets vs pit a fire). And while that is (probably) true, that's not what it's really about at all. Look, I've experienced some high highs in my life: love, sex, drug induced, friendships, the joy a seein my daughter born. But none, not even one, come close to the feeln inside that a strong fellowship w/ God brings. This isn't self-hypnosis, it's not deluginal; it's as real as the words that are comin outta my mouth.
So that's it; the big secret. The one that you can't know, until you know. Ya know?
I do know, on a cognitive level. I get it. But if it doesn't happen for some people, I don't think it makes them wrong, or misguided, less, or lacking.
GNA
Sweethart, I'm not sayn you're of less value. You're one a the kindest hearted persons I've ever come across.
When Christ sacrificed himself on the cross it had to be because a people like you. The good ones.
Linda,
When you talk about religion being used for evil, well yes, that did happen. However, I wouldn't call them Christians. They may have believed that Jesus was the son of God, but that doesn't make them His disciples.
"You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." (James 2:19)
Being a Christian is far more than wearing a cross around your neck or going to church once in a while. (or even going to church once or twice a week) You will not find REAL Christians using their faith as an excuse to attack others.
This will probably end any political aspriations I may have had ;) but I'll say it anyway. Though most Muslims are not violent, and are average people who just want a good life for their family, the Koran as I understand it, is not as friendly about these things as Jesus is. You have a few options when the caliphate's army comes. (if we're not vigilant as a nation it will) You can convert to Islam, be a subservient being, or be killed.
Now most Muslims don't take this literally, however, that's what Muhammad wrote. Jesus does not tell His followers to kill those that refuse to follow Him. He says,
"Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave. As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town." (Matthew 10:11-14)
Jesus says not to worry about people not accepting Him. On judgment day, that will be dealt with. I think if people don't believe that's fine. Our job as Christians is to plant seeds and water. God makes the seeds grow. I've met people who became Christian YEARS after they were first reached out to. My best friend was like that. He avoided the disciples for three years at UTSA until he was really hungry and they were having a barbeque. They had planted the seed years ago, and finally it was bearing fruit.
Islam doesn't look at it this way. The Koran is about spreading Muhammad's message by force.
Wow, before I read Nestor's last, I'll say thanks to you, Reck. You know I love you, even tho I don't really know you. ;)
I hear what you're saying Nestor. I also think that most people and or/Christians don't feel the bible should be taken in a literal sense. The same way Muslims don't take the Koran in a literal sense. I think a lot of people feel these books are meant to teach, have great value, but to disect them word for word, doesn't work in our current society.
And I'm not sure how you can say people in that time weren't real Christians. They thought they were. And they thought what they were doing was right, as people now are.
As far as Muslims go...the backspace button is my friend. I've had plenty of bad experiences there, that don't need getting into. I think it's more culture than religion, tho.
I guess I'd have to disagree there. A Christian is a disciple of Jesus.
"Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." (Acts 11:25-26)
To be a disciple means you follow the teachings of your teacher, in this case Jesus. For example, Stan would be a disciple of Karl Marx ;) (Had to throw that in) But the crusaders were not following Jesus' teachings. Most 'Christians' now are not either. But if you ARE a disciple of Jesus, you do not stone to death those who refuse to become Christians, you let them make that choice, and hope they eventually change their mind.
The true disciples of Muhammad, who follow his teachings to the letter, kill those who refuse to convert, or at least force them into slave labor.
About the backspace button. It has saved me from many a angry response to Stan. I cooled off and let it go...most of the time. I almost took that post back as well. But I felt like it needed to be said.
Regarding the bible. The bible is true, every word of it. Whether you want to take that as literal or not, I don't know. Certain parts are poetic. I do know that the entire bible is true. I can't say that for the Koran, or any other (supposed) holy book.
Sorry I missed out on the rest of that convo last nite, was very tired.
There's a backspace button?
I'll just address the Bible being literal. The Bible (the one true holy book for mankind), is historical, poetic, prophetic and literal. All of it, every word, is inspired by God. And the lessons in the Bible are timeless, and apply to current times just as much as to "back then".
Lin, you said if you dissect the Bible word for word it doesn't work in our current society. An example please?
Nestor,
Sorry I just bailed on you w/ out warning. I hit a wall.
In regards to knowing every word in the bible is true...I thought we decided that because there's no proof of anything either way, we don't KNOW, that's where the faith comes in. I'll admit, that's tough for me...the whole 'we're right and you're wrong' thing. Not you guys personally, I just mean between faiths. Sort of adds to the frustration of it all.
