Haven't seen anything particularly parallel to that instance, I'll admit, but it does seem to mirror a troubling trend. 

Far too often, being from the States (strike one, so to speak), particularly the ultra-conservative "Bible Belt" (strike two, as it were), I've countless times heard the expression, "God (the Bible) said it, I believe it, that settles it."  Considering, then, the breadth of available interpretation of Scripture, and the tendency to both moralise and rationalise, using the Bible as a source of authoritative support (as opposed to a source of truth), we can easily paraphrase the expression along a different line:  "I've decided it, and I can select and interpret Scripture to support it, so that's it."

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that's the case here, by any means.  I think, though, that the mindset exemplified by thinking "I believe - and Scripture supports - X," (as opposed to "Scripture actually says - and means - Y") has gotten a bit pervasive throughout western culture.  As a result, I've found it not uncommon for some folks to hold really odd ideas about what is actually in the Bible, not because it's really there, but because they believe it and can find Scriptures to support their holding whatever belief.

'Zat make any sense?

Hi Freundly-Giant,

Double-edged swords make for poor shields.  They tend to cut both ways.

If one is successful at using the Bible as both then one is most likely not using the Bible properly.

Grace and peace to you.

John

THe Bible can of course be either, depending on the choices people make.

But I would also have to point out that there is an odd view of relationship being described by your friend.  And even if there has to be "one in charge" , and I doubt that is required, how does that make any difference when the discussion was about gender???

Well call me crazy, you won't be the first or the last, but I think of relationships as partnerships; that is two equals working together.  Each may bring to the union a particular strength that in combination binds the two.

As for the bible being used as the last authority, well I guess one always needs something, although I suspect that each party in the dispute will be able to find support for their position in that book. 

Life, unlike Scrabble, is not so easily defined.

LB

Are we not like two volumes of one book, creating the journey for others to follow the trodden path?    Marceline Desbordes

John, do you have some Zen master book to quote from?  I love some of your quick replies.

F-G, I know I've made this comment before, so I apologize if it was also to you earlier, but you can use biblical authority to justify or defend just about anything.  (see Upright, Bolt)  Which is one reason that it's no "authority" at all.

I don't have the exact scripture at hand but in one of the Pauline letters there is the Bible as the Sword of truth, there's the breastplate of righteousness, etc. I don't recall anything in the Bible saying that there has to be a leader and a follower in a relationship. Most likely it's either something he just heard somewhere that's inaccurate or he's reading more into something than is really there. I do like Rebecca though. It seems she has a really good head on her shoulders. Just from that little bit I'm thinking she'll make some guy (or gal?) very happy one day.

Makes you wonder what we would be discussing had we invented writing 1,000 earlier, or later.  How would the verbal traditions have morphed over time?

IT

Russ

Hi chansen,

No.  I possess no such book.  I'm fond of proverbs.

References to Scripture as being a double-edged sword occur throughout the scriptures themselves.

I have no experience with double-edged swords.  I am familiar with how they work.

Well, yes and no.

Scripture can be twisted as easily as a wax nose can be twisted.  All that is required for that kind of work is to have a disregard for the voice of scripture itself.  Which would be a disregard for the scripture's native authority.  Listening to what scripture says allows for that authority to speak.  Telling scripture what to say is the interpreter presuming authority.

Everyone who reads scripture must interpret scripture.  What becomes dubious is when that interpretation ceases to be exegetical (to read out of) and starts to become eisegetical (to be read into) arguments can be made that no interpretation is purely exegetical.

The more prevalent the exegesis the more scripture speaks with its own voice.  The more prevalent the eisegesis the more scripture is commandeered by another voice.

When it is allowed to speak it is an authority in much the same way a hammer is useful for driving nails.

When it is commandeered it is like using a hammer to drive screws.

Grace and peace to you.

John

revjohn

A hammer for driving screws?  Thought the only tools one needed was a hammer, and a roll of duct tape?

IT

Russ

Hi jon71. The scripture you are refering to comes from Paul's letter to the Ephesians.

¹⁰Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.

 ¹¹Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

 ¹²For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

 ¹³Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

 ¹⁴Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

 ¹⁵And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

 ¹⁶Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

 ¹⁷And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Ephesians 6:10-17

This verse stands alone and has me pondering something...

¹⁷And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Ephesians 6:10-17

With all the talk lately in the Cafe about the different versions/translations of the Bible and how we truly don't have the original writings....

It appears from my perspective and pondering... that it is no longer a SWORD, but rather a Blunted Mace or Stick we are taking up to use against each other.

For if it were truly a sword, then after some have finished using it against another person then most likely the fight would be over and done with, yet this is not the case here on Wonder Cafe.

Still the fighting contiues over small childish petty indifferences. It takes two people to war over something.  Why DO - YOU - yourselves personally have to be seen as being RIGHT? Why do you personally have to been seen as having the LAST WORD?

It is like two children in a Sand Box, both playing with the same sand. Yet fighting over who has the richer smoother sand. It is ALL the same.

