|
Post by journey on Jan 28, 2010 15:19:29 GMT -5
ambrosia, It is so difficult to explain why. You have to be inside the system to really begin to understand, and even there, you have to be a "true believer," as it were. When you are inside of it, it all makes a strange kind of "perfect sense." When you are on the outside of it, it looks ridiculous and it's so hard to understand how anyone could take such teachings seriously, much less live them out. I suppose it is the same phenomenon that has happened all through the history of humanity. For example, the ownership of slaves made "perfect sense" to almost all who were raised or born into that system (both slave and free), all across the centuries. The burning of witches (and the blaming of witches for various ailments) made "perfect sense" to those inside of that system, inside of that way of seeing and interpreting the world. When people are on the "inside" of a thing, it is very difficult to see things through any other lens.
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Jan 28, 2010 16:23:30 GMT -5
snip... I suppose it is the same phenomenon that has happened all through the history of humanity. For example, the ownership of slaves made "perfect sense" to almost all who were raised or born into that system (both slave and free)... snip... I intellectually understand it. The realization dawned when I read The Book of the City of Ladies by Christine de Pizan when I was in high school. Something is or becomes as natural as breathing and is difficult to notice until it isn't there anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Jan 28, 2010 19:52:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sabertruth on Jan 28, 2010 20:13:56 GMT -5
I have a number of documents on these issues at wwwscribd.com/people/documents/7569847?from_badge_documents_button=1., and the one on Ephesians might be of interest: www.scribd.com/doc/11921604/Christian-Relationships-A-Study-of-Pauls-Letter-to-the-Ephesians. In that one I cite a study that mentions "the marriage without hand", which adds vital context to Paul's words. The word hupotasso has a semantic range beyond "submit", and includes the idea of supporting documentation for a legal claim. So "attach" or "support" or "be loyal to" are equally valid ways to interpret it, depending on context. And when context is not clear, we should not arbitrarily pick the one we want, but allow several possibilities. PS: Just before the address to children in Eph. 5, I believe the summary of the instruction to husbands should read like this: "Above all, every husband must love his wife as he loves himself; otherwise the wife fears her husband."
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Jan 28, 2010 20:27:20 GMT -5
I just realized this is from Charis! Charis ~ please explain.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jan 28, 2010 20:29:35 GMT -5
Several points about that post from "A Wife's Submission." Charis, who writes it, is a member here, and I don't think she means it the way you're taking it, Vyckie-- though I don't know if she'd entirely agree with my interpretation either. However, for what it's worth:
First of all, that particular verse in the passage does say a wife "is subject," passive voice-- because in first-century Ephesus, that's the way it was. It's part of a passage in which Paul, as I have discussed elsewhere before, encourages Christians to work within the social structure they find themselves in. Paul's goal is not to uphold the social order, though-- it's to spread oneness in Christ. For Paul, to focus on changing the social order is to put the cart before the horse.
Earlier in the same passage, however, the word "submit" or "be subject" is not in the passive voice, but in the middle voice-- Eph. 5:21 says all Christians are to choose to "submit" or "be subject" to one another. Not that each Christian IS subject to every other Christian-- but they are all to submit to one another anyway.
It is from that position that he then goes on to state the fact that wives are subject to their husbands in that society-- and then tells husbands to act against the first-century status quo in acting like Christ to their wives. How? Christ laid down his heavenly position in order to raise the church up-- so husbands are to lay down their socially-given prominence, and raise their wives up.
If we fail to understand the shared cultural assumptions that Paul and the Ephesian church took for granted, we will read the opposite of what was intended. We will read that wives, here and now in the 21st century, are being told they are created to be subject to their husbands-- when what Paul was actually talking about was the way things were, there and then-- not the way things were intended to be by God!
Paul is telling the Ephesians to work within the external social order of their times-- and yet to turn the status quo upside down inside their interpersonal relationships. Husbands are being told to raise up their wives. Masters are being told to understand that they are not superior to their slaves.