I get your disciple point. (I'm waiting for Stan to ping your Marx crack.) :)
Think I'll pass, R. Gone there before and it didn't turn out so well for me. I'm no bible debater and won't pretend I can carry my own, cuz I probably can't.
Actually, there IS historical proof of happenings in the Bible.
And you certainly CAN carry your own (discussn the Bible and Christianity). Up to you.
As far as "other" religions, all of their holy books were writtan by a single individual. The Bible was written by 40 authors over thousands of years. While Islam "borrows Scripture", they've changed much of it, claimn that it was corrupted by man. The irony is that the Qur'an states that the written word of God is incorruptable. "We have, without doubt, sent down the message, and we will assuredly guard it from corruption." Qur'an 15:9 Can't have it both ways.
But, the biggest difference between Christianity and ALL other beliefs is works. All, but the Truth, teach that salvation can be earned; Christianity does not.
R,
I guess what I mean by 'hold my own' is that my instinct is to look to the science we know now to support the Bible as it was written. When things in the bible don't make sense to me, due to what I know, you'll have an answer anyway. For example,
How could men live for 900 years?
I'm sure you have an answer for that, that may satisfy me. I may not buy it, but it'll satisfy. (You usually do.)And even if you don't you can always say that it's in the Bible and the Bible is true because it's inspired by God. It can't be explained in terms we can understand.
Pretty much the end of the converstion, right?
I can easily turn this around and say; you mean the same science that says we evolved from apes, altho there is no documented proof. The same science that bases most scientific study on evolution, w/out a proveable link that one thing evolves into another.
I guess it does come down to faith, either way.
Well scientists are allowed to have theories, too. Far as I can see nothing's been proven either way. I guess so, too.
Hey I'm post 100.
And it's snowing.
Low 80's here. Man, I'd a liked to seen some snow this year. Since we moved from SA, we've seen none. It's supposed to occasionily snow here, but hadn't yet. In fact, only snow I've seen in last ten years was about seven yrs ago, in SA. It was a very wet snow tho, but still.
Since nothings been proven either way, I guess that leaves you in the *MIDDLE* yet again :)
Yes, I was thinking the same thing when I typed that. Story of my life apparently. Thus far anyway. There's always hope for change. Just ask Obama!
Lawn now covered. Going to garage to start the car and get in.
This is true...one day last week before school, T goes, "well, ho hum...just another day...sun's coming up--HEY! The sun's coming up! I can see the SUN!!" Is that sad, or what?
Nestor -
> I think if there were no creator who loves us, we'd be rocks, water and gases swirling around the Earth ...
So who would've (in your backwards hypothetical) created the rocks, water and gases????
Reck -
> Stan says while speakn of the Bible, "Of course a book of fiction is gonna have contradictions." Name one.
I was responding to someone else (lin, I think) pointing one out. I don't recall what that particular contradiction was at the moment.
Stan,
I can accept that. Do YOU think that the Bible is full of contradictions? If so, list one. If you cannot, I'll take that as you sayn that the Bible is w/out any contradictions. OK?
In regards to "cherry picking" a religion....
"I think you have every right to 'cherry-pick' when it comes to moving your spirit and finding peace in God. I think you are free to search whenever you need to be transported or comforted. It's nothing to be embarassed about. It's the history of mankind's search for holiness. If humanity never evolved in its exploration of the divine, a lot of us would still be worshipping golden Egyptian statues of cats. And this evolution of religious thinking does involve a fair bit of cherry-picking. You take whatever works from wherever you can find it, and you keep moving toward the light."
Elizabeth Gilbert; Eat, Pray, Love
Y'all may disagree, but I like it.
Contradiction compared to reality, Reck. Not contradictions within the bible. Maybe I mispoke what I was trying to say. Contradictions so blatent that Nestor has to argue that a day means millions of years, for instance.
I gotta go to bed, but I had to put this up first. It is a pretty amazing video. I hope to remember this man's faith whenever I waver in mine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USUvzKDroqM&feature=email
That's quite an inspirational video. Certainly not any evidence of the existence (or non-existence) af any (supposed) God, but it's definitly evidence of something within some human beings to never say never.
http://technohippie.com/geeklog/public_html/mediagallery/media.php?s=20080323014316231
Stan said, "Not contradictions within the bible."
I'm glad that we can agree that the Bible is w/out contradictions. This is kinda a bondn moment for me. Hope it is for you too.
Stan said, "Not contradictions within the bible."
I'm glad that we can agree that the Bible is w/out contradictions. This is kinda a bondn moment for me. Hope it is for you too.
Reck -
> I'm glad that we can agree that the Bible is w/out contradictions.
