I JUST GOT DIVORCED AND MY DAUGHTER IS QUEER!!!

[Winnow]

Here's a line to use on your spouse if they're nagging you:

You should appreciate my faults, because if I didn't have them I would have married someone better than you.

[Lalanae]

There is no one decision maker in my relationship either. If its a decision that affects us jointly (like with our house) we discuss it and if we don't agree we will put the discussion off for a little until both parties have had some time to think.

For example, we need our driveway widened. Bakara wanted to do bricking along the sides like we had seen in the neighborhood, but I didn't think it would look good with our curved driveway. If Bakara were like Rekkar and went ahead and bricked the sides of the driveway, he would have been short a companion for awhile. But he's not like that. Knowing that I didn't think it would work, he agreed to discuss other options. Both of us are reasonable people and we can discuss decisions without getting bent out of shape. He defers decisions to me when he doesn't care and I defer decisions to him when he doesn't care. Having one party make all the decisions would be a nightmare for both of us.

I see a marriage following biblical guidelines responding in a similar manner as you describe Lal.

yeah but in your marriage its always the man making the decisions, unless he makes the decision to let the wife make the decision. In my relationship we have equality of decision making.

[Lynks]

Well,

I see our lives as preexisting constructs. Everything we're going to do and everything did exist already, removed from time.

Free will then is just a way of perceiving our existance within a perspective constrained by time.


We're simply threads woven into a solid chunk of universe. Time is just a dimension of it like width and height.

It's probably a an immense, sparkling and multifacted conversation piece sitting on the Master Artist's coffee table.

Sorry, you might be happy with having your future laid out for you but I'm not. I make my own decisions, not anyone else. You might be happy with that, but I assure you, the majority here doesn't. You really think that "GOD" would create a universe and plan its entire existance? What would be the point?

[Adex_Xeda]

If you bring things outside the scope of time. All things are determined.

If you entertain the idea that the universe was created and if you entertain the multiple references in the bible where God states that he is timeless then you must consider time itself to be a created aspect.

A creator is abstracted from his creation.

So yea you can make the decisions you want as you slide from one time slice to another. But God is looking at all of you moments in life at the same time just as we might look at a timeline in a history book.

From this vantage you know everything about the universe in front of you. This helps explain why God has perfect knowledge. He can see every moment that ever was in the same glance.

If your timeline leads to your destruction, free will is God's allowing it. He won't reach down and tickle the timeline such that the end result is altered to something that you didn't choose........ Unless you he sees in the time smear of your life, you asking him for path correction.

I could be wrong. It's hard to think outside of time, given our very language is shackled by it.

[Jice Virago]

Adex you are treading into well travelled waters here.

Most Theologians have abandoned predestination for two very good reasons:

1) It means God is the cause of all evil- If someone commits an evil act that God predestined them to do, then it was God's will that evil be done. Adam and Eve were booted from paradise because God predestined Eve to betray his word and eat the fruit, making God (and not women) the cause of all human suffering since the expulsion from paradise. Obviously this sort of outlook would go over like a lead baloon with the opiated masses, so it was ditched.

2) It eliminates personal responsibility- Any act of evil can be justified as part of "God's Plan" and your predestined fate. Since God planned everyone's future, how can you blame someone who murders hundreds of people when it was God who planned that future for them? People who kill abortion doctors often use a form of this argument in defense of their actions. This philosophy also fosters a certain apathy in people, as their destiny is no longer their own. In general, its bad for the church for people to go around doing whatever the fuck they want and then claiming it was "God's Plan", so they went with the whole "Eve ate the fruit and gave it to Adam creating Free Will" argument, even though she would still have to either have had free will or mandate from God to eat the fruit in the first place. I guess ignoring one more logical paradox is a lot easier than dealing with masses of people labeling their bad deeds "God's Will".


Of course if you want to selectively use predestination to bolster your fragile mythology, more power to you.

It also does not change the core argument here, that the biblical version of marriage is sexist. It flat out puts the power in the hands of the man. I will go a step further here and state that the entire book is sexist, as all women with power are potrayed as evil. If you can find a passage involving a powerful leader figure who is both female and not portrayed negatively, I would be impressed. And before you chirp in with the "There were no female leaders back then", let me remind you that there were many ancient civilizations (many contemporaries of the jews) with female leaders.

[Adex_Xeda]

Predestination and free will are not mutually exclusive.

Evil is anything that God wouldn't do. Evil and God are mutually exclusive.



As far as women leadership in the bible. They were there. The dominance of males is more a product of culture rather than God. Early catholic rulings (that I don't associate with) that are outside of the bible further diminished women's roles. Blame the paternal culture of our past, dont' blame God.

