Re: POLITICS - marriage symbolic of Christ and the Church?

[Guest guest]

>> speaking for myself, i don't need a " head " , thanks (other than my own and

>> god's). just curious if you or other christian woman " submit " yourselves

>to

>> your husbands as your " head " , and if so - what does that entail?

>

>Well, I'm not married, but if I were married I would work together with my

>husband looking to him as the leader in the relationship.

so, it seems your belief in the nature of the marriage relationship is based

on the bible, and that the biblical marriage relationship is not a

partnership between equals, but rather one between a leader and a follower?

(i'm just trying to get clarification.)

>

>> > 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives

>> >be to their own husbands in every thing.

>>

>> so, these passages represent the bible's view on the marital relationship

>> between husband and wife - that he is her head and she must submit to him

>as

>> she would to god (and as the church does to christ), and she is subject

>to

>> him in everything?

>

>I guess some would say that a wife should submit to her husband as she

>would to God, but there's also a place in Scripture where it says, " It's

>better to obey God rather than man. " So where a husband would ask his wife

>to do something contrary to what God says (in the Bible), my take is that

>she should obey God.

so, first wives obey god, then obey husband?

>

>As far as the wife being subject to the husband in everything ... I think

>it's best to take that in view of Scripture as a whole (which gives

>explicit instructions to the husband as well), and I don't think this is

>the place to get into this any more than briefly in order to answer your

>question. If you want to discuss it further feel free to email me offlist.

well, this is also not the place to discuss homosexuality, libertarianism,

or sex but we do - and often. but you don't have to answer if you don't feel

like discussing this here - maybe someone else who understands the biblical

view of marriage will pipe up. thanks for your response to my initial

questions :-)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

From: " Suze Fisher " <s.fisher22@...>

> so, it seems your belief in the nature of the marriage relationship is

based

> on the bible, and that the biblical marriage relationship is not a

> partnership between equals, but rather one between a leader and a

follower?

> (i'm just trying to get clarification.)

It depends on what you mean by equals. I have a hunch your definition of

what that means, and mine, probably differ.

> >I guess some would say that a wife should submit to her husband as she

> >would to God, but there's also a place in Scripture where it says, " It's

> >better to obey God rather than man. " So where a husband would ask his

wife

> >to do something contrary to what God says (in the Bible), my take is

that

> >she should obey God.

>

> so, first wives obey god, then obey husband?

Right, I think that's what I said. Now I imagine you're gonna react to

the term " obey, " but I'll just let you know before you do that I'm not

interested in getting into that here. As I said before, it's not something

you can isolate out as one aspect like people like to do, but is rather a

small part of a whole way of relating that works very well when both do

their part as God intended. I've seen it work many times, and it's a

beautiful thing to watch.

> >As far as the wife being subject to the husband in everything ... I

think

> >it's best to take that in view of Scripture as a whole (which gives

> >explicit instructions to the husband as well), and I don't think this is

> >the place to get into this any more than briefly in order to answer your

> >question. If you want to discuss it further feel free to email me

offlist.

>

> well, this is also not the place to discuss homosexuality,

libertarianism,

> or sex but we do - and often. but you don't have to answer if you don't

feel

> like discussing this here - maybe someone else who understands the

biblical

> view of marriage will pipe up. thanks for your response to my initial

> questions :-)

I'm just not interested in getting into a discussion, as it was going with

on another topic, where our whole premise for looking at these things

is likely very different. It's why I don't think these kinds of topics

belong on this list. They get off on such wild tangents that have nothing

to do with nourishing traditions, nor even with the origin of the thread,

because everyone's coming at it from a different perspective and set of

beliefs and values. At least in the case with NT we are approaching the

subject from a general similarity of beliefs and values about nutrition and

health.

Now you may think I'm a hypocrite for thinking that and yet posting so

extensively on these topics, and I thought long and hard before adding my

perspective. But it was because the topic was being allowed, and it seemed

only one side was being represented on a topic that I feel holds a lot of

importance, that I spoke up.

If you want to know what the Bible says on the topic, I suggest grabbing

one and reading it cover to cover. It truly wasn't meant to be taken by

piecemeal and dissected, but to be taken as a whole. I'm truly not trying

to be facetious; there's just no other way to be able to truly discuss it

unless you know what it's saying as a whole.

Over and out.

~ Fern

[Guest guest]

>well, this is also not the place to discuss homosexuality, libertarianism,

>or sex but we do - and often. but you don't have to answer if you don't feel

>like discussing this here - maybe someone else who understands the biblical

>view of marriage will pipe up. thanks for your response to my initial

>questions :-)

Well, I did have a preacher in the family, and a sister who lives

by those rules, and yeah, the guy is the head. In an ideal relationship,

the husband makes good decisions and consults his wife before

making decisions or the two work together, but he has the last

say.