No, we don't agree. All I meant to say is that there are contradictions between the bible and reality. I'm not studied enough on the bible to know if there are contradictions within the bible or not.
But I agree with Eiffel 65 -
http://technohippie.com/geeklog/public_html/mediagallery/media.php?s=20070208232446195
Lol...bonding moment. You're so cruel.
Stan,
Man, you talk about dodgen the subject. Ok, I'll bite, what are the contradictions 'tween the Bible and reality?
Nestor said:
"However, assuming that humans evolved, which we didn't, but assuming we did, then I think we would have destroyed ourselves by now, or, we would never have reached this point without God. The moral attitudes we have, our respect of life, etc. comes from God."
In a way I think this is entirely possible. But, if our moral attitudes, respect of life, etc., come from God, I think they come from a BELIEF in that God, not necessarily the truth of God's existence. Like I've heard Stan say, 'just cuz you believe it, it doesn't make it true'. (It doesn't make it not true, either.) But the belief could be what helps keep us in line.
Linda,
I understand your point about belief. To me, God placed it in us somewhere. I'm thinkin' Medulla Oblongata. ;) Anyway, I don't think it is the belief in God, it is God Himself. Many cultures who never knew of the One True God, still held these things in high regard. Though not all societies practiced it, most held life in high regard. I've got to think that it isn't just belief in God that causes respect for life and others, because many of these ancient peoples didn't believe in any god, or they believed in many gods.
Well you could very well be right. Either way I'm thinkin the world is a more interesting place because not everyone believes in the exact same thing. Come to think of it you guys may not share that line of thinkin either. Not sure. Anyway, it's an interesting subject and I'm glad you guys put up w/ me. :)
Well Reck; reality is billions of years, the bible says only 7 days.
Hi Linda,
I really try to stay out of these conversations but I really had to ask you a question if you don't mind (I love your comments by the way).
If you had a choice which would you choose:
To have all of the money and power the world has to offer (for good or bad) or to spend eternity in a relationship that resembles a romantic liplock with the love of your life (If you could be with someone for eternity).
I know this sounds like a stupid question but just work with me.
Carmen,
Hi to you, too! Well, it's a pretty easy question to answer. I could make it short and sweet, but what fun would that be? So yeah, power's not big for me. Money? Well, of course it's nice to have to be able to do stuff, and give your kids some experiences they may not have had otherwise.
(btw, I think I know where you're goin w/ this. ;) )
So I'll choose B.
lin -
> ... I'll choose B.
Linda has "vision".
B was the kiss, Stan. Hard to have "vision" while you're kissin w/ your eyes closed. ;)
I'm glad you could see where I was going. That longing that we have to be with someone we love and someone that loves us back is the image of God. The love that we have for our children and the desire that we have for them to love us back is the image of God and because it is written in our hearts we can only be fulfilled with and by love because God is love. This is a universal human trait.
Another example lets say you wrote a journal during your teenage years. As a teen you poured your heart into that little book or at least what was most relevant to you. When you die your journal gets passed from generation to generation and lets just say that some of your greatgreatgreatgrandchildren have not read it. They get their info about who you are from the perspective of someone else who read your journal. Now these relatives think they know you pretty well because they have heard all about you from someone else that read your book. Not only that but they've even quoted you a few times. I think it's fair to say that if you were a fly on the wall watching this you would see that there are a lot of misconceptions being made about you and perspectives that have nothing to do with reality. If they only read your journal they would get to see what you wanted them to see and create their opinions on that.
I think the bible is the same. I can tell you what I think about God until I'm blue in the face. I can write scriptures here all day long. They only way for you to know what the bible says is to read it for yourself and ask questions.
It's always funny to me when I have worked with people and their diets, I'll tell them how they are going to feel the results they will get and how their life will change. The ones that are really sick think it's too good to be true, like they are beyond ever getting better. The ones that are not sick always say "But I feel fine as I am" but it's not until they try it that they realize what feeling amazing it's like. Again, I think the bible is like that. Interestingly enough Jesus guarantees his work in John 7:16-17 he says
"16Jesus answered, "My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me. 17If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own."
It's kind of a 30 day or get your soul back promise. He is so confident that if you just do what he says even if you question it your life will change. I think reck, Nestor and I have seen so much good in our lives come from it that we cannot help but to encourage other people to try it.
Now that I’ve written a book I hope this helps.
I understand your examples. I think each person's truth depends a lot on their upbringing. Probably mostly on their upbringing. Sure people can change their minds later in life, but most of the time the basic foundation's been laid. When you teach children something when they're young, impressionable and looking to you for the answers, you're laying the foundation. I was not taught that the Bible was true.