If Paul were saying God created wives to be subject to husbands, then he'd also be saying God created slaves to be subject to masters. But this is the opposite of his intent; for running like a strand of gold through the pages of his letters, is the clear teaching that in Christ, we are all one. Christ exalted the humble and told those in high positions to take the lower place. Heirarchy based on social structure is the invention of humanity, not of God.
Paul is sowing the seeds that will bear the fruit of equality-- deep into the soil of first-century thinking. He seeks to change it from the inside out, as these seeds put down roots, grow and bear fruit.
(PS. I also want to give kudos to Sabertruth. I especially loved your post on the slavery issue in American history, and how it relates to male supremacy!)
|
|
|
Post by charis on Jan 30, 2010 15:01:13 GMT -5
I just realized this is from Charis! Charis ~ please explain. To "get" what I am saying will take some effort. I don't think its complicated. It just so goes against the grain of what has been drilled into church people they can't seem to hear it! What I am saying FREES women from the whole "submission" teaching because the "submission" teaching emphasizes performance (and the associated self criticism, and constant feelings of failure to "measure up"), which emphasis cannot possibly be Paul/Peter/God's intent! I looked at the grammar in Eph 5:24, 1 Peter 3, and Titus 2, I discovered that they ALL use the passive voice of the greek hupotasso verb! In every case of the verb "submit" paired with "wife", the Bible uses verbs in the passive voice (with one exception, which I also explained: here) The Passive Voice by definition means that the subject (noun) is the recipient of someone or something else’s action. “No volition – nor even necessarily awareness of the action – is implied on the part of the subject“. ( source) Here is a link to a post where I attempt to clarify and illustrate (with a movie clip) the implications: “The Christmas Shoes”: Kate and Robert Illustrate what Paul/God Teach about Marriage in Ephesians 5
|
|
|
Post by charis on Jan 30, 2010 15:32:34 GMT -5
Several points about that post from "A Wife's Submission." Charis, who writes it, is a member here, and I don't think she means it the way you're taking it, Vyckie-- though I don't know if she'd entirely agree with my interpretation either. However, for what it's worth: First of all, that particular verse in the passage does say a wife "is subject," passive voice-- because in first-century Ephesus, that's the way it was.... KR, That is, perhaps, a good argument for the force of the grammar used in speaking of a slave/master relationsihip (?) ... I am struck by the contrast of the word choices, grammar, and length (4 verses!) of the section headed “of servants toward their masters.” beginning in Ephesians 6:5: see interlinearbible.org/ephesians/6.htmimperatives, active voice, details of expectations, etc. Paul/God COULD HAVE said the same thing to wives with the same linguistic/grammatical force and didn’t. My point about the use of the passive voice in every biblical occurrence of wife submit (except one) is independent of cultural considerations. I believe it is independent of faith. A wife of any faith or lack thereof IS SUBJECT to her husband. Its a description of how marriage works. BTW, I think "submit" is a distracting translation because of the difficulty disentangling the mind from the implication that some action, some effort of the will is required on the part of the one who "is subject". Try this. She IS VULNERABLE to him. She has no power, no volition in it. It is DEscriptive, not PREscriptive. She IS VULNERABLE. VULNERABLE is within the range of meanings for hupotasso, IMO, and is along the lines of what I mean when I say she IS SUBJECT.Eph 5:24 is NOT telling a wife “what to do”. It is telling us how it IS in marriage. It is DEscriptive, not PREscriptive.