Female Prophets, Disciples, Ministers & Apostles Mentioned in the Bible

There were many women recorded in the Bible who exhibited religious leadership. Their stories appear in both the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and Christian Scriptures (New Testament):
Exodus 15:24: Miriam, the daughter of Aaron was a prophet and one of the triad of leaders of Israel during the Exodus from Egypt.
Judges 4 & 5: Deborah, a prophet-judge, headed the army of ancient Israel.
2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chronicles 34:22 Huldah, a prophet, verified the authenticity of the "Book of the Law of the Lord given through Moses" - the Book of Deuteronomy. She triggered a religious renewal.
Acts 9:36 The author of Luke referred to a female disciple of Jesus by her Aramaic name Tabitha, who was also known by her Greek name Dorcas. She became sick had died; St. Peter brought her back to life.
Acts 21:8: Philip the evangelist had four unmarried daughters who were prophets.
Philippians 4:2: Paul refers to two women, Euodia and Syntyche, as his co-workers who were active evangelicals, spreading the gospel.
Romans 16:1: Paul refers to Phoebe as a minister or deacon of the church at Cenchrea. The Greek word which describes her function is "diakonos" which means literally "official servant." She is the only deacon in the Bible to be identified by name. Some translations say deaconess; others try to obscure her position by mistranslating the Greek as a simple "servant" or "helper". Paul later refers to Phoebe as a woman, calling her "our sister." This prevented later church leaders from hiding her gender as they did with Junia in Romans 16:7 below - by changing her name and implying that she was a man.
Romans 16:3: Paul refers to Priscilla as another of his "fellow workers in Christ Jesus" (NIV) Other translations refer to her as a "co-worker". But other translations attempt to downgrade her status by calling her a "helper". The original Greek word is "synergoi", which literally means "fellow worker" or "colleague." 1 It is worth noting that Paul refers to Priscilla and her husband as "Priscilla and Aquila" in this passage and as "Aquila and Priscilla" in 1 Corinthians 16:19. It would appear that the order is not important to Paul. As in Galatians 3:28, he apparently believed that there is no distinction among those who have been baptized into Christ between male and female.
Romans 16:7: Paul refers to a male apostle, Andronicus, and a female apostle, Junia, as "outstanding among the apostles" (NIV) Every Greek and Latin church Father until Giles of Rome (circa 1000 CE) acknowledged that Junia was a woman. 2,3 After that time, various writers and translators of the Bible resorted to deceptions in order to suppress her gender. For example:
The Amplified Bible translates this passage as "They are men held in high esteem among the apostles" The Revised Standard Version shows it as "they are men of note among the apostles". The reference to them both being men does not appear in the original Greek text. The word "men" was simply inserted by the translators, apparently because the translators' minds recoiled from the concept of a female apostle.
Many translations, including the Amplified Bible, Rheims New Testament, New American Standard Bible, and the New International Version simply picked the letter "s" out of thin air, and converted the original "Junia" (a woman's name) into "Junias" (a man's). Again, it was probably inconceivable to the translators that Paul would recognize a woman as an apostle.



Female Leaders Mentioned in Early Christian Writings

There are many Gospels and other early Christian writings that never made it into the official canon. Some shed light of the role of women in various early Christian groups:
The Christian Gnostic tradition represented one of the three main forms of early Christianity - the others being Jewish Christianity and Pauline Christianity. Gnostic texts show that women held senior roles as teachers, prophets and missionaries. They conducted rituals such as baptism and the Eucharist. They performed exorcisms. 4
The Gospel of Philip, was widely used among early Christian congregations. It portrayed Mary Magdalene as the companion of Jesus, in a position of very high authority within the early Christian movement.
The Gospel of Mary described Mary Magdalene as a leader of Jesus' disciples. She delivering a passionate sermon to the disciples after his resurrection. This raised their spirits and inspired them to evangelize the known world.
Philoumene, a woman, headed a Christian theological school in Rome during the second century CE. 5



Examples of Female Christian Leaders from the Archeological Record

Author Karen Jo Torjensen cites: 6
An ancient mosaic which shows four female figures. One is identified as Bishop Theodora. The feminine form for bishop (episcopa) is used.
A 3rd or 4th century burial site on the Greek island of Thera contains an epitaph referring to Epiktas, a "presbytis" (priest or presbyter). Epiktas is a woman's name.
A 2nd or 3rd century Christian inscription in Egypt for Artemidoras, whose mother is described as "Paniskianes, being an elder" (presbytera)
A memorial from the 3rd century for Ammion the elder (presbytera)
A 4th or 5th century Sicilian inscription referring to Kale the elder. (presbytis)



Prohibition of Women from Positions of Power by the Early Church

During the 4th and 5th century, the Christian church gradually extinguished women's access to positions of power in the church:
Council of Laodicea (352 CE): Women were forbidden from the priesthood. They also were prohibited from presiding over churches. They decided that "One ought not to establish in the church the women called overseers (presbutidas)....women must not approach the altar."
Fourth Synod of Carthage (398 CE) "A woman, however learned and holy, may not presume to teach men in an assembly...A woman may not baptize."
Council of Chalcedon (451 CE). Canon #15 of the Council states: 7 "No woman under 40 years of age is to be ordained a deacon, and then only after close scrutiny." Apparently, the council wanted to start restricting the ordination of deaconesses, which must have been a common practice at the time. And, of course, anyone ordained to the Holy Order of Deacon would be eligible for later ordination to the priesthood as well.

