<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by terri:<BR><B>Considering that much of the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic (a dead language at this point, is it not?) then translated into Greek or written in Greek and from there into many other languages, and considering that the languages of many other cultures contain words and concepts that do not even EXIST in the English language, how can we all be so certain that the word "submit" is even a true translation of what God's intent was?<P>One of the same passages which talks of wives submitting to husbands also talks of women not speaking in church meetings. Another of those passages speaks several lines later of slaves submitting to their earthly masters. So let's talk about submitting here... how many people here believe that women should not speak in church? And how many people here believe that human beings should be in slavery to other human beings.<P>This has been my problem with such literal interpretation of the Bible. As was pointed out earlier, humans have free will, AND humans make their own interpretations of what God's words meant to them, and passed those little slants down within a series of severely patriarchal cultures... So we get "wives, submit to your husbands...." But we don't know WHAT the original words were, now, do we?<P></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>That is why the Holy Spirit is here for us to help us to understand. He has written His word in our hearts which is the reason we say that we have a basic understanding of right and wrong. Besides what we do most often is take things out of context and pour our on meanings into words that aren't there when you read the sentence as it was intended.<P>This even happens when the words are spoken. We put our filters on because we try to shield ourselves from a past pain which in most cases don't even apply to the situation at hand. It is this faulty logic that has us here.<BR><P>------------------<BR><B><I>God Bless,<BR>Rob</I></B><BR> regilmor@swbell.net

Just as a quick example of how difficult translation from other languages can be, using a Christian site which finds Biblical Greek words when you key in an English word, I found 12 different Greek words found in the New Testament which have been translated to mean "give."<P>Food for thought.<P>------------------<BR>terri<BR>I believe in miracles...<P><BR>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by terri:<BR><B>Just as a quick example of how difficult translation from other languages can be, using a Christian site which finds Biblical Greek words when you key in an English word, I found 12 different Greek words found in the New Testament which have been translated to mean "give."<P>Food for thought.<P></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Most other languages have a sepaprate word or form of the word to take on the various meanings. English requires you to read in the context of the sentence moreso than other languages. Yet, even those other languages require the word to be taken in context. <P>Thus the need to rely on the Holy Spirit to clarify any problems that exist in the understanding. Yes, He uses others to do this sometimes.<BR><P>------------------<BR><B><I>God Bless,<BR>Rob</I></B><BR> regilmor@swbell.net

Oops ... I just realized I have addressed ONLY the discussion about "submission" in the Biblical sense, and the topic has to do with the POJA...<P>I believe that the Bible does not exclude the POJA. And I believe that "enthusiastic" agreement can mean that you have enthusiastically agreed to something that doesn't really excite you because you have NEGOTIATED for something that YOU want... <P>------------------<BR>terri<BR>I believe in miracles...<P><BR>

I think I just resent the idea that the husband is even considered the "leader". I honestly don't understand how any role within a marriage has anything to do with gender. With the exception of bearing a child, which probably will be replaced by technology in the not-too-distant future.<P>So, how come he gets to be the leader just because he was born with an "outy" instead of an "inny"? Seems like a poor attempt (sorry) to make up for the fact that men can't have children. Like, they can't bear children, therefore the only way they feel useful is to be the "leader". To be fair though, there are tons of women who don't feel useful unless they have kids. I'm not one of them.<P>anyway, I'm off track. I believe, like Harley, that everything should be POJA, and that it has nothing to do with gender or what the roles are "supposed" to be.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheStudent:<BR><B>I think I just resent the idea that the husband is even considered the "leader". I honestly don't understand how any role within a marriage has anything to do with gender. With the exception of bearing a child, which probably will be replaced by technology in the not-too-distant future.<P>So, how come he gets to be the leader just because he was born with an "outy" instead of an "inny"? Seems like a poor attempt (sorry) to make up for the fact that men can't have children. Like, they can't bear children, therefore the only way they feel useful is to be the "leader". To be fair though, there are tons of women who don't feel useful unless they have kids. I'm not one of them.<P>anyway, I'm off track. I believe, like Harley, that everything should be POJA, and that it has nothing to do with gender or what the roles are "supposed" to be. </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Read Proverbs 31 to see that there is the role of the woman. God made men physically stronger to do certain things. He made women to carry the children. God made everything to be based on the roles He defined. A woman can never be a father. A father can never be a mother. Etc., etc., etc.<P>We have put such roles in the rest of our lives: work, play (team sports, games, etc.)<P>------------------<BR><B><I>God Bless,<BR>Rob</I></B><BR> regilmor@swbell.net