|
|
|
Post by philosophia on Jan 30, 2010 15:50:24 GMT -5
Try this. She IS VULNERABLE to him. She has no power, no volition in it. It is DEscriptive, not PREscriptive. She IS VULNERABLE. VULNERABLE is within the range of meanings for hupotasso, IMO, and is along the lines of what I mean when I say she IS SUBJECT.Eph 5:24 is NOT telling a wife “what to do”. It is telling us how it IS in marriage. It is DEscriptive, not PREscriptive. Yes, that makes sense. A proverb about how things are. Like, "He who digs a pit will fall therein." It is a principle, not telling you to jump in a pit. Generally men are more powerful than women, and therefore this is true in a physical sense in most instances. And, certainly it was true socially/culturally when the words were written.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Jan 30, 2010 16:42:21 GMT -5
My point about the use of the passive voice in every biblical occurrence of wife submit (except one) is independent of cultural considerations. I believe it is independent of faith. A wife of any faith or lack thereof IS SUBJECT to her husband. Its a description of how marriage works. BTW, I think "submit" is a distracting translation because of the difficulty disentangling the mind from the implication that some action, some effort of the will is required on the part of the one who "is subject". Try this. She IS VULNERABLE to him. She has no power, no volition in it. It is DEscriptive, not PREscriptive. She IS VULNERABLE. VULNERABLE is within the range of meanings for hupotasso, IMO, and is along the lines of what I mean when I say she IS SUBJECT.Eph 5:24 is NOT telling a wife “what to do”. It is telling us how it IS in marriage. It is DEscriptive, not PREscriptive. I don't think the use of the passive voice negates the persuasive force of the passages. They continue to establish an outdated norm. Cultural norms and expectations can carry just as much force as direct commands, if not more: they are harder to openly resist. By setting up the expectation that wives will be subject/vulnerable/submissive/obedient to their husbands without critical judgment, these verses perpetuate the system that existed in the time in which they were written. I think the massive expenditure of mental energy on redeeming these passages stands in the way of a progressive or moderate (and I use these terms apolitically) understanding of the Bible. Why the emphasis on reconstructing a Biblical pattern for marriage? Why not treat these passages as historical? Why not draw similar lessons from them that we take from passages describing polygamy, animal sacrifice, warfare, etc.? I don't see how it's possible to take an ancient text, produced in an intensely sexist culture, and make from it an egalitarian blueprint for modern marriage. The context is too far removed. Edited to add: I still feel that the repetitive use of such verses to emphasize the subjection of the wife to the husband creates a massive imbalance in power relations within marriage. Husbands are repeatedly told to love their wives (or are described as loving their wives - I'm not sure about the original syntax before translation) but are never described as vulnerable or subject to them. The closest any epistle comes is to say that all believers are subject to one another - something that has precious little to do with marriage. Perhaps I'm missing the point or have become too cynical, but the years of mental gymnastics I spent in my youth poring over the fine details of these passages make me wonder if we shouldn't step back from splitting hairs over their intended meaning and openly admit there is a problem with them. It's the difference between hiring teams of lawyers to probe loopholes in an oppressive law versus campaigning to repeal it. If it takes so much effort just to remove its sting, the original law can't be benign.
|
|
|
Post by sabertruth on Jan 30, 2010 16:53:22 GMT -5
My view is that since women were to do this in the culture, what's the point of Paul telling them to do it? The fact that he says this at all is a clue to us that he isn't talking about reinforcing a wrong but correcting it.
Specifically, since the "marriage without hand" I mentioned was in effect, Paul was telling Christian wives to buck the system. Instead of remaining "attached" or loyal to their fathers, they were to be loyal to their husbands. And because of that, Paul had to lean hard on the husband's part of the deal: to love his wife instead of treating her like society expected him to. He made it quite clear that a man was to consider her the "body" to his "head", meaning he must provide and nurture her and treat her as his equal.