References

1. Hans Kung, "Christianity: Essence, History and Future", Continuum, New York NY, (1995), P. 121
2. J. Migne, "Patrologia Graeca" (Greek Fathers)
3. J. Migne, "Patrologia Latina" (Latin Fathers)
4. Kurt Rudolph, "Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism", Harper, San Francisco, (1987), P. 211
5. Hans Kung, op cit., Page 156
6. K.J. Torjensen, "When Women Were Priests", Harper, San Francisco (1995), P. 9
7. Article, "National Catholic Reporter", 1996-NOV-15
8. Frank Daniels, "The Role of Woman in the Church." part of the Religious

[Jice Virago]

Umm yes they are, by definition.

Either you are predestined to perform an action and will do it no matter what...

---OR---

You have free will and choose your actions, changing your fate according to those actions.


How are those not mutually exclusive? This is a serious question Adex.

[Karae]

Predestination and free will are not mutually exclusive.

Uh, yes they are. Just because your priest said something you wanted to hear doesn't mean it's true.

Only an idiot would say that our decisions have been made for us already but we can make decisions for ourselves. The concepts are not only mutually exclusive, they are repellent, diametric opposites.

Your belief in the statement above is a result of your failure to understand the innate contradiction within it.

Hey...what do you know? Same reason you believe in The Bible.

[Adex_Xeda]

What you are missing is perspective.

If you looked down the barrel of a PVC pipe, you might conclude that the pipe is a donut. From that heads-on perspective you draw limited if not misleading information about the object.

You bump into similar hangups when you try to view predestination from within a time reference.

Free will is a time dependant concept. Predestination knowledge exists only when you are removed from a time reference.

We perceive our lives, one tick and tock at a time. Free will works just fine within this subset of reality that we are locked into. Cause and effect are separated by time.

From God's perspective cause and effect are co-existant and connected. Any modification of the cause will immediately result in a change in the makeup of the effect. Yet even here our language fails as because outside of time everything is static. Words that detail change, such as "modification" are our attempts at framing our perceptions as we slide through the threads of our existance.

I can see it, but I don't know how to clearly say it. Our language to too shackled by time references.

Free will is our limited framing of a happening much greater than our perceptions allow us to see.

Yet given our current state of time sliding, we are accountable to and "free" to follow our will.

[Winnow]

We perceive our lives, one tick and tock at a time. Free will works just fine within this subset of reality that we are locked into. Cause and effect are separated by time.

If I may quote from the holy book of RUSH

There are those who think that life has nothing left to chance,
A host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance.
A planet of playthings,
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive
"The stars aren't aligned,
Or the gods are malign..."
Blame is better to give than receive.

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill.

[Adex_Xeda]

I'm glad to see your song lyrics agreeing with my model.

[Winnow]

I'm glad to see your song lyrics agreeing with my model.

Come join me in worship at the Temples of the Syrinx!

And the meek shall inherit the earth...

We’ve taken care of everything
The words you hear, the songs you sing
The pictures that give pleasure to your eyes
It’s one for all, all for one
We work together, common sons
Never need to wonder how or why

We are the priests
Of the temples of syrinx
Our great computers
Fill the hollowed halls
We are the priests
Of the temples of syrinx
All the gifts of life
Are held within our walls


k'done

[Drasta]

Predestination and free will are not mutually exclusive.

Evil is anything that God wouldn't do. Evil and God are mutually exclusive.



As far as women leadership in the bible. They were there. The dominance of males is more a product of culture rather than God. Early catholic rulings (that I don't associate with) that are outside of the bible further diminished women's roles. Blame the paternal culture of our past, dont' blame God.