Nestor said: "I do know that the entire bible is true. I can't say that for the Koran, or any other (supposed) holy book."
The same way I can't say it about the Bible.
Linda,
I understand that having a religious background from childhood may help some people, but it doesn't guarantee a successful relationship with God. Yes, I did go to church as a child, but it wasn't my heart to do so, and no one in my family really went to church. The kids would go and by the time they were teens they would stop.
Many people I know were not raised to believe in God the way they do now. It is something that they realized over time. They saw something that made them give God a shot. They tried, and it stuck. Some people who are devoted Christians were raised that way, but many more were not raised that way. They just saw things in their life that could be better. Maybe they just said these Christians are so convinced, I'll just check it out. They then realized that something was missing that they didn't realize was missing. I think if you feel your life is wonderful now, it would be even better with God.
What most people do I think is this; they say 'if it ain't broke, why fix it'. Honestly, I can understand not going out of your way to find God if you are happy without God. But for about a year or more now, you have been toying with the idea of a relationship with God. I think God is really reaching out to you. Maybe you can take the time to give it another shot. The life of a Christian is not always perfect or easy, but it is better than living without God. I know. If I wasn't a Christian, I would probably have more money and things right now, but I wouldn't have friends, and my marriage would probably be in shambles. Once you've tasted heaven, it's hard to live the way most people do in this world.
Nestor,
N: "I understand that having a religious background from childhood may help some people, but it doesn't guarantee a successful relationship with God."
Absolutely. I still think you're missing my point about foundation. It's a starting point, and it's an important one, cuz it stems from what you were taught as a kid. I know you guys tend to push that under the rug, cuz it's not the same as you feel now. I understand that, but darn it, you can't dismiss it, either.
N: "Many people I know were not raised to believe in God the way they do now."
I wouldn't expect them to, as they were kids, but they were still raised to believe in God.
N: "They just saw things in their life that could be better."
We can always see things in our lives that could be better. Hence my interest.
N: "Honestly, I can understand not going out of your way to find God if you are happy without God. But for about a year or more now, you have been toying with the idea of a relationship with God."
It's really neither here nor there, but as time tables go, I had my first interaction w/ Reck in September and argued with you over Dick and Jane shortly after that. ;) Before then, I'd no interest in the subject.
As far as "taking the time to give it another shot", I don't think you get that that's what I'm doing every day. For the love of pete, I'm reading a book called "How to Know God", I bought a bible, I log on to beliefnet.com daily and I actually listen to you and Reck. You may be mistaking my disbelief as unwillingness to believe.
I realize I may never have faith in what my friends think is worthy of faith.
I also know that my spiritual growth has to be my own.
K, did I rival your "long winded" posts? ;)
I see what your point is on foundation, but believe me, I had a crappy foundation. When I became a Christian, I didn't just need to have some guys come in, drill some holes and put a jack in my foundation. They had to tear down the entire home, break up the existing foundation and rebuild with Christ as the cornerstone. As a kid, my cornerstone was the Pope, and he seemed like a nice guy and all, but I don't stand a chance of ever meeting him.
But building my foundation on Jesus, well I can talk to Him whenever I want to. I need to talk to Him more than I do. Anyway, what I'm saying is this, any foundation that is not on Jesus is doomed to fail. If you have no foundation at all, you can start from scratch. People I've seen that have the hardest time are the people who have some kind of foundation. They not only have to build a new house, but they have to tear down their old one first. When so many of your memories are in that old house, it's hard to tear down. Anyway, what you see as a disadvantage, I don't. It could be a disadvantage if you allow it to be. But it could also be to your advantage. Build your faith in God around Jesus. Read the gospels, learn who Jesus is. That is the only foundation you need.
Lins,
I'm always thrilled when you (or anyone) takes an interest in learnin 'bout Jesus. BUT, becomin a Christian isn't about improving your life (altho it will). It's not about bein happier (tho you will be). And it's certainly not about religion (but it becomes a big part). Believin in and follown Christ is about one thing and one thing only. W/out Him, we'll never see God, never have a relationship w/ God and we won't escape eternal damnation. It's harsh, but it's true.
Ok, that was three things; but sometimes three is one.
Reck -
> BUT, becomin a Christian isn't about improving your life (altho it will).
Financially speaking. Morally speaking? NOT!!!!
Stan,
Becoming a Christian rarely improves one financially. More often than not you are less 'successful' financially. (at least in American terms) But that's OK. A relationship with God isn't about increased financial wealth. It is about spiritual wealth, of which there is an abundance.
Oops, I mispoke. What I meant was coming out as (supposedly) becoming Christian. Sorry to any actual Christians reading.
Post a Comment