The Student...I'm not sure leader is a accurate exchangable term for the headship the bible speaks of.<P>However, do you really hold the idea that: Leader = Better<BR>Leader = More Important<BR>Leader = Smarter<P>Even in a secular sense, you may want to examine this paradigm for evaluate if these are the ideals you want to hold on to.<P>I think a leader may be more gifted in administration, or more gifted in motivating or may have a clearer vision for the future. In other words I think of a leader as a role rather than an indicator of worth...even in a secular sense.<P>In the Christian home, however, I see no evidence in bible that defines men as more important, smarter or better. <P>More important, better and smarter are labels we seem to attatch and then be critical of. Of course that is easy to do, because many Christians...especially men...misuse these teachings to justify control.<P>Give it some thought.<BR><P>------------------<BR>Faith, Hope, Love Remain,<BR>but the greatest of these is Love.<BR>1 Corinthians 13:13

I have to agree with an earlier post that the words written in the Bible were written for a different culture, with different needs than today. I do believe, however, that men are more agressive, have a biological predisposition to craving power. Women, being the childbearers, are more predisposed to preserving life and avoiding conflict, thus they are more apt to "submit." (These are generalizations only, so please don't think this holds true for every man and woman.) However, I don't think that God, or anyone else for that matter, intended women to play a subordinate role in their marriages. I agree that POJA - Enthusiatsic agreement, is what works best in our society today. I think you can do that with equality, honor and love without comprising your religious beliefs, no matter what they are.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><BR>I think a leader may be more gifted in administration, or more gifted in motivating or may have a clearer vision for the future. In other words I think of a leader as a role rather than an indicator of worth...even in a secular sense.<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I don't believe such a role can be decided based on gender. Given that we all have free will, I would prefer to choose my own role in life and then live that role according to God's teachings. If I have those gifts you mentioned, why shouldn't I be the 'leader'? As TheStudent pointed out (and I love the way she put it), you don't need to be born with one of 'those' to be able to lead.<BR>

You are absolutely right, but the quote you just used was when I was talking about leadership in a secular society....not my individual beliefs on leadership within the home.<P>In fact I said leader was not even an accurate term to use when refering to the Bible's teachings.<P>My whole post was meant to examine our predisposed idea that leader is "better" than any other role.<P>Even in a secular sense I don't believe it is...I believe it is just a role...and generally speaking...a role just as capably filled by either men or woman.<P>Within the Christian home, the Bible does speak of male headship. I don't think you can exchange that concept by the secular view we have of leadership. I think we as humans leap to that conclusion and it is not right.<P>I don't know what God was thinking...<P>I am just pointing out that when you look at these passages in context, with historical perspective and admitting faulty translation for 2000...we can't point to these and complain that the Bible is sexist. <P>(sigh) maybe I just don't have a real love of power or measuring my worth by any form of man made hierachy in the work place or the home. Even if I accept leadership in the home (which I have never actually experienced and which I believe leadership is not the proper term) or the workplace, I am not controlled or not diminished. I guess I don't get the distaste for all of this.<P>------------------<BR>Faith, Hope, Love Remain,<BR>but the greatest of these is Love.<BR>1 Corinthians 13:13