Female Prophets, Disciples, Ministers & Apostles Mentioned in the Bible

There were many women recorded in the Bible who exhibited religious leadership. Their stories appear in both the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and Christian Scriptures (New Testament):
Exodus 15:24: Miriam, the daughter of Aaron was a prophet and one of the triad of leaders of Israel during the Exodus from Egypt.
Judges 4 & 5: Deborah, a prophet-judge, headed the army of ancient Israel.
2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chronicles 34:22 Huldah, a prophet, verified the authenticity of the "Book of the Law of the Lord given through Moses" - the Book of Deuteronomy. She triggered a religious renewal.
Acts 9:36 The author of Luke referred to a female disciple of Jesus by her Aramaic name Tabitha, who was also known by her Greek name Dorcas. She became sick had died; St. Peter brought her back to life.
Acts 21:8: Philip the evangelist had four unmarried daughters who were prophets.
Philippians 4:2: Paul refers to two women, Euodia and Syntyche, as his co-workers who were active evangelicals, spreading the gospel.
Romans 16:1: Paul refers to Phoebe as a minister or deacon of the church at Cenchrea. The Greek word which describes her function is "diakonos" which means literally "official servant." She is the only deacon in the Bible to be identified by name. Some translations say deaconess; others try to obscure her position by mistranslating the Greek as a simple "servant" or "helper". Paul later refers to Phoebe as a woman, calling her "our sister." This prevented later church leaders from hiding her gender as they did with Junia in Romans 16:7 below - by changing her name and implying that she was a man.
Romans 16:3: Paul refers to Priscilla as another of his "fellow workers in Christ Jesus" (NIV) Other translations refer to her as a "co-worker". But other translations attempt to downgrade her status by calling her a "helper". The original Greek word is "synergoi", which literally means "fellow worker" or "colleague." 1 It is worth noting that Paul refers to Priscilla and her husband as "Priscilla and Aquila" in this passage and as "Aquila and Priscilla" in 1 Corinthians 16:19. It would appear that the order is not important to Paul. As in Galatians 3:28, he apparently believed that there is no distinction among those who have been baptized into Christ between male and female.
Romans 16:7: Paul refers to a male apostle, Andronicus, and a female apostle, Junia, as "outstanding among the apostles" (NIV) Every Greek and Latin church Father until Giles of Rome (circa 1000 CE) acknowledged that Junia was a woman. 2,3 After that time, various writers and translators of the Bible resorted to deceptions in order to suppress her gender. For example:
The Amplified Bible translates this passage as "They are men held in high esteem among the apostles" The Revised Standard Version shows it as "they are men of note among the apostles". The reference to them both being men does not appear in the original Greek text. The word "men" was simply inserted by the translators, apparently because the translators' minds recoiled from the concept of a female apostle.
Many translations, including the Amplified Bible, Rheims New Testament, New American Standard Bible, and the New International Version simply picked the letter "s" out of thin air, and converted the original "Junia" (a woman's name) into "Junias" (a man's). Again, it was probably inconceivable to the translators that Paul would recognize a woman as an apostle.



Female Leaders Mentioned in Early Christian Writings

There are many Gospels and other early Christian writings that never made it into the official canon. Some shed light of the role of women in various early Christian groups:
The Christian Gnostic tradition represented one of the three main forms of early Christianity - the others being Jewish Christianity and Pauline Christianity. Gnostic texts show that women held senior roles as teachers, prophets and missionaries. They conducted rituals such as baptism and the Eucharist. They performed exorcisms. 4
The Gospel of Philip, was widely used among early Christian congregations. It portrayed Mary Magdalene as the companion of Jesus, in a position of very high authority within the early Christian movement.
The Gospel of Mary described Mary Magdalene as a leader of Jesus' disciples. She delivering a passionate sermon to the disciples after his resurrection. This raised their spirits and inspired them to evangelize the known world.
Philoumene, a woman, headed a Christian theological school in Rome during the second century CE. 5



Examples of Female Christian Leaders from the Archeological Record

Author Karen Jo Torjensen cites: 6
An ancient mosaic which shows four female figures. One is identified as Bishop Theodora. The feminine form for bishop (episcopa) is used.
A 3rd or 4th century burial site on the Greek island of Thera contains an epitaph referring to Epiktas, a "presbytis" (priest or presbyter). Epiktas is a woman's name.
A 2nd or 3rd century Christian inscription in Egypt for Artemidoras, whose mother is described as "Paniskianes, being an elder" (presbytera)
A memorial from the 3rd century for Ammion the elder (presbytera)
A 4th or 5th century Sicilian inscription referring to Kale the elder. (presbytis)



Prohibition of Women from Positions of Power by the Early Church

During the 4th and 5th century, the Christian church gradually extinguished women's access to positions of power in the church:
Council of Laodicea (352 CE): Women were forbidden from the priesthood. They also were prohibited from presiding over churches. They decided that "One ought not to establish in the church the women called overseers (presbutidas)....women must not approach the altar."
Fourth Synod of Carthage (398 CE) "A woman, however learned and holy, may not presume to teach men in an assembly...A woman may not baptize."
Council of Chalcedon (451 CE). Canon #15 of the Council states: 7 "No woman under 40 years of age is to be ordained a deacon, and then only after close scrutiny." Apparently, the council wanted to start restricting the ordination of deaconesses, which must have been a common practice at the time. And, of course, anyone ordained to the Holy Order of Deacon would be eligible for later ordination to the priesthood as well.

