|
Post by krwordgazer on Jan 31, 2010 0:17:46 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). Ambrosia, if I hear what you're saying correctly, you believe that the Bible is just bad-- evil, misogynistic-- and that it's wrong to let it have any bearing on our lives today; in fact it would be better if we just let it rest on the dung-heap of history-- and therefore any attempt to study it in its original historical context is not only a waste of time, but an evil waste of time. Is it your position that there is no value in the Bible at all-- or simply that because it has been so misused as a sacred text, no use as such can any longer be made of it? What about the way it has comforted and uplifted people through the ages, given them courage to face hardship, incentive to reach out to help one another, and idealism to fight oppression? Does the simplistic use of the Bible to uphold evil human institutions mean that that is all the Bible is about-- upholding evil human institutions? Or has it also been used to shake and unseat human bastions of power? I believe it has. The Abolitionists believed that the Bible supported the brotherhood of all humanity, and took courage from it to fight the evil institution of American slavery. The earliest Christians took the Bible as their reason to abandon the Roman practice of exposing unwanted infants to die-- and not only refused to expose their own infants, but took in the infants that those in the surrounding culture exposed. It's my opinion that to consign the Bible to the dung-heap is to view it through the same over-simplifying glasses that hyper-fundamentalists use. This view of it, whether used as justification to beat women over the head with "submit!" preaching, or as justification to toss it out as evil and worthless, misses out on all that we can learn from it-- if we take the time to consider and study it. I believe that at the time the sayings of Jesus were written down, and letters of Paul were written, they were a huge step forward for the rights of women, children, slaves, the poor-- all the oppressed and downtrodden of history. The same teachings are now over-simplified, divorced from their historical and cultural contexts, and used to oppress. I do not believe this negates the original messages or renders them evil or worthless. Nor do I believe efforts to discover what those original messages were meant to contain, is a waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Jan 31, 2010 0:38:46 GMT -5
KR; I'm sorry to have touched a nerve in such a way. I don't think that the bible deserves a "dungheaps" fate, any more than other contemporary texts, or any historical records do. They all shed light on who we are and how we got this way. I also don't think that the bible, or any historical record I can think of is "evil", but many have been put to unpleasant uses. But they are historical documents, ones that I personally don't want to have dictate my own fate.
The fact that there are so many incompatible varieties of christian belief, and so many attempts to re-interpret it and make it palatable indicates to me that if there is a god involved in all of this, he is a very poor communicator.
|
|
|
Post by journey on Jan 31, 2010 1:41:45 GMT -5
Since we're sharing personal perspectives, I will share my own....totally my own, no jabs or anything meant towards anyone (and because I have dear friends who remain intense Greek verb parsers as well as dear friends who are strongly opposed to Christianity, let me say that my own experience means no disrespect to the varied experiences of others). At one time, it mattered, deeply mattered, to me that the Bible be able to be consistantly interpreted to show forth an egalitarian/equalitarian viewpoint. Even with all the abuse that happened to me under the patriarchal doctrines, at that time, I would not have been able to leave patriarchy had I not felt that the Bible could thoroughly and consistantly support a non-patriarchal viewpoint. After a long time and careful study, I found much what krwordgazer has found and described.... and it heartened me. There are numerous Christian egalitarian scholars out there, such as Gordan Fee, F.F. Bruce, N.T.Wright, Rebecca Gruuthius, and others, who can demonstrate a conservative approach to the Scriptures and come out with a strong non-patriarchical message, so I feel no need to go into how I came to such a conclusion here, other than to say that I did. Interpretation...the grid by which we derive meaning...is so huge when it comes to the Bible. The same verses can say entirely different things, all based on the interpretational framework someone is coming from. The problem is that many say that only THEIR interpretational framework is valid....that only THEIR grid is the "God Approved" one, and anyone who questions it is anathema (cursed of God)... Man, it makes trying to talk about these things so annoying! But...that's what you get when you try to work with a collection of books and letters that are ancient. I mean, we can't even agree on how to interpret the United States Constitution, for goodness sake! For me, after a great deal of study (which in the beginning, was very scary for me, because questioning the patriarchal viewpoint was akin to leaving Christianity), I found the patriarchal interpretation and the egalitarian interpretation equally consistant. So I decided to choose the egal viewpoint. That was then. Now....I think I'm in a different place. Honestly, I just don't care right now. I don't care if the Bible or the newspaper or a classic novel or an ancient scroll from Assyria says to do fifty jumping jacks upside down every morning. I'm not doing it. Period. What is good, what is healthy, what is wise and gracious and well-founded, I'm all for. Things like, say, treating others with kindness, considering others, fighting against injustice, practicing the fine arts of genuine warmth and laughter and compassion and true grit in the face of ugliness and evil: YAY. Anything else? No thanks. Not interested. Male over female gender hierarchy is just plain nasty. It's a recipe for abuse and pain and destruction. So I really don't care if Paul actually supported it or was being subversive against the existing patriarchical