The Virtue of Submission?

Originally posted by duecer
God has shown us the example of submission through Christ his...

I think the argument is philisophical in nature, not theological, or more specifically Christian.

For example, if I chose to serve you by doing something not have a sense of inwould you debtedness to me especially if such serice was ...

The question isn't weather I would feel obligated ...[text shortened]... upreme being; but to reiterate, I think submission with the expectation of gain would be wrong.

Oh, but it is a theological concept.

Hebrews 2:18 "For since he himself was tempted in that which he has suffered, he is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted."

Firstly, why is it that Christ had to be tempted in order to overcome temptation for us? Does God not automatically have the power to do so for us? Would this have been possible if God had not come down in the form of a vulnerable and weak man?

We see this concept again in James 4:7 which says, "Submit yourselves, therefore, to God. Resist the devil and he must flee from you." Here we see that we must first submit ourselves to God. Why? Is it not so that he can fight our battles for us? Through submission we are giving God the "OK" to fight on our behalf. Otherwise we are doing it on our own pathetic power.

In Matthew 23:11 it Jesus says, "The greatest among you will be your servant. Anyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and anyone who humbles himself will be exalted." As we can see, Christ was not exempt from these "spiritual laws".

As far as gainging power through submission, I do not see it as necessarily wrong. It all depends on ones motive and utlimate goal as to whether it be wrong or not. Such examples as Christ fasting for 40 days in my opinion was an act of gaining power for doing battle on our behalf. I do not see this as "wrong".

Originally posted by whodey
Oh, but it is a theological concept.

Hebrews 2:18 "For since he himself was tempted in that which he has suffered, he is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted."

Firstly, why is it that Christ had to be tempted in order to overcome temptation for us? Does God not automatically have the power to do so for us? Would this have been possible if ...[text shortened]... act of gaining power for doing battle on our behalf. I do not see this as "wrong".

what I meant was, the topic being discussed is philisophical, he wasn't asking a theological question, the same would go for someone who answers as a Muslim, or Jew. It's conceptual, not specific to a particular religion

Originally posted by duecer
yes, on 1 and 2 I believe it is up to the individual to decide for him/herself, as it seems situational.
I too am not arguing the existance of God (although I do believe).

Can a just God expect submission? A better question would be; does God (please assume one exists) expect us to submit? I think He probably does not "expect" it, but would prefer if we ...[text shortened]... ing if it will work when we take it out of the box. Life is uncertain, of that I am certain

Can a just God expect submission?

My questions, though, are more conditional. I’ll rephrase them:

Under what conditions can submission to a supreme being be considered to be morally/ethically virtuous.

Under what conditions can refusal to submit to a supreme being be considered to be morally/ethically virtuous?

—Such conditions can pertain to the perceived nature of such a supreme being, and to one’s motivations for submitting or not submitting.

Under what conditions might a supreme being consider a refusal to submit to him to be morally/ethically virtuous?

___________________________________

I don’t see certainty to be required. What I do see being required is something along the lines of your answers to (1) and (2) in the opening post.

You are correct that I am not targeting the Christian concept(s) of God per se. People are free to state what they would require of a supreme being in order to consider submission to such a being to be morally/ethically virtuous. I am not presuming that the supreme being here is, in fact, him/her/itself morally/ethically virtuous—though that may be implied in the last question above, strictly in terms of that question.

Does anyone submit to “God” because they perceive that God to be the supreme raw power, without concern for whether that God is morally/ethically virtuous?

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Can a just God expect submission?

My questions, though, are more conditional. I’ll rephrase them:

Under what conditions can submission to a supreme being be considered to be morally/ethically virtuous.

Under what conditions can refusal to submit to a supreme being be considered to be morally/ethically virtuous?

—Such conditions can pert ...[text shortened]... to be the supreme raw power, without concern for whether that God is morally/ethically virtuous?[/b]

Assuming that God created us, what implications does that carry? Put another way, how were we "designed". Would we not be a simple reflection of this God's morality? However, we are free to reject this morality. How can this be if we are a reflection of this God's morality? For me, it is because this God is a God of love, hence, love demands a choice to embrace/reject the other.