Learn to put down the Sword/Mace until you have truly matured enough to: Know your enemy and know yourself, and you will always be victorious, He/She will triumph who knows when, and when not to fight!

You are all fighting the wrong enemy for the wrong reasons... work together and stand side by side to fight the True Enemy (Evil). Only then will you be mature enough to wield the Sword of the Spirit.

(>-.-)> *Wolfie* <(-.-<)

FG - to return to your original conversation that got this thread going - if someone simply says "it's in the Bible", my first question is:  "Where?"   It's one thing to say it's in the bible, but that doesn't make it so. Then there's the matter of interpretation. What's the context?  It's easy to take things out of context, and apply them to situations they were never intended to deal with (which probably applies to your friend's biblical "reference". Jesus warns agains the "blind leading the blind" but that's an entirely different situation). 

And then concerning your friend's comments about "leading" - she has much to learn.  Except in dancing, "leading" is neither a male nor female quality. In any male/female relationship, sometimes one leads, sometimes the other. It depends on who has the best experience and best abilities for the situation. I don't expect my wife to "lead" me when it comes to making bread (which I've been doing for 30 years) and I don't expect to "lead" my wife when it comes to breastfeeding (she breast-fed both of our two children).  One person will never be qualified to lead in all matters, and whoever claims differently is not fit to lead.

I don't have much experience but from what I've seen, gay couples do seem to have one partner more dominant than the other. And I wouldn't go to the bible for any definitive answer. Just trust in yourself and the experience of real life.

Love your new avatar. Great for a t-shirt eh!

Is that what leadership is all about?  Dominating?

I don't think gay or heterosexual couples are much different in that there are innumerable ways of negotiating issues of dominance and partnership. 

Much of this gets played out unconsciously too.

Some believe the tension of opposites creates an erotically-charged atmosphere, but if that's true, it doesn't necessarily imply the configurations we are culturally accustomed to  (boy - top, girl - bottom).

Ya, I do see where you're coming from. I'm not saying their's anything wrong with having a more dominant partner, but I don't think it always has to be that way.

And ya, it's great. I love it when any of my straight friends see it and laugh. Then I get to call them gay!

Hi Wolfie,

Maybe a stick, and not a pointy one either.  The mace, for all its bluntness, is no less deadly than the sword.  It is just a different kind of damage done.  The sword cleaves and the mace crushes.  They are deadlier in the hands of experts true, even a novice gets lucky and delivers a killing stroke.

The limits of metaphor.  A physical killing stroke does physical damage rendering physical retaliation impossible.  A verbal killing stroke may cause intellectual/emotional damage and verbal retaliation is would still be possible.  Most likely probably if only the emotion is struck.

At risk of being seen as small, childish and petty I disagree.  If it was a matter of indifference there would likely be no conflict.  I think the fighting is rooted in matters foundational.  There is probably also some behavioural element involved.

True.  When one decides to go to war and the other doesn't we call it slaughter or genocide at worst and badgering at best.  We are a mix of ideas and personalities.  That is a breeding ground of difference.  What appears small, petty, childish to me is, through the twists and turns of perspective a huge deal to others.  I suspect that the same is true from your perspective.

Personally, I don't.  I believe what I believe and I am prepared to back up what I believe.  I am prepared to listen to the points of views of others.  If I find those points of view convincing I will be moved.  If not, I remain planted.

I don't.  In fact, I find it embarrasing to have the last post on any given thread unless I am the last of many good-byes.

I don't think so Wolfie.  It isn't who has the "better" sand it is who has the sand period.  Even that might be a bit simplistic still, the earliest gladiators made the living in arenas resembling large sandboxes.

Wise words.

You are probably right.  Until then I suspect we still wield the pointy stick of our own spirits and we will dream big that it is the sword of the Spirit.  The pointy stick of our own spirits may not be enough to cleave the soul from the flesh it is enough to sting.

When somebody gets jabbed, be it by accident or by design I also suspect that the rest of us get our own pointy sticks out.  We feel safer that way I suppose.

Sometimes we need to learn things the hard way.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Wolfie, do you personally wish to be seen as right in saying “It appears from my perspective and pondering... that it is no longer a SWORD, but rather a Blunted Mace or Stick we are taking up to use against each other….Only then will you be mature enough to wield the Sword of the Spirit.”

It just seems you are making truth statements while being critical of those who feel compelled to make truth statements of their own.

Wait, hold on here a second. You mean you're actually talking about the Bible in school? Wow, now that's something! I thought schools these days were against any such conversation. Glad to hear such discussions are going on.

It doesn't appear to be a class discussion.

The Bible being an object for class discussion is another issue.  For instance, can you seriously teach a course in English literature and not bring up the Bible at some point?

Ha ha, ACUTUALLY, Jae, since bill 44 it is illegal to talk about such stuff in school without a whole bunch of other crap happening, but that doesn't stop us. The bible is too interesting to not talk about.

Thank you for giving us chapter and verse.