C. S. defended this by saying " well, SOMEONE has

to be in charge " -- which is an interesting approach ... in my

own marriage, my DH also believes someone has to be " in charge "

but we divide up who is in charge of what. When we used to

make wine, he was in charge, but I was in charge of beer, for

instance. We take turns being in charge of the kids ... whoever

is in charge makes the decisions.

Also in the fundamentalist tradition, only men can be " elders "

and " preachers " -- it used to be women couldn't even talk in

church. said something to the effect that it isn't fitting

that a woman speak in church. It's not a feminist tradition,

exactly.

I dated a Mormon guy for awhile, and he told me that when

we got married, it would be up to him whether or not to

resurrect me at the end of time. So his authority would extend

not only for this life, but into the next. I didn't marry him.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> Re: POLITICS - marriage symbolic of Christ and the Church?

>

>

>From: " Suze Fisher " <s.fisher22@...>

>> so, it seems your belief in the nature of the marriage relationship is

>based

>> on the bible, and that the biblical marriage relationship is not a

>> partnership between equals, but rather one between a leader and a

>follower?

>> (i'm just trying to get clarification.)

>

>It depends on what you mean by equals. I have a hunch your definition of

>what that means, and mine, probably differ.

probably. but clearly, there is an unequal *power* relationship between

husband and wife if the man is the " leader " . A leader presupposes a

follower - the wife.

>

>> >I guess some would say that a wife should submit to her husband as she

>> >would to God, but there's also a place in Scripture where it says, " It's

>> >better to obey God rather than man. " So where a husband would ask his

>wife

>> >to do something contrary to what God says (in the Bible), my take is

>that

>> >she should obey God.

>>

>> so, first wives obey god, then obey husband?

>

>Right, I think that's what I said. Now I imagine you're gonna react to

>the term " obey, " but I'll just let you know before you do that I'm not

>interested in getting into that here.

well, it's certainly not a new concept to me, and i know it may be

interpreted differently. but in the context of other biblical writings, some

of which you posted here, it *seems* to mean " obey " in the sense that we

understand " obey " in our language. i'd be interested if there are other

translations of the biblical " obey " that don't imply a master/servant

relationship ?

As I said before, it's not something

>you can isolate out as one aspect like people like to do, but is rather a

>small part of a whole way of relating that works very well when both do

>their part as God intended. I've seen it work many times, and it's a

>beautiful thing to watch.

oh, i know the whole doesn't equal the sum of just a few parts. but i was

under the impression there's consistency in the bible in terms of the

male/female relationship. ie; god is male, jesus is male, the holy ghost

is...?, woman was created *from* man to be his helpmate, when a woman

marries she " obeys' her husband symbolic of the relationship between the

church and christ and so on - this seems quite consistent.

>If you want to know what the Bible says on the topic, I suggest grabbing

>one and reading it cover to cover. It truly wasn't meant to be taken by

>piecemeal and dissected, but to be taken as a whole.

no doubt, although the parts do seem to represent the whole and one would

hope they'd be consistent with the whole. and while the whole is best

understood when looked at in its entirety, sometimes the parts speak

volumes.

personally, like heidi, i like dividing up who's in charge of what - but not

based on gender or the bible, rather based on personal preferences of me and

my husband. i just wouldn't be interested in a guy who thinks i should

" obey " him whether based on scripture or personal prejudice. (i've always

had a problem with authority figures - other than god.) and i sincerely

don't mean any disprespect with this at all. to each her own ;-)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

<so, it seems your belief in the nature of the marriage relationship is based

on the bible, and that the biblical marriage relationship is not a

partnership between equals, but rather one between a leader and a follower?

(i'm just trying to get clarification.)

Suze,

Fern is absolutely correct that you cannot take a single verse from the Bible,

dissect it and establish anything about the Judeo Christian religion. The Bible

consistantly claims all people are equal in the eyes of God, regardless of sex

or race or moral sin or age. When a couple marry, marital vows typically in

most churches include vows each make to the other to love, cherish, honor, and

obey until death does part. (And note both say this, not just the woman)

The Bible was not written in English. Many words do not translate equivalently

in different languages which is one of the reasons we have Biblical scholars who

devote their lives to studying scripture, and leaders such as the Pope who

interpret it with authority granted him.

In regards to posts last night about us being his children, God imparts the

spirit into the person upon conception. That spirit is what separates us as

humans from other animals. Without it, we are animals in the biological kindom.

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

> said something to the effect that it isn't fitting

>that a woman speak in church.