It always puzzles me why people talk so easily about the radical command to husbands, while missing the radical command to wives. Paul is telling the wives to make a huge leap of faith, and husbands to take a huge step down.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Jan 30, 2010 18:34:25 GMT -5
Perhaps I'm missing the point or have become too cynical, but the years of mental gymnastics I spent in my youth poring over the fine details of these passages make me wonder if we shouldn't step back from splitting hairs over their intended meaning and openly admit there is a problem with them. It's the difference between hiring teams of lawyers to probe loopholes in an oppressive law versus campaigning to repeal it. If it takes so much effort just to remove its sting, the original law can't be benign. Sierra, That's where I am at right now. I'm not trying to make sense of those passages. It helps me to see that a. God didn't tell Adam to rule over Eve. b. God didn't tell men to be "servant leaders" or "rule lovingly". he told them to love, as Christ loved the church. c. These passages are not introduced as "God's blueprint for marriage", therefore we don't need to take them as such. d. These passages don't negate other passages that instruct all believers to love, be considerate, honor, respect, submit, esteem as above oneself... I stopped splitting hairs and I started to be more assertive with my husband. I don't agonize over whether I'm being submissive or not, at least not as much as I was doing a couple years ago. My husband prefers it this way because he knows what I think and knows where he stands with me. That doesn't mean we don't argue or have crises, but I don't feel nearly as guilty as I used to if I don't want to do something he would like to do and I tell him so. I still appreciate studies like Charis does.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Jan 30, 2010 18:37:59 GMT -5
My view is that since women were to do this in the culture, what's the point of Paul telling them to do it? The fact that he says this at all is a clue to us that he isn't talking about reinforcing a wrong but correcting it. Specifically, since the "marriage without hand" I mentioned was in effect, Paul was telling Christian wives to buck the system. Instead of remaining "attached" or loyal to their fathers, they were to be loyal to their husbands. And because of that, Paul had to lean hard on the husband's part of the deal: to love his wife instead of treating her like society expected him to. He made it quite clear that a man was to consider her the "body" to his "head", meaning he must provide and nurture her and treat her as his equal. It always puzzles me why people talk so easily about the radical command to husbands, while missing the radical command to wives. Paul is telling the wives to make a huge leap of faith, and husbands to take a huge step down. But how is the average lay reader of the Bible in the 21st century to get this interpretation from verses that say "Wives, be in subjection to your own husbands" and "be obedient" to them? I'm not surprised at all that the "radical command to wives" isn't read as such, because if anything it's radically backward to us. How is it any more liberating to be submissive and obedient to a husband rather than to a father? Paul's command may have made the marital relationship more intimate, but I don't see it becoming any more equal. Indeed, one could argue that having loyalty first to her birth family rather than to her husband allowed a woman more social freedom as it gave her an out if her husband tried to dishonour her. I'm sorry, but I'm not following the Paul-as-liberator theme at all. Why must we attempt to put a positive spin on Paul's message when it clearly left women in a position vastly inferior to women in mainstream Western culture today? I think if these verses are to be taught at all, they should be very heavily dosed with a message of "this was the social order of the first century and it was unfair to women." If that isn't said explicitly, then the rest just seems like a lot of excuse-making for ol' Paul.
|
|
|
Post by sabertruth on Jan 30, 2010 19:00:26 GMT -5
But how is the average lay reader of the Bible in the 21st century to get this interpretation from verses that say "Wives, be in subjection to your own husbands" and "be obedient" to them? The word being translated "subjection", "obedient", etc. has a wider semantic range than this, as I mentioned. I take it as a matter of loyalty, not obedience. Paul is talking about a stable marriage with each one stepping out of the social norm. And we have to remember that Paul was writing letters, not a systematic theology. The difference being that he would give more context in the second case. We can't expect him to include everything that everyone for millennia would need to get the whole picture. So I think we do need to study history and language in order to get the whole context. We rely on experts to translate the Bible in the first place, so why object to the inclusion of historical commentary? The biggest issue there is finding one that's objective, accurate, and up to date. But we can't even get a faithful translation, one without deliberate bias. But even without all that, I can make the case just from what Paul wrote, and not just here. Unless we charge Paul with forgetfulness or stupidity or carelessness, we would expect his teaching to be coherent, and I believe it is. The Paul who railed against legalism would not turn around and beat women over the head with it; the Paul who wrote "you are all one in Christ Jesus" would not turn around and carve up His Body. In other words, I think Paul is misunderstood. That's what the Roman emperor thought at the time. But it brought instability instead. What kind of "one flesh" union can exist in such an environment? What kind of head/body unity would this be? Being shuttled from one man to another was not more social freedom at all; she had none either way. But as I said, if Paul told husbands they cannot mistreat or belittle their wives, then wives are gaining the best advantage, because now her husband must defend her and provide for her as he would his own body. Paul could hardly overturn society's bias, but he could make the marriage union the safe haven and bubble of equality it was meant to be. We can also ask why people must attempt to put a negative spin on him, by poor translations and biased commentaries. If I'm making excuses in his favor, then others are bashing him because it's easier than trying to make the effort to figure it out. ;-) But I agree, if we're going to teach these things, we have to supply context.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jan 30, 2010 19:05:52 GMT -5
Sabertruth, I see what you're saying-- but do you think Paul was telling children and slaves something they hadn't already heard before? My understanding is that all these things were right there in the Roman household codes, but Paul was rewriting them in such a way that those in power (husbands, fathers, masters) were to stop dealing with wives, children and slaves from a position of power.