References

1. Hans Kung, "Christianity: Essence, History and Future", Continuum, New York NY, (1995), P. 121
2. J. Migne, "Patrologia Graeca" (Greek Fathers)
3. J. Migne, "Patrologia Latina" (Latin Fathers)
4. Kurt Rudolph, "Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism", Harper, San Francisco, (1987), P. 211
5. Hans Kung, op cit., Page 156
6. K.J. Torjensen, "When Women Were Priests", Harper, San Francisco (1995), P. 9
7. Article, "National Catholic Reporter", 1996-NOV-15
8. Frank Daniels, "The Role of Woman in the Church." part of the Religious

how do you know god wouldn't do something? he could be a hipocrit ... he turned a city to salt ! he's a mean ass ! he's done lots of evil mean shit to people for revenge =-P

[Voronwë]

i guess we can do thought experiments about all of this stuff, but i would like to contest the premise that you can look at a series of events without looking at time.

i assume the metaphor you are going at is a "5 dimensional being" would be able to see an entire arc of events as part of a single process. and in this model, God is more or less at least that capable. unfortunately, like many cases you make regarding God, you start from premises that i think to be fair are simply at best complete conjecture, and at worst complete fantasy. for instance you are saying "god can do this and that". how do you know? it sounds antagonistic to ask, but i am not trying to be antagonistic. YOu should demand more rigorous arguments from yourself.

now on to whether or not i should demand more rigourous arguments from myself

while for the purposes of equations regarding basic mechanic operations, time is effectively representative of a "dimension", it is different. for instance time is unidirectional. There is an "arrow of time". Teacups don't assemble themselves from broken bits of porcelain on the floor and jump onto tables. Entropy is a fundamental property of the universe (dont anybody say shit about chaos...not the same thing ) and the arrow of time is fundamentally tied to what entropy is. Furthermore, and i don't pretend to understand what exactly time is, but it is inextricably tied to whatever "space" is as well.

This may all be relativistic jibber jabber since we are effectively talking about events circumscribed within the same inertial reference frame (ie planet earth), but i think it would matter to a 'multidimensional viewer'. just my hunch especially considering, "he" would likely be viewing from outside of "the universe", and as such would have to sample events through an incredibly large amount of gravitational flux.

[Mplor]

What if God is just a gooback from the future? That way he could already know every decision we will make in our lives AND we still have freedom of choice.

I could live with that... as long as he doesnt take my jurb.

[Adex_Xeda]

Voronwe,

Of course I'm speculating. The sum total of my experiences, plus a set of references that God uses to describe himself in the bible, plus some considerations that I've had when watching my mother paint on canvas, plus a few good works of philosophy that I've read, plus hours and hours of discussion with my atheist mathematician friend, my hindu co-worker, my herpetologist and evolutionary diehard friend, plus some great science fiction authors including frank herbert and michael crition, plus my philosophy graduate student friend, plus hours and hours of dreaming.


All of this contributes. I see a large collection of events and dots, I'm compelled to connect them.

So far, this model fits all of the standalone information in a unifying manner.

Of course it's speculation, but it's speculation born of much thought.

[Zaelath]

What a load of horseshit. It's just more of the same flawed thinking that attempts to answer the question "why does God let bad things happen to good people?"

There's only two explanations:

1) He's not into micro-management and he just lets us "be" and He didn't "stop" talking to people directly every five minutes like He did it the bible, He never talked to them, they were *just* as batshit crazy as the people who say He talks to them today.

2) He doesn't exist or He lost interest.

Neither of these explanations "work" for the church because they don't support it's existence, so they make up the kind of utter bullshit you're talking now and call it "reasoned argument" but fail to take into account that they start out with "well, if you assume 1 = 0, then.."

Edit: in the phrase, "don't support it's existence"; "it" refers to the church, not God. Just to be clear for the slower readers.

[Adex_Xeda]

?


Are you talking to me Zaelath or was that some "in general" statement?

[masteen]

So back on topic, when do we get to see Voro's daughter's hot lesbian video?

[Truant]

plus a set of references that God uses to describe himself in the bible

just wanted to point out, you are making a big assumption that God actually had anything to do with writing the bible.

[Lynks]

In a 1000 years, I hope people don't read any vampire novels and assume that they did really exist because a lot of different people wrote about them. And I also hope they don't start sucking on each others necks and/or driving sharp objects through their hearts because the books told them to.

Uhhh, what was the topic for this thread, I forgot.

[Adex_Xeda]

plus a set of references that God uses to describe himself in the bible

just wanted to point out, you are making a big assumption that God actually had anything to do with writing the bible.

When God starts interacting with you personally in a manner consistant with what is described in the bible, assumption becomes confirmation.

