The Virtue of Submission?

Originally posted by whodey
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 ...[text shortened]... e them to love you or have a relationship with you, however, would that be a loving thing to do?

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.

Yes, I have had this happen, with someone I dearly love, and it is a continuing situation—so I’ll say no more about it. I honor their decision, and I keep the door open, which is all I can do. I try to do absolutely nothing to punish them or make them feel bad.

EDIT: However, I do not in any way ask for them to submit to me.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]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.

Yes, I have had this happen, with someo ...[text shortened]... them or make them feel bad.

EDIT: However, I do not in any way ask for them to submit to me.[/b]

Revelation 3:20 "Behold, I stand at the door and knock, if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me"

Where in this verse is Christ demanding submission? However, there is an element of submission in a loving relationship, no? For example, Christ submitted himself and became our servant unto death and if we choose to enter this relationship with him we will serve him as well. It is akin to a man and his wife serving each other by trying to please each other.

Originally posted by whodey
Revelation 3:20 "Behold, I stand at the door and knock, if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me"

Where in this verse is Christ demanding submission? However, there is an element of submission in a loving relationship, no? For example, Christ submitted himself and became our servant unto de ...[text shortened]... as well. It is akin to a man and his wife serving each other by trying to please each other.

However, there is an element of submission in a loving relationship, no?

No. In the kind of loving relationship I’m talking about, concepts like submission, giving-in, self-sacrifice, service/servanthood simply no longer have any meaning. It might look like that to an outside observer, but there is never any sense of “ought”. I am not saying that another kind of relationship cannot have the element of love; I am saying emphatically that the element of submission is not a defining element of a loving relationship.

_____________________________________

Now, if you’ll read back through the thread, you’ll see that I have tried to clear about the question(s), and have tried to clarify when the need was pointed out. If you’re arguing from the perspective of a loving God, then simply describe when you think that submission to such a God is morally/ethically virtuous, and when not; and under what conditions it is morally/ethically virtuous for such a God to demand/expect submission, and when not.

For example—

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?

______________________________________

Note: I am not asserting that submission is or is not a necessary part of Christianity, or what it teaches: I am questioning the conditions under which submission (as defined by No.1) is or is not morally/ethically virtuous.

Originally posted by whodey
Revelation 3:20 "Behold, I stand at the door and knock, if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me"

Where in this verse is Christ demanding submission? However, there is an element of submission in a loving relationship, no? For example, Christ submitted himself and became our servant unto de ...[text shortened]... as well. It is akin to a man and his wife serving each other by trying to please each other.

Would it have been morally virtuous for an Israelite soldier to refuse to submit to God's command to kill the Midianite male children?

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]However, there is an element of submission in a loving relationship, no?

No. In the kind of loving relationship I’m talking about, concepts like submission, giving-in, self-sacrifice, service/servanthood simply no longer have any meaning. It might look like that to an outside observer, but there is never any sense of “ought”. I am not saying tha ...[text shortened]... ying emphatically that the element of submission is not a defining element of a loving relationship.

If you are saying that service/sevanthood no longer have any meaning I am not sure what to say to that. For me it is self evident and a choice. I think you are coming from the perspective that it is compulsory and I am coming from the perspective that it is a choice.

Edit: The only service that is compulsary comes from serving man. For example, try not paying your taxes and/or not choising to serve your Creator and see who is more forgiving/long-suffering. Is it God or man? If you tell God you want nothing to do with him he will oblige you but if you tell the government that they will throw you in prison and take everything you own.