No, no, it was just a misunderstanding, I swear!

-

[Guest guest]

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> No, no, it was just a misunderstanding, I swear!

>

>

Wasn't there something in the Bible about Brazen Idols?

Marty

[Guest guest]

Marty-

>Wasn't there something in the Bible about Brazen Idols?

Thou shalt worship them?

-

[Guest guest]

Suze,

I'm not a woman, and have mixed feelings about this anyway, but I'll try to

briefly but comprehensively summarize the Christian view on marriage:

The woman must submit to the man, while the man must be willing to sacrifice

his life for the woman, as per Christ and the Church. It also says the man

and woman must " submit to each other, " and, in sexual terms, they are each

considered to own the others body, so that one must always submit sexually to

one's

spouse when they desire it.

This isn't a power relationship. The command is given to the WOMAN to submit

to the husband, not to the husband to submit the woman to himself. Thus, as

with Christ and the Church, the woman is a free agent, completely free to

operate as she chooses. The man, in turn, is required to, on the one hand, obey

God, and on the other, live and die for his wife. Thus, the man does not

control the wife for his purposes, but works for her purposes.

The idea here is that there is ultimate harmony between the man, the woman,

and God, that also is seen to typify the Trinity. Christ proceeds from the

Father like Eve was taken from Adam, and they are connected by the indwelling of

the Holy Spirit in each, like Eve and Adam are connected by marital union. In

this typos, the woman is seen as representing Christ, the man is seen as

representing the Father, and marriage is seen as representing the Holy Spirit.

Christ obeys the father and does nothing of his own will; however, Christ is

in the Father and the Father is in Christ, so the Christ the Logos has no will

apart from the Father's will, because they are in perfect harmony.

Thus, the marriage of a man and woman, if they live a Christian life and are

guided by the Holy Spirit is perfect harmony, in which the man and the woman

act with a consonant will, not two diverging wills. Thus the man is a head not

in the sense of a ruler and a subject, but more in the sense of a leader, I

guess, for lack of a better word.

In reality, that doesn't quite work that way. The woman's will can diverge

from the man's, and the man's can from God's. In this case, the woman is not

compelled by any external authority to submit to the man, but would be morally

compelled to submit for the purpose of harmony, although the man would be

morally compelled to do likewise. Christian ethics work well when everyone

follows them, but when one person follows them they get trampled on :-)

This is not a feminist vision, and I'm not trying to paint it as such. I

hope perhaps it shed a little light.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>No, no, it was just a misunderstanding, I swear!

>

>

>-

ROFLMAO!

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>C. S. defended this by saying " well, SOMEONE has

>to be in charge " -- which is an interesting approach ...

it is certainly ONE approach, but by no means the only approach. my parents

are a reasonably good example of a successful marriage in which neither

partner is THE head. as with your marriage, each heads different aspects of

their life together, but then there are some issues they decide on together.

they've been married about 45 years now, and are not just living together,

but are a real couple.

now, in a relationship that's going to designate ONE person as the " head " it

would seem to make the most sense to designate the one who:

a) WANTS to be the head (assuming the other doesn't want to)

is the most capable of the two for the job

the issue i see with the biblical designation of half the human race being

designated the " head " based on their gender, is that it has no basis in

their *competence* as the head. if i'm going to hire someone to run my

company, i want the most competent person, period. their competence will

translate into a more successful company. same with the head of a family.

obviously in some cases the woman would be the more competent and in some

cases the man, depending on the individuals.

i do understand that the bible may give reasons as to why the head of a

family is not chosen based on competence. it's just not something that makes

much sense to me. i'm about to start c.s. lewis' " mere christianity " so i

guess i'll get a better sense of some of these issues as i read more on the

subject.

>

>Also in the fundamentalist tradition, only men can be " elders "

>and " preachers " -- it used to be women couldn't even talk in

>church. said something to the effect that it isn't fitting

>that a woman speak in church. It's not a feminist tradition,

>exactly.

ya think? LOL!

>

>I dated a Mormon guy for awhile, and he told me that when

>we got married, it would be up to him whether or not to

>resurrect me at the end of time. So his authority would extend

>not only for this life, but into the next. I didn't marry him.

yeowsa...talk about a power trip. <g>

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

I think you drew this out quite accurately, but do want to add that

just as the wife submits to the husband, so the husband submits to Christ,

who submits to God the Father, and so therefore the husband and wife work

in harmony together to fulfill God's purpose and will. The purpose of the

wife submitting is not so that the man becomes master and she the servant,

but rather so that they work in harmony as servants together of Christ,

fulfilling God's will and purpose.