[Truant]

plus a set of references that God uses to describe himself in the bible

just wanted to point out, you are making a big assumption that God actually had anything to do with writing the bible.

When God starts interacting with you personally in a manner consistant with what is described in the bible, assumption becomes confirmation.

Well then the Mormons are just as correct as you are then.

[Marbus]

I can't believe that I've missed posting on this wonderful thread...

First of all I wonder how many people promoting their views are 1) Married? and 2) Have been married longer than 5 years...

I don't think Rak is wrong and neither is Adex, I think many people are trying to put words into their mouths. First of all, forget that Old Testament crap. Jesus created a New Testament which is where we should look for guidence in our lives. If you look at most of the "stupid" people arguing "stupid" points or hateful points in Christanity it's because they are quoting the OT.

Personally I think many male pastors over the years have misinterperted, for their own selfish reasons or out of ignorance, what Christ says about marriage in the NT.

A marraige is about equality and honor for one another. If you really look at all the aspects in other chapters of how Christ is to the Church etc... you will see that the true meaning (I don't have time to post it all here) is that husbands and wives are equil.

I wouldn't never make a decision without my wife being informed and she wouldn't either. We discuss everything but there are times when one person has to make a decision. Sometimes she makes it, I don't "let" her make it, she has more knowledge of a given situation so she makes it. That is what a leader does, you can lead your house without dominiating it. Someone has to lead or there would be anarchy... I lead the our household but I'm not always the final decision maker, we try to balance things out.

To me that is what the NT is talking about. Of course many Christians don't really read for themselves but just take what their minister tells there so it's no wonder things poliferate the way they do. Perhaps in another 1000 years we can get through all of this...

Marb

[Lalanae]

Marbus, explain to me what makes a leader if not decision making? You don't explain that. You say you are the leader, but how do you lead?

[Jice Virago]

His Cock gives him the divine right to lead, because the Lord Sayeth So in the Bible (which God had a bunch of ghost authors write after his career started winding down, kind of like ex president memoires) making the penis the symbol of divine authority. Why do you think the pope wears that silly hat and carries a staff around?

[Adex_Xeda]

plus a set of references that God uses to describe himself in the bible

just wanted to point out, you are making a big assumption that God actually had anything to do with writing the bible.

When God starts interacting with you personally in a manner consistant with what is described in the bible, assumption becomes confirmation.

Well then the Mormons are just as correct as you are then.

The Mormons have a belief system that significantly deviates from what is written in the bible. The Mormon idea of God is not one of a universal creator but rather the overseer of 4 planets. They deviate so much from the bible that most christain groups classify the Mormons as non-christian.

[Marbus]

I lead by being the tie breaker, which after almost 10 years of marriage and (14 years together) I have only had to do once.

I lead by bringing up topics I think are important to the family or to our marriage and she does the same thing.

I lead by setting an example to my son(s) (soon to be that is) as much as I can right now as he is only 19 months

I lead by doing my share of the house work and more when necessary as I know my wife will do the same

and I lead by loving my wife and supporting her in any way possible.

As I may not have been explicit about it I, my interpretation of what the Bible tells me is that everything should be equal but sometimes one person must be the tie breaker. IMHO that is a last resort, it's my duty but it's a last resort. In almost every situation we should be able to come to a consensus but if necessary it's my duty to my family to make a decision. AND I may not make the right one. Luckily the only time I did have to do that I did make the right decision.

Why does the Bible say that the man should be the head of the household? or the tie breaker in my interpretation? As most of my conversations with God are pretty much half-duplex I don't know for sure but I have some ideas...

1. When the NT was written women had almost no power at all. The book of Mark alludes to women playing a very prominent role in Jesus' ministry as do many non-Canonotical books from the times but as much of what we have was written many years after his death and resurrection, the male dominated society snuffed as much as possible IMHO. At the time though having a woman as head of the household wouldn't work... that is why you have too look through different books to see what is said about each aspect of Jesus' description of marriage to find the equality... men didn't want Religion to say that, they liked things they way they were in the OT...

2. This may be sexist but lets be honest here, many men, either due to nature or nurture, aren't as involved with their family as they should be (I consider myself one of the lucky ones). Perhaps designating them to lead is God's way of keep them involved. This is actually something I heard from a minister once... seems plausible but whether or not it worked or caused more problems that good is another argument

I think I'm a pretty smart guy but I know that I don't have all the answers and are wrong on some of the ones I do have. What I do know is that by balancing our lives on each other, depending on each other, loving each other in a equal relationship with the reservation that there may come a time I have to say "we do this" - we have a pretty great marriage and life.

Of course there are many Christians who would argue with me that my interpretation is incorrect. The Southern Baptist Convention made their missionaries, women who had been in the field for over 30 years with their spouses sign a letter that they were subservient to their husbands if they wanted to continue getting support from the Church... WTF is that about? I guess it goes back to the idea that people love power and total power corrupts... in many cases men have the power and are scared to give up any part of it... Funny thing is that if they did they would find their lives much more rewarding! at least IMHO.