Professorg,<BR>but you see, ALL men are not stronger than ALL women. Even if I agree that most men are physically stronger than most women, we don't require men to go hunt down their prey and drag it home anymore, so men's greater strength (on average) has no use in our current society. In fact, men's greater physical strength is most often used these days, to hurt, humiliate, or control women and children. I think men crave power because they've got nothing better to do. I don't have kids, so you could say that I crave power.<P>Although, technically, a man cannot be a "mother" (bear children), and a woman cannot be a "father" (produce sperm), that is about where the gender roles end for me. Each is equally capable of being a parent.<P>FHL,<BR>A leader, by definition, is the one who is "better". If they are the one making the decisions, then it is assumed that they are "better" at doing so. I believe that both men and women are "leaders" in areas they happen to excel in based on individual personalities (not gender). However, I also believe that these areas have nothing to do with gender. <P>I went back and read your latest post. There are times when I accept leadership at work and in my personal life, however, that place is earned, according to the individual's talent. I don't necessarily think I'm diminished either. I can accept that someone else has skills that I don't have and I'm ok with that. However, it doesn't mean that I cannot acquire those skills myself. When people set up roles based on gender (something we can't do anything about), the tendency is to relinquish their own growth potential because that's a "man's job", or a "woman's job". That IS diminishing. It also tends to set up expectations of what a man or woman would be happier doing. During most of my earlier career, most bosses probably assumed I would be dropping out to have kids, so generally handed the assignments that would lead to more promotions to men (less qualified ones at that). These same men had families or were married with kids on the way, and were not "penalized". Oh yea, I did end up bailing, but to other companies that would recognize my skills. <P><p>[This message has been edited by TheStudent (edited March 24, 2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><BR>During most of my earlier career, most bosses probably assumed I would be dropping out to have kids, so generally handed the assignments that would lead to more promotions to men (less qualified ones at that). <BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>This reminded me of a time that I was in a meeting at work. Another woman and I were working together on a very important project. A man in the room stated his concern that the project was being run by two women. "What if they were to get pregnant?" I let him know exactly what I thought about his concern. I don't know how the project ended up. I left the company.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheStudent:<BR><B>Professorg,<BR>but you see, ALL men are not stronger than ALL women. Even if I agree that most men are physically stronger than most women, we don't require men to go hunt down their prey and drag it home anymore, so men's greater strength (on average) has no use in our current society. In fact, men's greater physical strength is most often used these days, to hurt, humiliate, or control women and children. I think men crave power because they've got nothing better to do. I don't have kids, so you could say that I crave power.<P>Although, technically, a man cannot be a "mother" (bear children), and a woman cannot be a "father" (produce sperm), that is about where the gender roles end for me. Each is equally capable of being a parent.<P>FHL,<BR>A leader, by definition, is the one who is "better". If they are the one making the decisions, then it is assumed that they are "better" at doing so. I believe that both men and women are "leaders" in areas they happen to excel in based on individual personalities (not gender). However, I also believe that these areas have nothing to do with gender. <P>I went back and read your latest post. There are times when I accept leadership at work and in my personal life, however, that place is earned, according to the individual's talent. I don't necessarily think I'm diminished either. I can accept that someone else has skills that I don't have and I'm ok with that. However, it doesn't mean that I cannot acquire those skills myself. When people set up roles based on gender (something we can't do anything about), the tendency is to relinquish their own growth potential because that's a "man's job", or a "woman's job". That IS diminishing. It also tends to set up expectations of what a man or woman would be happier doing. During most of my earlier career, most bosses probably assumed I would be dropping out to have kids, so generally handed the assignments that would lead to more promotions to men (less qualified ones at that). These same men had families or were married with kids on the way, and were not "penalized". Oh yea, I did end up bailing, but to other companies that would recognize my skills. <P>[This message has been edited by TheStudent (edited March 24, 2000).]</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I hear you but you are to focused on tying it to those specifics. God made the rules to apply across all of time not just to that one specific incident. Men are defined to have a specific role that He intended for us to fulfill. He designed women to fulfill their defined roles also. In order to be the parent that you refer to, we must act in the manner in which God has defined. The reason we have problems is because we chose to do what you are advocating (not explicitly but implicitly.) We can't go against the rules as defined by God. That is why the world is the way it is now.<P>Just as the body has many parts that perform different tasks so are we as human beings in the body of Christ. We just need to start applying the rules rather than defying the rules.<BR>------------------<BR><B><I>God Bless,<BR>Rob</I></B><BR> regilmor@swbell.net <p>[This message has been edited by professorg (edited March 24, 2000).]