The neat thing is that, with the differences with which God made man and

woman, their strengths and weaknesses fit hand in glove so that they can

work together for God in a way that woman cannot alone nor with another

woman, nor that a man can alone nor with another man. (However, I

Corinthians 7 points out that a single man or a single woman can also be

devoted directly to the Lord in a way that a husband and wife can't, since

some of the married person's energy/devotion must be poured into their

spouse.)

Just another reason that seems evident why God made marriage to consist of

a man and a woman, not a man and a man nor a woman and a woman. <g>

~ Fern

Re: POLITICS - marriage symbolic of Christ and the Church?

> Suze,

>

> I'm not a woman, and have mixed feelings about this anyway, but I'll try

to

> briefly but comprehensively summarize the Christian view on marriage:

>

> The woman must submit to the man, while the man must be willing to

sacrifice

> his life for the woman, as per Christ and the Church. It also says the

man

> and woman must " submit to each other, " and, in sexual terms, they are

each

> considered to own the others body, so that one must always submit

sexually to one's

> spouse when they desire it.

>

> This isn't a power relationship. The command is given to the WOMAN to

submit

> to the husband, not to the husband to submit the woman to himself. Thus,

as

> with Christ and the Church, the woman is a free agent, completely free to

> operate as she chooses. The man, in turn, is required to, on the one

hand, obey

> God, and on the other, live and die for his wife. Thus, the man does not

> control the wife for his purposes, but works for her purposes.

>

> The idea here is that there is ultimate harmony between the man, the

woman,

> and God, that also is seen to typify the Trinity. Christ proceeds from

the

> Father like Eve was taken from Adam, and they are connected by the

indwelling of

> the Holy Spirit in each, like Eve and Adam are connected by marital

union. In

> this typos, the woman is seen as representing Christ, the man is seen as

> representing the Father, and marriage is seen as representing the Holy

Spirit.

>

> Christ obeys the father and does nothing of his own will; however, Christ

is

> in the Father and the Father is in Christ, so the Christ the Logos has no

will

> apart from the Father's will, because they are in perfect harmony.

>

> Thus, the marriage of a man and woman, if they live a Christian life and

are

> guided by the Holy Spirit is perfect harmony, in which the man and the

woman

> act with a consonant will, not two diverging wills. Thus the man is a

head not

> in the sense of a ruler and a subject, but more in the sense of a leader,

I

> guess, for lack of a better word.

>

> In reality, that doesn't quite work that way. The woman's will can

diverge

> from the man's, and the man's can from God's. In this case, the woman is

not

> compelled by any external authority to submit to the man, but would be

morally

> compelled to submit for the purpose of harmony, although the man would be

> morally compelled to do likewise. Christian ethics work well when

everyone

> follows them, but when one person follows them they get trampled on :-)

>

> This is not a feminist vision, and I'm not trying to paint it as such. I

> hope perhaps it shed a little light.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

From: " Suze Fisher " <s.fisher22@...>

>>> on the bible, and that the biblical marriage relationship is not a

>>> partnership between equals, but rather one between a leader and a

>>follower?

>>

>>It depends on what you mean by equals. I have a hunch your definition of

>>what that means, and mine, probably differ.

>

> probably. but clearly, there is an unequal *power* relationship between

> husband and wife if the man is the " leader " . A leader presupposes a

> follower - the wife.

No, it's not about power, it's about a whole greater purpose that the man

fits into as well. See my response to Chris' post ... I think that explains

it so much better.

>>Right, I think that's what I said. Now I imagine you're gonna react

to

>>the term " obey, " but I'll just let you know before you do that I'm not

>>interested in getting into that here.

>

> well, it's certainly not a new concept to me, and i know it may be

> interpreted differently. but in the context of other biblical writings,

some

> of which you posted here, it *seems* to mean " obey " in the sense that we

> understand " obey " in our language. i'd be interested if there are other

> translations of the biblical " obey " that don't imply a master/servant

> relationship ?

Again, it's not a master/servant relationship. It's a serving together as

servants of Christ, and the biblical mandate provides an order of relating

that works for that greater purpose, NOT so that the man gets his way or

gets waited on hand and foot.

>>If you want to know what the Bible says on the topic, I suggest grabbing

>>one and reading it cover to cover. It truly wasn't meant to be taken by

>>piecemeal and dissected, but to be taken as a whole.

>

> no doubt, although the parts do seem to represent the whole and one would

> hope they'd be consistent with the whole. and while the whole is best

> understood when looked at in its entirety, sometimes the parts speak

> volumes.

And sometimes people use them to speak volumes they were never meant to

speak. I think that has happened wildly in regards to this topic, where

both men and women have used these passages to mean something they weren't

meant to say, because they weren't taking into consideration the whole of

Scripture. Likewise people have reacted wildly to these passages, for the

same reason.

