Oh Dear

[hyperD]

Chico, I wasn't referring specifically to christianity, I was talking about abusive relationships where religion is used as an tool to make the wife a prisoner in a relationship and for her to leave a taboo. This applies to any religion, be it christianity or islam.

In this case, laws have been created to address this crime.

Now what you are referring to, and what Gumbel is talking about (yes, out of respect I listened to it hence the delay in replying) are two people learning about respect, communication and love in a marriage. I agreed with the majority of Gumbel's point of view in his 47 minute sermon and I believe these aspects are essential for a marriage to succeed. However, I also believe that these are not exclusively a christian set of morals and beliefs or necessarily a belief in god: they are freely available to anyone that truly mutually cares, loves, respects and commits to their partner. Or anybody come to think of it.

With my original point, even Gumbel turned around in his sermon and said "...there are cases of domestic violence, I'm not talking about that" when referring to Rick Warren and Kay determined to work on their marriage by saying divorce is out of the question.

It was interesting to hear about the "woman submits to man" being incorrectly translated in the bible compared to the greek original. I wonder how many more examples of this are still being used as the foundations of christian principles.

I think this country could do with a double dosage of respect. Whether it be through an alpha course or the teaching of a decent social code - I don't frankly care.

[Chico]

Hyper, well thank you taking the time to listen to the sermon. You have indeed gone up in my estimation. Regarding the misapplication of the "wives submit to husbands text" is shows why Bible study is so important. A lot of myths are banded around and it adds to the general apathy and distrust.

[Joe Black]

It was interesting to hear about the "woman submits to man" being incorrectly translated in the bible compared to the greek original.

I think its not just a case of perhaps being incorrectly translated. In the case of the King James version I believe they had a choice of different translations, Greek, Latin etc, so in some cases its a combination of wording. Something which of course is dependant on human judgement.

The Koran on the other hand of course gets round that by Mohammed proclaiming (a smart move on his part perhaps) that it is entirely the word of God, and thus can only ever be recorded in the language it was received, namely Arabic.

Daring to interpret/translate the word of God in such case can no doubt lead to problems...

[The Lone Gunman]

Daring to interpret/translate the word of God in such case can no doubt lead to problems

No, they get neatly around translation by stating that any translation is no longer the word of God. They are having trouble with interpretation though. Normally when there is a question of what was meant they then look for precedents in the "traditions", if there isn't one then an Imam will make a judgement on what they think is meant.

Thus Sunni and Shia have differing views on "The word of God".

Attempting to twist or change the meaning has dire consequences in this world or the next.

[Joe Black]

Surely then, knowing the frailities of us humans, any God worth half his weight in salt should have dispensed with all the cryptic stuff and parables and drafted something decent, more along the lines of one of those typical EU documents which doesn't leave a stone unturned so to speak...

[The Lone Gunman]

Surely then, knowing the frailities of us humans, any God worth half his weight in salt should have dispensed with all the cryptic stuff and parables and drafted something decent, more along the lines of one of those typical EU documents which doesn't leave a stone unturned so to speak...

The Jihadists will tell you that he did.