I don't think there is a conflict between POJA and the verse asking wives to submit. <P>Scripture interprets scripture. God doesn't change. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. His Word is truth. <P>The word "anger" in English pretty much means about the same thing. So - sometimes we can lose the meaning behind translations - through every verse that lists the word anger, because in the original language/text - anger can have many different meanings.<P>Virgin in the English language means a person who hasn't had sex. It can mean an unmarried girl in other languages.<P>To understand a word in the Bible, and understand it's meaning, especially when you do not speak 500 languages - you need to understand that scripture interprets scripture.<P>Now, talking about wives submitting. The Bible says wives should submit to their husbands, and husbands should love their wives the way Christ loves the church. Odviously, the Bible is trying to parralel the relationship between God and Man - by marriage.<P>In the time of Jesus, when groom wanted to take a wife - he would spend all of his time preparing a place for her in his father's house. She kept herself ready - because the groom may come in the middle of the night. Maybe then, the addition to the father's house would be finished. <P>In the same way, Jesus said he is going to prepare a place for us. He is the bridegroom, and as believers, we are the bride. <P>So, husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church. Who carries more burden in the relationship between God and Man? God. God does. What are husbands supposed to do for their wives? <P>And - what is the response of the church, to God? It is to respond. Same for the wives.<P>God didn't make woman out of man's heel or his head. He made her out of his side. That is because neither of them is to "lord" over one or the other. They are equal. However, I believe God designed marriage partners to be responsive to one another. <P>Wives, are to respond to their husband's love. Men are supposed to love their wives. <P>Well, that is my 2 cents.<BR>TNT

Hi guys, I'm still here.<P>TS, I remember a very long thread where we discussed whether men and women are innately different ad nauseum. I still believe that understanding we are as different as cats and dogs is a first step to understanding men.<P>That is not to say that everything can be generalized this way. But even my son and daughter are completely different, and it is not because of the way I'm raising them.<P>Terri - right on. I wanted to get more to POJA since I have found it so good for us.<P>We used to make decisions based on what we both thought was the "right" thing to do, but most decisions don't necessarily have a "right" answer. I am no passive little doll, but my h is an excellent salesman so it often came down to who could convince better.<P>It is freeing to recognize we really end up doing what we want, whether Christian or non. And the negotiating tactics in SAA really work!! As you said, I can't be enthusiastic about everything he wants, but we keep talking and trade off until I am.<P>If we can't get there, we don't do it, period. But I find I am enthusiastic about things that make him happy (that don't hurt us) when I see him really living by these rules. For ex. he wants a new car. Doesn't need one, just wants it.<P>I would have thought it's not the "right" thing to do because we've always been financially conservative (cheap). Now, this is not a moral decision, if we have the money (we could and do ask if there were better things we could do with it).<P>Without making this too long, though it may be an interesting example, I learned why he wanted it and I am enthusiastic. He partly wanted a motivation to meet his sales quota these next six months so we tied it to that. In this case it wasn't what do I get, 'cause I don't need anything. I am just happy as a clam with my newly improved hubby.<P>professorg- I will disagree again (sorry). I used to believe the Holy Spirit would inform us and give us the right interpretation. I've spent all my adult life basing my life on the teachings of the Bible and seeking to understand them better.<P>I'm not dismissing the Holy Spirit. It's the method I question. It all comes down to an inner prompting or a "peace" that this part of the Bible means what I think it does. Years later I learn that was completely wrong. I don't blame Him, I blame me. My understanding of the Bible was very hodgepodge; based on what I heard at church, friends, other sermons, books, etc.<P>The only way to understand the Bible is through sheer hard work, which I have been doing for the last few years. Taking the Bible and the best commentaries and evaluating the meanings in the original languages and sifting through all the information.<P>The absolute best book I ever read on understanding the Bible is <B>How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth by Fee & Stuart</B><P>The intro is especially an eye opener as it stresses the point that we must first know what the author is saying and to whom. We cannot treat the Bible as some kind of magic book and have parts say things to us that the author never intended. I'm sure you've heard the joke about opening the Bible at random:<P> 1. Judas went and hanged himself.<BR> 2. Go and do thou likewhise.<BR> 3. And what thou doest, do quickly.<P>And yet this is the way so much of the Bible is taught. Verses lifted from their context and strung together to create a "new" teaching.<P><BR> <P>Truth will not hurt you, it will set you free. And you know ulitimately all truth comes from the Lord. If you are