> my husband. i just wouldn't be interested in a guy who thinks i should

> " obey " him whether based on scripture or personal prejudice. (i've always

> had a problem with authority figures - other than god.)

And what if God told you to recognize your husband as your leader? The

thing is, God tells us to recognize authority figures in our lives, so in

essence submitting to Him requires submitting to those in authority He's

placed in our lives. The exception to that, of course, is when they ask us

to do something contray to what He's said.

> and i sincerely

> don't mean any disprespect with this at all. to each her own ;-)

No doubt.

~ Fern

[Guest guest]

>Suze,

>

>I'm not a woman, and have mixed feelings about this anyway, but

>I'll try to

>briefly but comprehensively summarize the Christian view on marriage:

chris, thanks - i appreciate your interpretation :-)

>

>The woman must submit to the man,

what does " submitting " entail? that's not clear to me.

>This isn't a power relationship.

i don't see how it can't be if, in the hierarchy, christ is above the church

and christ represents the husband while the church represents the wife. that

is a hierarchy in which the wife is at the bottom of the hierarchy. i don't

understand how that's not a power relationship, as hierarchy is about

authority, which is in turn about power. can you explain how this hierarchy

is different from all others in that it doesn't give one group (husbands)

power over the group below them in the hierarchy (wives)? was heidi

incorrect when she said husbands have the final word on any decisions? if

so, that IS power over the wife. being a " leader " gives one power over the

follower. that's why it's not clear to me how this hierarchy is not a

relationship of authority and power.

The command is given to the

>WOMAN to submit

>to the husband, not to the husband to submit the woman to himself.

> Thus, as

>with Christ and the Church, the woman is a free agent, completely free to

>operate as she chooses. The man, in turn, is required to, on the

>one hand, obey

>God, and on the other, live and die for his wife. Thus, the man does not

>control the wife for his purposes, but works for her purposes.

what is the difference between a woman " submitting " to her husband and a

husband living and dying for his wife? what do these things mean? in

translation, are wives supposed to do whatever their husbands say? are they

ever able to make any decisions? such as, how to educate the children, which

house to buy, how to handle a sick relative, where to invest their money,

etc? or are these all decisions that the " head " is supposed to make,

according to the bible? these things are totally unclear to me.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

>> my husband. i just wouldn't be interested in a guy who thinks i should

>> " obey " him whether based on scripture or personal prejudice. (i've always

>> had a problem with authority figures - other than god.)

>

>And what if God told you to recognize your husband as your leader?

i think god knows better than to ask me something like that ;-)

The

>thing is, God tells us to recognize authority figures in our lives,

perhaps in the christian tradition, but that's not necessarily so of the god

others worship.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

>Christ obeys the father and does nothing of his own will; however,

>Christ is

>in the Father and the Father is in Christ, so the Christ the Logos

>has no will

>apart from the Father's will, because they are in perfect harmony.

>

>Thus, the marriage of a man and woman, if they live a Christian

>life and are

>guided by the Holy Spirit is perfect harmony, in which the man and

>the woman

>act with a consonant will, not two diverging wills.

but she " obeys " the husband's will as christ obeys the father's right? and

if christ does nothing of his own will, then so to the wife?

Thus the man

>is a head not

>in the sense of a ruler and a subject, but more in the sense of a

>leader, I

>guess, for lack of a better word.

what is the difference? a leader is someone who is in charge or command, who

leads, guides, etc.

>

>In reality, that doesn't quite work that way. The woman's will

>can diverge

>from the man's, and the man's can from God's. In this case, the

>woman is not

>compelled by any external authority to submit to the man, but

>would be morally

>compelled to submit for the purpose of harmony, although the man would be

>morally compelled to do likewise.

to submit to the wife's will? or to god's?

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

> Re: POLITICS - marriage symbolic of Christ and the Church?

>

>

>Suze,

>

>I'm not a woman, and have mixed feelings about this anyway, but

>I'll try to

>briefly but comprehensively summarize the Christian view on marriage:

>

>The woman must submit to the man, while the man must be willing to

>sacrifice

>his life for the woman, as per Christ and the Church. It also

>says the man

>and woman must " submit to each other, " and, in sexual terms, they are each

>considered to own the others body, so that one must always submit

>sexually to one's

>spouse when they desire it.

>

>This isn't a power relationship. The command is given to the

>WOMAN to submit

>to the husband, not to the husband to submit the woman to himself.