Originally posted by vistesd


Now, if you’ll read back through the thread, you’ll see that I have tried to clear about the question(s), and have tried to clarify when the need was pointed out. If you’re arguing from the perspective of a loving God, then simply describe when you think that submission to such a God is morally/ethically virtuous, and when not; and [i]under what co ...[text shortened]... conditions under which submission (as defined by No.1) is or is not morally/ethically virtuous.[/b]

Again, if one believes God to be who he claims to be which is a God of love and all knowing then defying what he is saying is madness even if the pieces of the puzzle do not fit. For example, when Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son, on the exterior it seems like the "wrong" thing to do. In fact, God agreed that it was the wrong thing to do because he stopped Abraham just before going through with the act. However, God sees the "Big Picture" as to why this was necessary. I believe I have talked about this before with you and it is of my opinion that Abrahams willingness to sacrifice his son is related to God's ability to work through Abraham to bring about the Messiah and then sacrifice his son for us. God is able to work through us ONLY when we give consent via our faith. In short, following God even though it may not make sense to us is an act of faith. Otherwise we are not walking in faith at all, rather, we are simply doing what seems right in our sight. The ironic part is that we can see, at times, that what is right in our own sight previously was not always the correct coarse of action, however, we insist that this is the best and only coarse of action to live by.

Originally posted by whodey
If you are saying that service/sevanthood no longer have any meaning I am not sure what to say to that. For me it is self evident and a choice. I think you are coming from the perspective that it is compulsory and I am coming from the perspective that it is a choice.

Edit: The only service that is compulsary comes from serving man. For example, try not ...[text shortened]... u but if you tell the government that they will throw you in prison and take everything you own.

No, I was speaking in the context of a particular kind of loving relationship, that has nothing compulsory about it.

Originally posted by vistesd
No, I was speaking in the context of a particular kind of loving relationship, that has nothing compulsory about it.

Can you provide an example of a mutual loving relationship that is devoid of serivce/submission? Granted, one can love another without this, however, can there be a mutually loving relationship?

If we are to look at Christ's example of loving your neighbor we are confronted with the parable of the good samaritan. We see a type of love that seems to indicate that sevice is first and foremost to those in need. In fact, neither man knew the other and never once spoke. However, this is simply loving your neighbor and there is no mention of it being mutually recipricated. In fact, Biblically God loves everyone just as the good samaritan, however, it is not always returned and mutually shared.

Originally posted by whodey
Can you provide an example of a mutual loving relationship that is devoid of serivce/submission? Granted, one can love another without this, however, can there be a mutually loving relationship?

If we are to look at Christ's example of loving your neighbor we are confronted with the parable of the good samaritan. We see a type of love that seems to indic ...[text shortened]... es everyone just as the good samaritan, however, it is not always returned and mutually shared.

Can you provide an example of a mutual loving relationship that is devoid of service/submission? Granted, one can love another without this, however, can there be a mutually loving relationship?

My marriage. What we do for one another we do out of love and friendship. Neither one ever requires submission/service of the other. The terms are simply not applicable.

You seem to have in mind a model wherein, if my wife asks me to do something, and I had been thinking I would like to do something else, that one of us needs to “give in.” But why would I ever want her to give in to me? (We both think the same way on this; that is, she would not want me to “give in” to her either.) Sometimes we each do our own thing; often we do things together. More often than not, I would simply rather do something with her than go off and do my own thing. There is no tension in any of that. If she is sick, and I take care of her, that does not feel like service or submission—just caring for my best friend out of love. I don’t know what is so hard to understand about that.

When you do something out of love, you do it because you want to—if it’s grudging, then it’s not out of love. Love just trumps other preferences, and so it is what you most want to do among the alternatives. It really seems to come quite naturally.

I agree with your reading of the good samaritan parable. But if it is done at the level of love that I am talking about, then it is not done as any kind of “should.” If you are understanding “service” as something that one does because s/he wants to, out of love, that’s fine; s/he is still doing what she most wants to do.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Can you provide an example of a mutual loving relationship that is devoid of service/submission? Granted, one can love another without this, however, can there be a mutually loving relationship?

My marriage. What we do for one another we do out of love and friendship. Neither one ever requires submission/service of the other. The terms are simpl ...[text shortened]... because s/he wants to, out of love, that’s fine; s/he is still doing what she most wants to do.[/b]

But you are assuming that sevice/submission is done because one feels they have to and not because they want to. In fact, I find that this is what was wrong with my view of God for years. I felt that I had to do certain things to stay out of trouble, so to speak, when all the while all he really wanted was my heart. Then once he had my service became what I wanted to do.