The Student,<BR>I asked you to examine your definition of leadership and you did fair enough.<P>I think we are working with different definitions...and that's fine.<P>To give you an example...say a team of engineers are being led by a division manager for whatever reason. The manager is has been rewarded for his decision making skills, his ability to define goals or absorb and interpret information given him by the team...whatever. Yet he/she does not have technical experience....maybe has an MBA. Although he/she leads these engineers, is he/she better than them? Maybe he/she is better in decision making...but if he could do the actual work (I know ideally you would have a leader that could) then the engineers would be better than he/she at many aspects of their task? I would say neither is better, but I am betting you disagree. I understand that we have an honest disagreement and it probably stems from how we view or value power and control.<P>I guess the position I like to restate is that I don't see the biblical teachings of headship as actual leadership...especially how I am understanding you to define leadership.<P>I don't believe the bible addresses womans work and mens work...although I do think some try to make the Bible say all sorts of things to justify their own positions...often for personal gain of power and control.<P>Just as I think it is misguided or wrong for people to thump on the bible and insist that women obey men based on these teachings, I think it is misguided to suggest that the bible is sexist based on these teachings. <P>And I applaud you for seeking out employment that values your skills and disregards your gender.<P>------------------<BR>Faith, Hope, Love Remain,<BR>but the greatest of these is Love.<BR>1 Corinthians 13:13

Well, I'm back into this. I will repeat my former comment I don't think the POJA is at odds with the bible. In fact listening/reading the comments here it seems to me that the point has been proven.<P>I am reminded of something a read about women's sufferage. One of the "odd" things that happened when women got the vote, was that the voting patterns apparently did not change. There was amazement at this. Yet, any married man can tell you that this is very reasonable.<P>Why? the women were telling the men how to vote to begin with or certainly giving their input, so when they started voting why would it change. <P>This came to mind when talking about men being the leaders in the home. TheStudent riles against such an idea as being pure sexism. Others modify the meaning to fit their ideas, but no one is considering is what the term leader meant or even means today.<P>I come from a military background. What leadership means is much more complex than just giving orders. In fact good leaders never "order" anyone around. When decisions are made they are made after consultation with staff and gathering of intelligence. <P>Only poor leaders have to "order" someone to do something. I good leader makes sure that he/she has consulted with others for perspective and has as much knowledge as possible. The leader then makes sure that all those following know what is to happen and how it is to happen. Sort of a POJA, except no one really wants to die following POJA but that is how it works.<P>What is my message. In a tie vote someone must break it if it is an important issue. Someone must speak for the family. Someone must be willing to die to make it happen. Good Leaders are expected to be that someone.<P>Now let us go to marriage. In traditional marriages the "chores" are divided up according to which person does them best or which is more convenient for the family. Who leads? Well, traditionally by virtue of strength, the man was viewed as the leader, but if you are like me and had Grandparents born in the last (actually officially two centuries ago) then you realize this leadership thing was highly overblown.<P>My Grandmother had her say in everything. My Grandfather may have made the decisions but not without input . Good marriage have always been about team work. The term leadership when used in the marital context is not the same as being the CEO of a company or a military outfit, except that the leader was/is expected to be able to and have made as many sacrifices as anyone in the outfit. <BR>Hence promotion from within the ranks.<P>I realize in todays Co. CEO's often just show up get rediculous salaries and then take their golden parachute and leave after ruining the Co., but that is not leadership, that is management.<P>Anyway, what is forgotten is that most people look for leadership within any organization. The leader may not even be the one with the title. And I think that is true in marriages. The role of leadership changes depending on what the situation is. That is why to my mind the POJA and the bible are not at odds. <P>The submit term just as the leadership term are being taken out of the context of the relationship. In our parlance, we would write that the woman should meet her husbands needs and the husband should meet her needs.<P>Submit may imply sex to a woman, while the mans orders are to love their wives, sounds like affection to me. Two of the biggies in the Needs lists I would guess.<P>All I do know that happy marriage involve team work. How the members decide to arrange the team has and always was a matter of personal decisions and expediency.<P>JMHO,<P>JL