> Thus, as

>with Christ and the Church, the woman is a free agent, completely free to

>operate as she chooses. The man, in turn, is required to, on the

>one hand, obey

>God, and on the other, live and die for his wife. Thus, the man does not

>control the wife for his purposes, but works for her purposes.

>

>The idea here is that there is ultimate harmony between the man,

>the woman,

>and God, that also is seen to typify the Trinity. Christ proceeds

>from the

>Father like Eve was taken from Adam, and they are connected by the

>indwelling of

>the Holy Spirit in each, like Eve and Adam are connected by

>marital union. In

>this typos, the woman is seen as representing Christ, the man is seen as

>representing the Father, and marriage is seen as representing the

>Holy Spirit.

>

>Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Suze:

With all due respect, the Bible is essentially God's love letter to

His people. The letter is for His people which happens to include

helpful tips to live a life in harmony/happiness/peace. It appears

to me that the problem here is that you are trying to read into

someone else's mail. (That is, God's message to those who follow

Him). If you are not a believer, then God's letter (The Bible) is

not directed to you and therefore would not make any sense to you.

Now you'll likely try to define God, but I suppose that would be

another topic.

Just my opinion,

Marla

> >Christ obeys the father and does nothing of his own will; however,

> >Christ is

> >in the Father and the Father is in Christ, so the Christ the Logos

> >has no will

> >apart from the Father's will, because they are in perfect harmony.

> >

> >Thus, the marriage of a man and woman, if they live a Christian

> >life and are

> >guided by the Holy Spirit is perfect harmony, in which the man and

> >the woman

> >act with a consonant will, not two diverging wills.

>

> but she " obeys " the husband's will as christ obeys the father's

right? and

> if christ does nothing of his own will, then so to the wife?

>

>

> Thus the man

> >is a head not

> >in the sense of a ruler and a subject, but more in the sense of a

> >leader, I

> >guess, for lack of a better word.

>

> what is the difference? a leader is someone who is in charge or

command, who

> leads, guides, etc.

>

> >

> >In reality, that doesn't quite work that way. The woman's will

> >can diverge

> >from the man's, and the man's can from God's. In this case, the

> >woman is not

> >compelled by any external authority to submit to the man, but

> >would be morally

> >compelled to submit for the purpose of harmony, although the man

would be

> >morally compelled to do likewise.

>

> to submit to the wife's will? or to god's?

>

>

>

>

> Suze Fisher

> Lapdog Design, Inc.

> Web Design & Development

> http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

> Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

> http://www.westonaprice.org

>

> ----------------------------

> " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol

cause

> heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -

-

> Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at

Vanderbilt

> University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

>

> The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

> <http://www.thincs.org>

> ----------------------------

>

>

> > Re: POLITICS - marriage symbolic of Christ and the

Church?

> >

> >

> >Suze,

> >

> >I'm not a woman, and have mixed feelings about this anyway, but

> >I'll try to

> >briefly but comprehensively summarize the Christian view on

marriage:

> >

> >The woman must submit to the man, while the man must be willing to

> >sacrifice

> >his life for the woman, as per Christ and the Church. It also

> >says the man

> >and woman must " submit to each other, " and, in sexual terms, they

are each

> >considered to own the others body, so that one must always submit

> >sexually to one's

> >spouse when they desire it.

> >

> >This isn't a power relationship. The command is given to the

> >WOMAN to submit

> >to the husband, not to the husband to submit the woman to himself.

> > Thus, as

> >with Christ and the Church, the woman is a free agent, completely

free to

> >operate as she chooses. The man, in turn, is required to, on the

> >one hand, obey

> >God, and on the other, live and die for his wife. Thus, the man

does not

> >control the wife for his purposes, but works for her purposes.

> >

> >The idea here is that there is ultimate harmony between the man,

> >the woman,

> >and God, that also is seen to typify the Trinity. Christ proceeds

> >from the

> >Father like Eve was taken from Adam, and they are connected by the

> >indwelling of

> >the Holy Spirit in each, like Eve and Adam are connected by

> >marital union. In

> >this typos, the woman is seen as representing Christ, the man is

seen as

> >representing the Father, and marriage is seen as representing the

> >Holy Spirit.

> >

> >Chris

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

>> i'm about to start c.s. lewis' " mere christianity " so i

guess i'll get a better sense of some of these issues as i read more on the

subject. <<

I hope you enjoy it, Suze.... here is one of my favorite passages from it. Seems

somewhat relevant to the issue at hand:

" You may remember, when I was talking about sexual morality, I warned you that

the centre of Christian morals did not lie there. Well now, we have come to the

centre. According to Christian teachers, the essential vice, the utmost evil, is

Pride. Unchastity, anger, greed, drunkenness, and all that, are mere fleabites

in comparison: it was through Pride that the devil become the devil: Pride leads

to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind....