I appreciate the information on the "marriage without hand." That certainly would have to have had a bearing on what the readers were hearing Paul say.
However, in your link to the paper on Ephesians (which is very good, btw!) you mention that the passages says "own husbands," and that this has special significance. I am not sure of this, since the word for "husband" was the same as the word for "man," and the word for "wife" was the same as the word for "woman." "Wives to your own husbands" could also be read, "women to your own men" -- and the word "own" there could simply have been used to make it clear that Paul was talking about wives to husbands and husbands to wives, not any woman to any man, nor any man to any woman.
Charis, I hear what you're saying, and you make a good point. But what do you do with the "Being submissive to one another" (which Sabertruth translates as "supporting one another") in Eph 5:21? That one is certainly in the middle voice, and "wives to your husbands" is added to that, without a verb in the original text-- so that in the original language it read something like, "being submissive to one another in reverence for Christ, wives to your husbands . . . "
I think the passage is saying BOTH that wives are vulnerable to their husbands (and particularly so, in that culture and time period!), AND that wives are to submit to (be supportive of, defer to) their husbands in the same way that all believers are to defer to and be supportive of one another.
Sierra, I think that the entire way that Paul worded this part of his letter WAS offering critical judgment on the system. All his readers would have been familiar with the Roman household codes, which basically said, "Men, rule your wives, children and slaves. Wives, children and slaves, obey your husbands/fathers/masters." What the readers would have heard was that the "male masters rule" portion was being turned upside down, and that the men in power were being told instead to humble themselves, lay down their power, and recognize that they were not inherently superior.
I do think Christians would be better off if they stopped conflating the cultures of the Bible with God's mandates. What we need to do is understand the principles being taught-- not drag forward cultural practices as if they were somehow God-approved just for existing at the time of Paul. But I do believe the Bible is not just an obsolete book that has nothing to impart to us today. YMMV, of course.
Charis and I will probably continue to differ on the necessity of understanding what the original readers would have heard-- but I stand by it. What they would have heard in this message is not the same thing as the modern reader hears, and we need to know what they would have heard, in order to properly understand the principle being taught-- which is a principle of humility for the powerful, and the raising up of those with less power.
Sierra, you said:
How is the average person supposed to know that washing our hands gets rid of germs, or that a storm is on its way and we should prepare? Because scholars and scientists take the time to discover these things, and then to impart their knowledge, so that average people can make informed choices about everyday life.
Church leaders and teachers are supposed to be using their education and expertise to impart this information to the layperson, so the layperson can read the text in an informed manner. Church teachers have all too often neglected this in order to push their own ideologies based on faulty hermeneutics. We need scholars in biblical studies just as much as any other discipline needs scholars-- so that non-scholars can read the information and make informed choices about biblical interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by sabertruth on Jan 30, 2010 19:24:00 GMT -5
Sabertruth, I see what you're saying-- but do you think Paul was telling children and slaves something they hadn't already heard before? My understanding is that all these things were right there in the Roman household codes, but Paul was rewriting them in such a way that those in power (husbands, fathers, masters) were to stop dealing with wives, children and slaves from a position of power. As far as I know, nobody but Paul was telling husbands to treat their wives as their own bodies, and wives to defy the Roman code and be loyal to their husbands. And while we know the recipients of these letters swapped them, we don't know when, and of course Paul would address issues specific to each group. So I can't say whether they had heard this before in Ephesus, but we also don't know what he may have said in person. Which brings up a vital point: context is what the original readers would have, not what we presume from our culture. People need to be taught that while the principles of the Bible are timeless, the context is not; we can't apply it to ourselves until we know how it was applied originally. For example, when Jesus washed the disciples' feet, and told them to "do as I have done to you", was He mandating footwashing as a ritual? (the denom I grew up in thought so) Rather, I think the mandate is for us to serve each other out of humility, a message Jesus and Paul both gave often. Today we might paint an older person's house or bring food to a single parent. That's a case of knowing the immediate context and then applying it to our culture. Thanks! Of course my view on that is debatable, but on the other hand it's plausable. Why does Paul never say "husbands... your OWN wives"? I think it's because of the Roman law, which was very one-sided. But it's just my opinion. Also, I'm not sure how reading it as women and men instead of wives and husbands changes the argument. Certainly at least for women, promiscuity would not require much attention, since only women were routinely held to sexual purity. This goes back to my question about the reason Paul would even say anything about the need for purity in women. What's the point, when society enforced it with "extreme prejudice"? Yep.