For the most part, we agree with the morality of our perception of who and what God is. For examle, for the most part wie can agree that we should do unto others as we would have them do to us. We should walk in love with our fellow man even if they are a perceived enemy, etc, etc. This shows that we were designed after the morality of such a God and when we violate this morality, which is the morality based upon love, then we become disfuncitonal as we go against our design. However, there are times when God's morality is suspect. This occurs when this God allows or actively promotes suffering. How can this God of love allow suffering?

This brings me to my next point which is that if there be a God, this God is far more complex than we. Assuming this, it is only logical that at times this God may appear contradictory. If we felt we could understand this God 100% would he be God? It seems to me that if we did understand him to such a degree that we would either be greater than he and/or his equal.

Originally posted by whodey
Assuming that God created us, what implications does that carry? Put another way, how were we "designed". Would we not be a simple reflection of this God's morality? However, we are free to reject this morality. How can this be if we are a reflection of this God's morality? For me, it is because this God is a God of love, hence, love demands a choice to d understand him to such a degree that we would either be greater than he and/or his equal.

...hence, love demands a choice to embrace/reject the other.

No, it does not. If I choose to love someone, I simply love them; they are free to embrace/reject that as they wish, and I will impose no active penalty upon them. I will continue to love them, I will wish them all well-being, and I will help them if they need it. Otherwise, it would be less than love—or at least a lesser love...

I will, of course, let you define the nature and limitations of God's love as you see it.

We now have enough differing viewpoints on here about what happens to people who reject God’s love because they simply don’t believe in him/it, that I can no longer keep them straight. For some it’s eternal torment in hell, for some it’s simple death, for some it’s a spell of torment and then destruction, etc. I know longer recall which camp you’re in, so I’ll just say that my version of love does not entail that I punish someone for not loving me back.

However, there are times when God's morality is suspect. This occurs when this God allows or actively promotes suffering. How can this God of love allow suffering?

This brings me to my next point which is that if there be a God, this God is far more complex than we. Assuming this, it is only logical that at times this God may appear contradictory. If we felt we could understand this God 100% would he be God? It seems to me that if we did understand him to such a degree that we would either be greater than he and/or his equal.

Is your answer here that we are expected to submit to a being that appears contradictory (and perhaps even cruel), in such a way that we cannot understand? And that such submission can be considered to be morally/ethically virtuous?

Originally posted by duecer
stations in life help to preserve subordination, subordination is essential to an orderly society

Is it?

Originally posted by Rajk999
What about in the following relationships:

1. Children and Parents
2. Students and teachers
3. Soldiers and Captain

In most life situations authority and submission to that authority is both normal and desirable.

I'm not terribly interested in what is "normal". The desirability of anything is a matter of opinion.

I took "submission" to mean doing something that one feels is incorrect or wrong because someone in authority told you to do it. Perhaps that is not what vistesd intended. Perhaps a more specific definition would be helpful.

EDIT: Submission - the act of submitting to the power of another.

How can this be a "virtue"?

Originally posted by kirksey957
Can you say some more about this. Is not your profession and our legal system based upon the authority of laws, courts, judges, and accountability?

A couple of thoughts from ministers who would do well to submit to authority. Richard Roberts would do well to stop putting off everything he wants to do as "God told me to to this." Yea, he's delusiona ...[text shortened]... es of grandious men who would be well served to submit to the authority of other people?

If "virtue" means moral excellence or righteousness, how can one abandon his judgment on moral matters to someone else?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm not terribly interested in what is "normal". The desirability of anything is a matter of opinion.

I took "submission" to mean doing something that one feels is incorrect or wrong because someone in authority told you to do it. Perhaps that is not what vistesd intended. Perhaps a more specific definition would be helpful.

EDIT: Submiss ...[text shortened]... - the act of submitting to the power of another.

How can this be a "virtue"?

Submission - the act of submitting to the power of another.

That is precisely what I mean by submission; thank you.

I took "submission" to mean doing something that one feels is incorrect or wrong because someone in authority told you to do it. Perhaps that is not what vistesd intended.

Well, I was leaving open—and asking—under what conditions people think submission to the power of another might be considered morally/ethically virtuous (since it seems to be the position of at least some on here that refusal to submit to “authority” is somehow non-virtuous; I want to know if they consider it to be non-virtuous per se, or, if not, what kinds of conditions they apply).