" It is Pride which has been the chief cause of every misery in every nation and

every family since the world began. Other vices may sometimes bring people

together: you may find good fellowship and jokes and friendliness among drunken

people or unchaste people. But Pride always means enmity - it is enmity. And not

only enmity between man and man, but enmity to God.

" ...Pride can often be used to beat down the simpler vices...The devil laughs.

He is perfectly content to see you becoming chaste and brave and

self-controlled, provided, all the time, he is setting up in you the

Dictatorship of Pride - just as he would be quite content to see your chilblains

cured if the was allowed, in return, to give you cancer. For Pride is spiritual

cancer: it eats up the very possiblity of love, or contentment, or even common

sense. " (Mere Christianity, C.S. , 1952)

What brought you to read this? Just curious.

Christie

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/25/04 8:02:16 PM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> chris, thanks - i appreciate your interpretation :-)

You're welcome.

> >The woman must submit to the man,

>

> what does " submitting " entail? that's not clear to me.

Me neither. It's pretty vague. The husband's responsibility to emulate

Christ's sacrifice for the Church in his sacrifice for his wife isn't very clear

either.

> >This isn't a power relationship.

>

> i don't see how it can't be if, in the hierarchy, christ is above the church

> and christ represents the husband while the church represents the wife. that

> is a hierarchy in which the wife is at the bottom of the hierarchy.

You are operating with too many assumptions that are false from a Christian

perspective to understand this. I noted in the last email that marriage is

also a typification of the Trinity. To say that Christ is inferior to the

Father

or at the bottom of a hierarchy would be considered utter heresy to a

Christian.

Christ the Logos is begotten from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds

from the Father, so in this way the Father is the " head " of the Trinity. But

the Father is not superior to Logos nor superior to the Spirit, but all are

entirely equal in power and value. It's not so much a power differential as a

direction of power flow. It's much like how electric current flows from

negative

to positive, even though the current flow is not more dependent on the

negative than the positive part of the voltage source.

Christianity has lots of ideas about the natural order of things. It

considers the idea that the material is inferior to the immaterial to be

paganistic

heresy, but considers the two to be involved in a hierarchy-- of order-- within

a person. A human is body, soul, and spirit, the later being the Spirit of

God dwelling within her. The body is equal in value to the soul and the

spirit, but it is the proper order of harmony for the soul to obey the spirit

and

for the body to obey the soul. But this is not a matter of differential of

power, it is a matter of proper *flow* of power in the proper order.

The reason I say this is because the Christian ideal is for a human's will to

be in consonance with God's will. Thus, it is not a power differential

between the power of two opposing wills, because these two opposing wills do not

rightly exist.

So the proper order is for the body to obey the soul to obey the Spirit

within the human, and among the humans for the wife to obey the man to obey

Christ,

and within the Trinity for Christ to obey the Father, but like the Logos does

not have a will apart from the Father, the man does not have a will apart

from Christ (if his will is in consonance with the Spirit dwelling within him)

and the woman does not have a will apart from the husband.

The wife obeys the husband IN CHRIST. Thus, the wife never is required to

obey the husband's own will, because the husband is not allowed to make

decisions with his own will. The wife obey's the husband to the extent the

husband's

will is in consonance with the Spirit. The wife will do this to the extent

HER will is, in turn, in consonance with the Spirit within her. If both the

wills of the wife and the husband are in consonance with the Spirit dwelling

within them, there is no power differential whatsoever within the hierarchy,

because there is one will operating, originating not from the husband, but from

God.

Again, this is the same dynamic as that within the Trinity. Christ " obeys "

the Father, but this is in no way whatsoever a power differential, because

Christ the Logos has no will separate from the Father's (Christ the human has a

human will, but that is a separate issue). So the hierarchy is entirely about

directional flow of power, and not power differential.

i don't > understand how that's not a power relationship, as hierarchy is

> about

> authority, which is in turn about power. can you explain how this hierarchy

> is different from all others in that it doesn't give one group (husbands)

> power over the group below them in the hierarchy (wives)?

Hopefully I did that above. If not, let me know.

was heidi > incorrect when she said husbands have the final word on any

> decisions?

Well, what she said her Mormon friend said certainly does not represent the

Christian view!!!!!!

And, actually, no, it is not the traditional Christian view that the husband

has the final word in every decision. It is considered right for the wife to

disobey the husband when the husband disobeys God, for example. All of the

marriages in my family take this extremely seriously, and I've never witnessed

the dynamic Heidi speaks of. It seems the marriages in my family are very

healthy.

if > so, that IS power over the wife. being a " leader " gives one power over

> the

> follower. that's why it's not clear to me how this hierarchy is not a

> relationship of authority and power.