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Jan 30, 2010 21:57:16 GMT -5
Please believe that I am saying this with respect that you hold these beliefs seriously, but I am almost dumbfounded by this discussion. Intelligent, thoughtful, educated women are picking the tiniest of nits in order to continue to support a belief system that has denigrated their bodies, intelligences, their lives based on what a collection of 2-millennia-old incomplete texts may have said.
I mentioned in an earlier post that I had come to understand the "true believer as insider" mindset when I read Christine de Pizan, but this is not 15th century Italy where the church is the ultimate authority. I know that I will never understand the need that keeps people with religion, but at the same time I despair of the lengths to which people will go to maintain the concept.
I have no wish to denigrate anyone's beliefs and I hope no one is offended (I tried very hard not to give offense), but this discussion makes me wonder if we are actually inhabiting the same reality. These are texts that have caused the insult and denigration of women for centuries, not an academic historical exercise. For the unbelievers as well as the believers, we are ALL painted the same colours (back to SargassoSea's Prairie Muffuns & Pole Dancers).
It would be possible to dismiss these discussions as personal convictions if it were not for the fact that these texts are used to try to affect the lives of all women, from the subtle put-downs ("oh, you're just being too emotional") to the restricting of reproductive choices for ALL women ("I don't have to fill your prescription because birth control is against my religion).
|
|
|
Post by sabertruth on Jan 30, 2010 22:29:30 GMT -5
Please believe that I am saying this with respect that you hold these beliefs seriously, but I am almost dumbfounded by this discussion. Intelligent, thoughtful, educated women are picking the tiniest of nits in order to continue to support a belief system that has denigrated their bodies, intelligences, their lives based on what a collection of 2-millennia-old incomplete texts may have said... Ambrosia, Let me give some personal perspective, a little view of where I get my worldview. Things exist. I know, duh, but think about it. How can anything have ever come into being? If in the beginning there was nothing, how could something ever happen? I can only conclude that there is a First Cause, a self-existing entity. It must be eternal, powerful, and intelligent; this I observe from the effects of the cause; not only does the universe exist, but it is ordered and complex. The Cause must also be emotional and moral for the same reason. We would have no clue about the nature of this Cause without it revealing itself to us. But I believe it--- rather He--- has. Fast forward to the first century: the arrival of Jesus. He fulfilled many prophecies, and yes, after many years of study I'm convinced they weren't written after the fact. He healed the sick, he raised the dead. And then he allowed himself to be brutally executed. But his disciples ran and hid, fearing Rome, grieving the loss of their teacher, their hope. Now forward again to about 50 days later. Suddenly these defeated and fearful disciples are changed people. They swear they've seen Jesus alive. The Jewish authorities never even LOOKED for his body, and the Romans never even executed the disciples for breaking their seal. Jerusalem was filled to the brim for the Passover, and yet the disciples were able to stand up in front of them all and repeat these facts. Nobody was arrested. Nobody was shouted down. Long story short, that's the basis of my faith, a faith rooted in the eyewitness testimony of both friendly and hostile contemporaries of Jesus. This is no religion but the acceptance of a fact, one that proves Jesus to be God in the flesh. This Jesus accepted the scriptures as from God. Paul, with witnesses to back up his story, was chosen to reveal the nature of this new entity called the "church". He got his teachings straight from Jesus. Alone. And nobody, not even Peter, challenged him about it. The problem is not the writings, but the evil men Paul and others warned us about. They were enough of a problem while the disciples lived, but as prophesied, they "scattered the flock" when they were all gone. It is that evil pack of wolves that has been the "Christianity" of history, while the small band of true believers has been hounded and persecuted. For what, a lie? A wish? No, a Resurrected Savior! This isn't nitpicking to perpetuate some corporate plan, but placing great value in the Truth. I study scripture to find out what God said, and it isn't what those evil men have said. My goal is to dismantle