In the interest of moving toward more clarity, however, I will re-put the questions in light of your statement here—

Can it ever be considered morally/ethically virtuous to submit to the power of another if that means doing or accepting something that one feels is otherwise incorrect or wrong?

Could it ever be morally/ethically virtuous for one in such power (including God) to demand or expect submission under such conditions?

Originally posted by no1marauder
If "virtue" means moral excellence or righteousness, how can one abandon his judgment on moral matters to someone else?

That's not addressed to me, I know, but I have consistently argued on here that one cannot.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]...hence, love demands a choice to embrace/reject the other.

No, it does not. If I choose to love someone, I simply love them; they are free to embrace/reject that as they wish, and I will impose no active penalty upon them. I will continue to love them, I will wish them all well-being, and I will help them if they need it. Otherwise, it would be less than love—or at least a lesser love...

What I mean to say is that to have a loving relationship their must be two parties willing to have a loving relationship. For example, what if someone you love decided to cut you out of their lives? Could you continue a loving relationship with them? No doubt, you could continue to love them anyway, however, if they wanted nothing to do with you, you would honor their decision to part ways with you.....that is if you loved them. I suppose you could try and force them to love you or have a relationship with you, however, would that be a loving thing to do?

Originally posted by vistesd
east a lesser love...

I will, of course, let you define the nature and limitations of God's love as you see it.

We now have enough differing viewpoints on here about what happens to people who reject God’s love because they simply don’t believe in him/it, that I can no longer keep them straight. For some it’s eternal torment in hell, for some it’s simple ...[text shortened]... I’ll just say that my version of love does not entail that I punish someone for not loving me back.

The camp I am in says that hell is seperation from God who is the source of love/life.

So how can God be loving and there exist a hell? For me, it is akin to asking how their could be a God and wondering why I suffer. I think you will agree that life on earth can be its own hell at times. Suffering is merely the symptom of God and his law of love being rejected at some point. One may "deserve" such suffering or one may not "deserve" it such as Christ himself. Being born and suffering is akin to being a victim in a suicide bombing. Granted, you may not have been the responsible party, however, you are prone to sufferings from other peoples wrong doings.

I would agrue that God's ultimate goal is to remove suffering from creation. This can be achieved through two methods. One is the cross and the other is hell. This is done this way in order to not violate our free will which is required to have a loving relationship. We make our choice and at some point sin will be erradicated whether we choose the cross or reject it.

If God did not give us the ability to "sin" then one could argue that we do not have the ability to reject him. What if someone in your life did not have the ability to reject you? Would it be a "loving" relationship? Also, what if God let you reject him but did not choose to correct you at some point? Assuming we are eternal beings would not the mess we are in now be an eternal mess? Is not the loving thing to do to not violate our free will but at the same time seek to end the madness once we have made our choice? Must there not be an end game, so to speak?

Originally posted by whodey
The camp I am in says that hell is seperation from God who is the source of love/life.

So how can God be loving and there exist a hell? For me, it is akin to asking how their could be a God and wondering why I suffer. I think you will agree that life on earth can be its own hell at times. Suffering is merely the symptom of God and his law of love being ...[text shortened]... the madness once we have made our choice? Must there not be an end game, so to speak?

I agree with the sentiment that hell is seperation from God, so i guess I'm in the samr camp🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
Is your answer here that we are expected to submit to a being that appears contradictory (and perhaps even cruel), in such a way that we cannot understand? And that such submission can be considered to be morally/ethically virtuous?[/b]

My answer is that I have faith in the one I love whether it be God or a loved one. At times I have felt "wronged" by a loved one but did not necessarily loose faith in them. Even though I felt wronged I still believed that they loved me. Perhaps the reasons for wronging me were that it was an accident or perhaps they had alternate motives that would, in the end, be best for me even though I could not see it at the time. As for God, he is all seeing and all knowing, hence, my only speculation is that he is doing what is best for me and/or others around me even though I may not understand what it is that he is doing. It all revolves around my faith in him which believes that he is a God of love and that his actions are in my best interest.

Originally posted by duecer
I agree with the sentiment that hell is seperation from God, so i guess I'm in the samr camp🙂

I do not mean to marginalize this state by saying that it is a mere seperation. No doubt, being seperated from the source of love/life is a state of suffering.