Sorry for the rambling... Vor's been griefing me for almost 5 years about being long winded, guess some things never change

Marb

(edited for spelling as per Masteen)

[masteen]

Someday, Marb may even spell EQUAL correctly...

[Marbus]

I didn't consider the "big wang" theory of leadership but just like you Jice, I'm sure there are many people, Christians none the less, who probably actually agree with you... although they would never use the work "co**."

Marb

PS - I know you aren't serious, I hope you don't think so little of me to actually believe I would think that way though...

[Marbus]

When I'm not on a conference call trying to explain how consolidate 1100 server from 5 locations down to 2 from a secuirty perspective I hope so too Actually I will go back and edit though, just for you Masteen

Marb

[Lalanae]

I lead by being the tie breaker, which after almost 10 years of marriage and (14 years together) I have only had to do once.

I lead by bringing up topics I think are important to the family or to our marraige and she does the same thing.

I lead by setting an example to my son(s) (soon to be that is) as much as I can right now as he is only 19 months

I lead by doing my share of the house work and more when necessary as I know my wife will do the same

and I lead by loving my wife and supporting her in any way possible.

Besides the first one, all those things your wife does too, so how do they set you apart as a "leader?" They don't. So basically you being the "tie-breaker" makes you a leader. So we are back to the original idea that you have final say in decisions if you two disagree. That is inequality, where you have an authority over her, even if it has only happened once.

[masteen]

How is saying that the husband has authority over his wife sexist? Does not the wife lay the same claim?

Ask any married guy who wears the pants in his family, and 95% will say that they do. Then ask those same guys what's on their honey-do list today.

[Marbus]

You are correct! That is what makes our marriage equil and work. However there are times when someone has to make a decision, we have decided that person is I. Part of this is obvious based on our religious views but I would say I'm much more religious than my wife. She dosen't mind giving me the final say I guess because she knows I don't and won't abuse that power. If our relationship was different I would dare say I might not have that power. I lead because it is in my nature and because we decided it would be that way... is that more of what you are looking for? All that being said my Honey-Do list is usually quite long, but that's because I often don't look for things to do and she does. It's a weakness of mine and I'm grateful that she will help me get the things done I need to do

Marb

[Lalanae]

How is saying that the husband has authority over his wife sexist? Does not the wife lay the same claim?

Ask any married guy who wears the pants in his family, and 95% will say that they do. Then ask those same guys what's on their honey-do list today.

We are talking about realities, not perceptions. And 95% of men will not say they wear the pants in the family. Most will say their marriage is based on equality, as been evidenced by this board.

[masteen]

They only say that where there's wimmin-folk around.

[Thess]

They only say that where there's wimmin-folk around.

Which just proves the fact that the marriage is equal - since they are to scared of the consequences of saying it with their wife around

[Rekaar.]

Back!

To clarify one last time before giving up on this talking point: being the decision maker doesn't mean there is no other acceptable opinion than your own. You who criticize my point of view either don't understand it by choice/obstinance or because it's fundamentally impossible for you to admit that the only reason people agree (when they originally disagreed) is because one person decided to follow the other.

So to recap (confirm these individually before reding on):

1. If Thess "wears the pants" then no major decision in the family will be made without her blessing, no matter how strongly Karae feels about it.

2. The only way for Karae to agree with Thess in a situation where opinions differ is for him to be convinced, or for him to successfully convince Thess to change her mind.

3. If the two are at an impasse either nothing gets done, or Thess does what she thinks is best for the family*.

None of these situations implies the opinion of the other mate is not important, considered, or effective in the end. I'm just (probably in futility) trying to describe a relational dynamic because somehow it seems sexist to you that I make the decisions in my home and, like anyone else, my first perspective often gets tempered by that of my wife. Many times I go with what she thinks is best, but usually she trusts that I'll make the right decision either way.



*(this should be the only possible place for a dispute of your ideology vs. mine, maybe you contend that nothing ever happens until all parties are in agreement. If that's the case, you have a very good chance of living a victim's life by letting life hit you in the face rather than taking action)

[Rekaar.]

They only say that where there's wimmin-folk around.

Which just proves the fact that the marriage is equal - since they are to scared of the consequences of saying it with their wife around

Actually it suggests that if they aren't "playing the man" then their wife is...which is incredibly pervasive in America today. If it works for you that way then great. It also alludes to the hypersensitivity to the topic most women have since the Women's Lib movement became so popular.

[Lalanae]

"Playing the man?" What fucking century do you live in?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

"Playing the man?" What fucking century do you live in?

