> Before I go any further, keep in mind that I'm
> looking at this from a Biblical perspective.

I can do that, too. Of course, that perspective can change very easily, depending on who interpreted your Bible.

> Paul referred to marriage as a picture of
> Christ and the church.

"Referred to" can mean that he was using it as an example, not a set-in-stone type of thing, too.

> He is supposed
> to love his wife, care for her, meet her needs,
> and guide her. She is supposed to love him,
> honor him, and submit to him. A marriage
> where the husband and wife work together
> this way is a beautiful thing. When these roles
> get mixed up, it breeds nagging wives, angry
> husbands, miserable children, and often
> leads to divorce -- and all that goes with it.

This is where I have a huge problem. Yes, it's true that if a wife is completely walked on and dominated, she probably won't get a divorce, but that's because she's dependent on her husband. That doesn't mean that the marriage is good, though. Similarly, "nagging wives, angry husbands, miserable children" are NOT a result of slightly altered roles in a marriage, and I don't care what version or translation of the Bible you do or do not use. I know people who switch things around and have perfectly fine, healthy marriages. I also know people who have followed the whole "men lead the family, wives help him" thing, and their marriages ended in horrific divorces. Of course, if that works for you, that's fine. But I don't think people who do things differently are going against the Bible, or increasing their chances of divorce.

The problem is that people hear one translation, or hear one way of thinking their whole lives, and they never look at the bigger picture -- at alternative views. Don't take this the wrong way, Grishny, but everything I've ever heard you say about the Bible and Christianity sounds very familiar to me, because that's what I heard for a good part of my life. But you know what? There are a whole lot of people out there who believe in God, believe in Jesus, and see things differently. Does that make them wrong? Who are we to say whether it does?

It's this "group think" thing that really bugs me. People accept things because that's how they've always been. They don't think outside the stereotypical box, or look at things from other angles and sides. And that's how churches get corrupt. I'm not a regular church-goer anymore, but there is a church I would call my "home church." Rather, there WAS one, until a few days ago, when a big story about the church hit the newspapers. A five-year-old girl was expelled from their school, three weeks before the end of the school year, and she and her mother have been banned from even attending Sunday services at the church. Why? Because the mother works as a stripper in a dance club. Granted, I think that's not a good example for her daughter, but barring her from attending church is certainly not going to make the child think of God in a good light, either. And what about the innocent child who has been torn from her friends and BANNED FROM SUNDAY SCHOOL? This happened because someone interpreted something in the Bible, then acted on it. It was probably a mistake, and I imagine someone will eventually regret it. But it's enough to make me not go back there, and it's also enough to make me wonder why I ever went there in the first place, or how many of their other teachings are screwed up. This is yet another reason why I'm questioning things I always took for granted. At one time, people just assumed that the earth was flat. They were wrong.

Ell"pretty sure teach was JOKING, anyway"myruh