But from a Christian perspective, this is like saying the Father has " power

over " the Logos and the Spirit, which is incorrect.

> what is the difference between a woman " submitting " to her husband and a

> husband living and dying for his wife? what do these things mean? in

> translation, are wives supposed to do whatever their husbands say? are they

> ever able to make any decisions? such as, how to educate the children, which

> house to buy, how to handle a sick relative, where to invest their money,

> etc? or are these all decisions that the " head " is supposed to make,

> according to the bible? these things are totally unclear to me.

When God created man, he said:

" Let us make man in our image, after our likeness . . . and God created man

in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he

created them. "

When he declared, " Let us... " the Father consulted with the Logos and the

Spirit, and they acted in unison.

" In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was iwth God, and the Logos

was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him,

and without him was not anything made that was made. "

So yes, the wife has input and decision-making power and participates in the

actions of the family. Also, St. Chrysostom says that the man should be

the " head " of the family, but if the woman is more religiously educated, the

man should submit to the woman.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/25/04 8:14:30 PM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> but she " obeys " the husband's will as christ obeys the father's right? and

> if christ does nothing of his own will, then so to the wife?

No, there are not two oppositional wills between the Logos and the Father.

Within Christ there are two wills, one originating from his human nature and

one originating from his divine nature, and the will originating from his divine

nature is in perfect harmony with the Father's. You are construing the fact

that Christ does not have a will in opposition to the Father's as the limit of

a full power differential between the Father and the Logos, when in fact it

is the converse-- that the wills are of equal value but in perfect consonance.

The Father is therefore not the " head " of Christ in the sense that Christ

denies his own will to submit to the fathers, but in the sense that the Logos is

begotten of the Father. Directional, not differential.

>

>

> Thus the man

> >is a head not

> >in the sense of a ruler and a subject, but more in the sense of a

> >leader, I

> >guess, for lack of a better word.

>

> what is the difference? a leader is someone who is in charge or command, who

> leads, guides, etc.

I couldn't think of a good word, but hopefully in my last email I clarified

what I meant.

>

> >In reality, that doesn't quite work that way. The woman's will

> >can diverge

> >from the man's, and the man's can from God's. In this case, the

> >woman is not

> >compelled by any external authority to submit to the man, but

> >would be morally

> >compelled to submit for the purpose of harmony, although the man would be

> >morally compelled to do likewise.

>

> to submit to the wife's will? or to god's?

I think what I meant here is the man's sacrifice for the woman, and denial of

his own desires to serve hers.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/25/04 10:32:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, ChrisMasterjohn

writes:

> I think what I meant here is the man's sacrifice for the woman, and denial

> of his own desires to serve hers.

Oops, I meant needs, not desires.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/25/04 9:02:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> because i love a christian man, and am trying to learn more about his

> chosen

> spiritual tradition. this is the book he recommended to " get my feet wet " .

>

In that case I'd also recommend " On Gender and Human Sexuality " , various

authors, _The Canadian Orthodox Theological Journal_ Volume 6, Issue 3, Winter

96-97, Synaxis Press

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/25/04 9:14:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> i do understand that the bible may give reasons as to why the head of a

> family is not chosen based on competence. it's just not something that makes

> much sense to me. i'm about to start c.s. lewis' " mere christianity " so i

> guess i'll get a better sense of some of these issues as i read more on the

> subject.

Actually, as I pointed out in an earlier email, St. Chrysostom, who is

considered probably the most profound, renowned, and definitive Christian

author on marriage (and who wrote in the fourth century) makes for exceptions

where

a more competent female must head the family, although " competency " to a

Christian family is a whole 'nother ballgame than running a company.

However, the reason the Bible does not go on about these practical

considerations is that its expression of gender has nothing to do with

competence and

results, and everything to do with theology and typology.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>. The letter is for His people which happens to include

>helpful tips to live a life in harmony/happiness/peace. It appears

>to me that the problem here is that you are trying to read into

>someone else's mail.

Marla:

The problem for a lot of people at the moment is that " someone

else's mail " is being used to set American social policy ....

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>>> i'm about to start c.s. lewis' " mere christianity " so i

>guess i'll get a better sense of some of these issues as i read more on the

>subject. <<

>

>I hope you enjoy it, Suze.... here is one of my favorite passages

>from it. Seems somewhat relevant to the issue at hand:

thanks for sharing your favs, christie :-)

>

>What brought you to read this? Just curious.

because i love a christian man, and am trying to learn more about his chosen

spiritual tradition. this is the book he recommended to " get my feet wet " .

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------