It's a comman expression used by most people living in reality. I'm sorry if your delicate ego can't handle it, but as long as women are the ones who give birth to our children, have the mothering instincts, nuturing abilities, and continue having more estrogen than testosterone.....women will still be "playing the man".

Argue it all you want, but you are only lying to yourself.

[Lalanae]

"Playing the man?" What fucking century do you live in?

It's a comman expression used by most people living in reality. I'm sorry if your delicate ego can't handle it, but as long as women are the ones who give birth to our children, have the mothering instincts, nuturing abilities, and continue having more estrogen than testosterone.....women will still be "playing the man".

Argue it all you want, but you are only lying to yourself.

"Most" people living in reality don't refer to a woman who has control over her own life as "playing the man." Speaking one's mind has nothing to do with estrogen or testosterone you fucktard.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

"Playing the man?" What fucking century do you live in?

It's a comman expression used by most people living in reality. I'm sorry if your delicate ego can't handle it, but as long as women are the ones who give birth to our children, have the mothering instincts, nuturing abilities, and continue having more estrogen than testosterone.....women will still be "playing the man".

Argue it all you want, but you are only lying to yourself.

"Most" people living in reality don't refer to a woman who has control over her own life as "playing the man." Speaking one's mind has nothing to do with estrogen or testosterone you fucktard.

I don't recall saying anything about a woman having control over her own life nor speaking one's own mind. I was merely helping your feeble mind understand the phrase you seemed confused by.

[Dregor Thule]

"Playing the man?" What fucking century do you live in?

It's a comman expression used by most people living in reality. I'm sorry if your delicate ego can't handle it, but as long as women are the ones who give birth to our children, have the mothering instincts, nuturing abilities, and continue having more estrogen than testosterone.....women will still be "playing the man".

Argue it all you want, but you are only lying to yourself.

"Most" people living in reality don't refer to a woman who has control over her own life as "playing the man." Speaking one's mind has nothing to do with estrogen or testosterone you fucktard.

I don't recall saying anything about a woman having control over her own life nor speaking one's own mind. I was merely helping your feeble mind understand the phrase you seemed confused by.

I pity your wife.

[*~*stragi*~*]

I'm with mplor! God damn Goobacks, fucking Richers!

[Truant]

plus a set of references that God uses to describe himself in the bible

just wanted to point out, you are making a big assumption that God actually had anything to do with writing the bible.

When God starts interacting with you personally in a manner consistant with what is described in the bible, assumption becomes confirmation.

Well then the Mormons are just as correct as you are then.

The Mormons have a belief system that significantly deviates from what is written in the bible. The Mormon idea of God is not one of a universal creator but rather the overseer of 4 planets. They deviate so much from the bible that most christain groups classify the Mormons as non-christian.

Yes, but my point is...they believe God wrote the bible, and their little book. They believe God interacts with them in a personal manner, and so now it is confirmed.

Even though you just said they're fucking crazy bastards (and they are)...by using the logic of your argument, they are just as confirmed in their beliefs as you are.

And if your confirmation makes you correct, then theirs makes them correct.

[Lalanae]

"Playing the man?" What fucking century do you live in?

It's a comman expression used by most people living in reality. I'm sorry if your delicate ego can't handle it, but as long as women are the ones who give birth to our children, have the mothering instincts, nuturing abilities, and continue having more estrogen than testosterone.....women will still be "playing the man".

Argue it all you want, but you are only lying to yourself.

"Most" people living in reality don't refer to a woman who has control over her own life as "playing the man." Speaking one's mind has nothing to do with estrogen or testosterone you fucktard.

I don't recall saying anything about a woman having control over her own life nor speaking one's own mind. I was merely helping your feeble mind understand the phrase you seemed confused by.

The only one confused is you. I never said I didn't know what he meant by the phrase, just that the concept behind it is so outdated. Hence my comment "What fucking century do you live in?"

I know you have a hard time following the flow of a thread, but try to keep up really.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Dregor,

You just don't know. You really don't know. It's amazing the perception some people can pull from comments. You so don't know me.


Allow me to autofill your response...."I'm glad I don't know your wife beating, trailer park, redneck, NRA-luvin, racist ass!"

Pathetic.

[Dregor Thule]

Gee, you got me. Took all the wind out of my thinking you're a moron. WTG chief.

[Mplor]

The Mormons have a belief system that significantly deviates from what is written in the bible. The Mormon idea of God is not one of a universal creator but rather the overseer of 4 planets. They deviate so much from the bible that most christain groups classify the Mormons as non-christian.

Huh? You're an intelligent guy. Do some research. A lot of Mormon leaders with umpteen wives said some pretty far-out stuff 150 years ago, but these days Mormons are distinguishable from mainstream Christians mainly in that more of them actually practice their religion.

Disclaimer: I'm not justifying Mormonism or religion in general, but I lived in SLC for many years and know a thing or two about em.