In terms of serving your wife I was thinking more along the lines of you wanting to do something for her for no other reason that to please her because you care for her and not that either one of you must "give in".

Originally posted by whodey
But you are assuming that sevice/submission is done because one feels they have to and not because they want to. In fact, I find that this is what was wrong with my view of God for years. I felt that I had to do certain things to stay out of trouble, so to speak, when all the while all he really wanted was my heart. Then once he had my service became what ...[text shortened]... son that to please her because you care for her and not that either one of you must "give in".

We’re just using the words differently, that’s all. In our household, we just don’t use those words at all, because they mean something different to us.

In the context of that main topic of the thread, No.1 gave the definition of submission as the act of submitting to the power of another, and I agreed that is how I am using it. We have also been using the word “authority.” And the context of the main topic has to do with when it is, and is not, morally/ethically virtuous to submit to the power/authority of another.

So the questions (mine and No.1 Marauder’s) still stand.

Originally posted by vistesd
....And the context of the main topic has to do with when it is, and is not, morally/ethically virtuous to submit to the power/authority of another.

So the questions (mine and No.1 Marauder’s) still stand.

Can we make two assumptions :
Assumption 1. God by definition can do no wrong
Assumption 2. Submission to God is a virtue in itself ?

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 es of grandious men who would be well served to submit to the authority of other people?

I agree. In fact, Christians are supposed to submit to every human authority (as all "authority" comes from God). Except, of course, where a human authority commands one to do something which is in direct contradiction to God's will. Richard Roberts and his dad are charlatans. "God told me so," as an excuse to refuse submission to human authority, is self-contradictory. I'd understand it if the police were asking Roberts to lynch a black man in the front lawn of his university, in which case refusing to submit would be virtuous, but that is far from the case.

It is also worthy of note that God demands that we not defend ourselves against accusation. Christians are to "turn the other cheek." In Roberts case, if he had truly done no wrong, then he should have kept his mouth shut and submitted to the authorities with grace. That he's made such a self-righteous hoopla about the whole affair, is nearly slam-dunk evidence that "he done it." God only defends those who do not defend themselves.

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]

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

The underlying assumption of morality is the objective existence of right and wrong. I realize there is some argument to be made for the existence of sublunar ethics, but essentially such ethics arise from a corporate agreement of some sort. If a supreme being exists, i.e. a morally superior being in every respect, then submission to that supreme being would always be morally/ethically virtuous, given that we creatures possess the free will to either submit or disobey.

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

Only if that supreme being doesn't exist (assuming, again, that by "supreme" being we are talking about a morally superior being in every respect), or if that supreme being were inherently evil. If the supreme being in question were holy, perfect and good, by nature, then under no circumstance would refusal to submit be morally/ethically virtuous.

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

If that supreme being were evil, it might admit to itself that the one refusing to submit to it is acting virtuously, but nevertheless it would not value such virtuosity. But if that supreme being were truly perfect in every way, having a holy character, then He could only look with pity or anger upon the one who refuses to submit. Such a being could not consider a refusal to submit morally/ethically virtuous, but that would not stop Him from forgiving in light of repentance.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Can we make two assumptions :
Assumption 1. God by definition can do no wrong
Assumption 2. Submission to God is a virtue in itself ?

Can one make that as an assumption? I don’t think so. I think one must reach that as a conclusion.

(I’ve been trying to be very careful not to specify a particular god, or assume his/her/its nature.)

To say, “If such-and-such a god is morally perfect in every sense... does not seem logically different from saying, “If one’s parents are morally perfect in every sense...”, or “If] one’s teachers are morally perfect in every sense...”, etc.

I think this “If” goes to Epiphinehas’s posts as well—viz, “If the supreme being in question were holy, perfect and good, by nature...”

All of these “ifs” could be recast as, “If one knows that . . . .”

All of this requires being able to specify what kind of behavior entails moral perfection.