FHL,<BR>I get your jist. I even think we agree, in our own ways.<P>professorg,<BR>Ick. Sorry. Bad things have happened to both men and women throughout time. I'm infinately grateful I was born in this century and not even 100 years ago. The good 'ol days were not good for anybody but white males, IMO.<P>schizzo,<BR>Yes, we did discuss this ad-nauseum. I also remember Nellie saying she was going to scream if just one more person assumed her boy was more "active" than her daughter. Are you absolutely sure that your children don't model your own behavior/beliefs about them? <P>When I was little, my dad bought us trucks, and trains, and lots of construction type sets, mostly because he enjoyed playing with them too :-). Neither my sister or I were big into dolls, although I had a couple growing up. I think that, basic temperment aside, little boys and girls do whatever they are reinforced to do. My nephew used to love playing with his little kitchen set, cause, guess what? Grandpa (my ex's dad) does all of the cooking!<P>JL,<BR>You said that the voting distribution didn't change that much. But ya know, it sure is a nice feeling to know that I don't have to depend on some guy to "be nice" and take my feelings into consideration. How generous of them . <P>The same applies in a marriage. Yes, both people depend on the good graces, and good treatment of the other. However, my individual freedom is not "granted" by anyone else. It feels condescending to me that I should be happy with just having someone "consider my opinion". POJA assumes that no person is one up on the other. Enthusiastic agreement means the other isn't just "going along" with it. <P>In my case, I thought I had enthusiastic agreement for my educational goals before I got married. If my H had told me prior to marriage that he thought he'd have a hard time moving or supporting me for my future goals, he should have said so up front. Before I met my second H, I went on exactly two dates with a guy who said he'd have a hard time being married to a woman who made more money than him. OUT he went. <P>My H married me under false pretenses. That is why his just "going along" was unacceptable to me. I thought we already had an agreement. <p>[This message has been edited by TheStudent (edited March 24, 2000).]

So JL, are you using POJA??

The Student,<BR>Sure glad we got that settled <P>I do have to chuckle, though....<P>I would have thought just as you think, before I was a mother...but after 14 years in the trenches, I respectfully disagree.<P>All kids are different. My three daughters are vastly different and I did not carve out roles for them in the family and then reinforce them.<P>I always remark that God gives you what you can handle...and he didn't think I could handle a boy. Now everybody don't get bent out of shape on that...I would have welcomed and loved a boy every bit as much.<P>Generally speaking however....get that...generally....there are differences. I was shuttling two boys to a game and hour away. I was tempted to drop them off along the highway. One of my 10 year old girl's best friends is a boy...he is as calm and well mannered as any girl. So there are no always or nevers. However, genrerally speaking...there are differences that society may contribute to but does not create.<P>------------------<BR>Faith, Hope, Love Remain,<BR>but the greatest of these is Love.<BR>1 Corinthians 13:13