the logical fallacies and expose the biases of interpreters, not to count the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. I'm not into religion; I left The Institution several years ago. It's just me and Jesus now, me and his revealed Word. It's a relationship, and this relationship is why I study the Word.. The Paul who allegedly caused all that is wrong with Christianity said this: Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.I'm not offended at all, but honored to extend this message of reconciliation to all who ask why I believe. And I can say through long years of experience that I know a few things about this God, this Jesus. And he is not the author of injustice, oppression, deceit, micromanagement, or any other bad thing. He gave us free will, allowing us to remain unreconciled if we choose. And in so doing he allowed the human race to drift away, to sink into the awful state you see around you. But he places boundaries around evil so that any who choose to come to him are able. And he forces himself on no one. Sorry to ramble but that's my motivation. I hope it helps someone.
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Jan 30, 2010 22:48:48 GMT -5
Things exist. I know, duh, but think about it. How can anything have ever come into being? If in the beginning there was nothing, how could something ever happen? I can only conclude that there is a First Cause, a self-existing entity. It must be eternal, powerful, and intelligent; this I observe from the effects of the cause; not only does the universe exist, but it is ordered and complex. The Cause must also be emotional and moral for the same reason. We would have no clue about the nature of this Cause without it revealing itself to us. But I believe it--- rather He--- has. I don't have the energy to rehash the cosmological argument. Let's just say it isn't one of the best ones. And even if it were true, it does nothing to distinguish the christian god from any others who might be the first cause, or to make the christian writings any more relevant than say the koran. My issue is more with the justification of a belief system that has shown no inclination to mind its own business. If the faithful want to count the angels on the head of a pin or whatever else takes their fancy, it makes no difference to me. The problem is when religious groups of any sort are active in suppressing the rights of those who believe differently by applying their religious texts to all. Sorry, this is probably getting way OT
|
|
mara
New Member
Posts: 27
|
Post by mara on Jan 30, 2010 22:51:28 GMT -5
Ambrosia, No offense taken. I see your question as honest. Does believing in God seem to you like trying to believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus (not the spirit of Christmas but an actual literal Santa Claus that wants to come down your chimney and leave you presents)? When I try to think of what it might be like to be Atheist, that's the best I can come up with. If you have a better way to explain or illustrate it for me, I'm more than open to hear. For me, someone telling me to not believe in God... Well, they might as well tell me to stop breathing. (I know you aren't asking that. It's just a way to put things.) It's hard to explain. Each of the gals here have her own reasons for wanting to believe in the God described in the Bible. We have personal experiences, spiritual or otherwise, that brought us to this place. If you've not experienced such things, no amount of us explaining to you our experiences can convince you. It has to be between you and God (if such a Being really exists). Or, in other words, you can't have faith based on other people's experiences. Nor can we decide not to believe in God based on yours. Wow. This trying to explain is harder than I thought. But I'm going to stop now because beyond what I've said already, all the more I can do is give you my philosophies on understanding the Bible and why it has been used as it has. But as other Atheists here point out, so many come to the Bible from so many different angles. Things have been 'proven' by some and the opposite has also been 'proven' by others so I don't blame you or any of the others for not believing any of it. Faith is a difficult thing to pin down. You either have it or you don't. And I hope you understand I respect you and don't expect you to have faith based on my experiences or expect for faith to simply materialize within you because "I" think it should. It's your business, your life, and what seems best and reasonable to you. You can't live your life any other way than that. It would be wrong for me to expect any different. I hope I didn't offend you either, in anything I said. I'm also trying not to give offense.
|
|
|
Post by sabertruth on Jan 30, 2010 23:04:31 GMT -5
I don't have the energy to rehash the cosmological argument. Let's just say it isn't one of the best ones. And even if it were true, it does nothing to distinguish the christian god from any others who might be the first cause, or to make the christian writings any more relevant than say the koran. I'm aware of the objections, so no need. ;-) But before I could argue for the Christian God, I had to establish the fact of a God, a First Cause. I've honestly never seen a good philosophical rebuttal to the need for this Cause, and yes, I've seen quite a few attempts. But then I wrote about Jesus, which certainly does add relevance and set the Bible apart. His resurrection from the dead is the pivotal foundation. Every group of people tends to do this, whether it's atheists, theists, politicians, scientists, or anyone else. The control freaks rise to the top like dross, and the complacent don't care who's bossing them as long as they get a minimal amount of comfort. So this objection is on no better ground than the opinion you expressed about my First Cause argument.
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Jan 30, 2010 23:09:10 GMT -5
Ambrosia, No offense taken. I see your question as honest. Does believing in God seem to you like trying to believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus (not the spirit of Christmas but an actual literal Santa Claus that wants to come down your chimney and leave you presents)? When I try to think of what it might be like to be Atheist, that's the best I can come up with. If you have a better way to explain or illustrate it for me, I'm more than open to hear. Not speaking for all atheists (a notably cantankerous lot), that is the way it seems to me. There are so many gods/critters/beings not to believe in that it is hard to distinguish any way in which "god" might be different from them. I also have to laugh when religious people feel that my life must be so bleak with no "faith". However I recognize that there are many ways to live a full life. I am not offended, but I wish that all of your fellow-believers were so thoughtful.
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Jan 30, 2010 23:18:56 GMT -5
But before I could argue for the Christian God, I had to establish the fact of a God, a First Cause. I've honestly never seen a good philosophical rebuttal to the need for this Cause, and yes, I've seen quite a few attempts. But then I wrote about Jesus, which certainly does add relevance and set the Bible apart. His resurrection from the dead is the pivotal foundation. I'm sorry, but you have only established that you believe in a first cause. Not quite the same as establishing "fact of a God, a First Cause". And as I said before, even if there was a first cause, that does not necessarily entail Jesus. This is getting far OT. If you would like to continue, message me and we could start a new thread.
|
|
|
Post by sabertruth on Jan 30, 2010 23:37:10 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but you have only established that you believe in a first cause. Not quite the same as establishing "fact of a God, a First Cause". And as I said before, even if there was a first cause, that does not necessarily entail Jesus. I realize that, but who else's perspective did I say I'd be giving? ;D And the First Cause is simply to establish the plausibility of God, while the resurrection of Jesus is to establish the identity of God. That's entirely up to you. But all I was hoping to do is to present an answer to the question you posed about the motives of women to discuss these things from a Biblical perspective.
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Jan 30, 2010 23:58:59 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but you have only established that you believe in a first cause. Not quite the same as establishing "fact of a God, a First Cause". And as I said before, even if there was a first cause, that does not necessarily entail Jesus. I realize that, but who else's perspective did I say I'd be giving? ;D And the First Cause is simply to establish the plausibility of God, while the resurrection of Jesus is to establish the identity of God. That's entirely up to you. But all I was hoping to do is to present an answer to the question you posed about the motives of women to discuss these things from a Biblical perspective. Asserting something is not proving anything. Google "Russell's Teapot". You have not presented anything remotely like an argument that proves that your beliefs are anything more than beliefs. Discussing anything from a biblical perspective is all well and good, except that you seem to be trying to justify writings that have been used to undermine women's rights - those of us who don't believe as well. Every group of people tends to do this, whether it's atheists, theists, politicians, scientists, or anyone else. The control freaks rise to the top like dross, and the complacent don't care who's bossing them as long as they get a minimal amount of comfort. So this objection is on no better ground than the opinion you expressed about my First Cause argument. You have officially Stopped Making Sense.
|
|