structure or never even wrote it in the first place but a scribe three centuries later did. I don't care. Because male over female hierarchy sucks, and so I'm not playing that game, whether the Bible supports it or doesn't. Basically, I just don't care anymore. I based my life on an interpretation of a book written 2000 plus years ago, and nearly got myself destroyed. I lost so much... I will never do that again. I don't care what the Greek says. I don't care what the English says. If it goes against my intuition, goodness, common sense, circumspect thinking, compassionate living....? Then I'm not going along with it. I'm still a Christian. At least, I think so (others with stricter standards can decide otherwise about me....I don't really care about that, either). I can't help but believe in God. It's been in me since my earliest times. I love God. Whatever God is, the deepest parts of me know that God is good, the highest good...it is love, the greatest love. So anything that doesn't fit into that, I just chuck it. Things used to have to pass this big huge test of Bible study and careful research. I've seriously simplified my approach now. I think I just don't have the energy to spend on all that searching and studying. All the pain that came through the interpretation of ancient words....when all I really needed was some common sense and ears to hear what my intuition was saying. So now, no more energy spent on parsing verbs. Living is where my energy is spent. Maybe to some, it seems as if that is a loss of faith. I don't know. I really don't know. It feels more to me, though, that it's gotten so much more real. All that stuff that used to matter so very very much...now it just feels like I was trying to find substance in mist and fog. It is so much less confusing now.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jan 31, 2010 2:17:31 GMT -5
Ambrosia, it's ok. These words: They are along the lines of many I have heard before. How can an intelligent, thoughtful, educated woman actually be a Christian?! I understand that no insult was meant by the question-- but the question, by its very nature, is insulting, as is plain to see if I reverse it: How can an intelligent, thoughtful, educated woman actually be an atheist?! -- which is something I would never ask, because I respect the atheist position enough not to believe it's impossible for an intellectual person to honestly believe atheism. See what I mean? ;D The fact is that I have considered my position intellectually, as you have yours-- and though I have decided that I cannot intellectually be a fundamentalist, following Christ is not something I have to check my brains at the door to do. I hope that explains where I'm coming from, and I also hope I have not offended you. Journey, I understand what you mean-- but I myself do not believe the patriarchal position is as consistent as the egalitarian one. My hermeneutic is one that tries consistently, across the board, to take into account historical context and cultural assumptions-- and then to glean the ideas that were being imparted, from my best understanding of authorial intent. From what I have seen of the patriarchalist hermeneutic, it picks and chooses which passages are going to be interpreted in light of historical context and cultural assumptions, and which passages are going to be lifted right out of context and interpreted as though they were a memo from the Boss left on our desks yesterday. And what happens is that any passage that has to do with "women's place" is lifted right out of context, so that it is a restrictive command for all time-- and any passage that might restrict men in any way is read in light of its context, so as to give men as much freedom and autonomy as possible. I find this intellectually dishonest and textually unsound. To take the passage, "I want men everywhere to pray, lifting holy hands" and say, "Well, of course men are to pray, but lifting their hands was simply a practice of that culture; Paul was setting forth a principle of holiness, and we don't have to lift our hands" -- and then to take a passage just two verses later in the same text, "I do not permit a woman to teach a man," and say, "well, this doesn't really have anything to do with the statement immediately before it, that women needed first of all to be allowed to learn-- no, it is a timeless command that no woman is ever to teach men" -- this is an inconsistent way to read the text, flying in the face of all standard, scholarly, textual-analysis techniques. I agree that in the long run, what matters is not nit-picking an ancient text, but doing what your heart tells you is right. But I do believe that my way of reading the text is more viable than theirs-- not because "only my grid is God-Approved," but because my grid actually uses scholarly techniques in a consistent manner, and theirs does not. So as long as they take the text and twist it into all manner of meanings without anything to support their meaning as what the authors actually intended-- I will nitpick their readings of the text.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Jan 31, 2010 5:48:25 GMT -5
See, for me, both are consistent, but only partially. Both seem to have to add or take away in order to make sense. Egals rely heavily on context of the time it was written, and thus explain away the offensive teachings on wifely submission.
Comps/patriarchalists seem to elevate what they think a certain verse implies above what is clearly written. They think "wife submit to your husband, husband is head of the wife" implies that the husband is the leader, so they understand that Paul is teaching husbands to "lead lovingly" or be "servant leaders", but that's not what the words actually say.
Charis once wrote a post about the Bible being a book that is accessible to everyone. Everyone ought to be able to read it and benefit from it, without the need of scholar help, and understand what God wants us to understand. I think the Bible even teaches that somewhere ( one of John's letters???), where it states "let no man be your teacher, but the spirit within you" (or something similar). It makes sense that we ought to all be able to read it and get the gist of what Christian life, as intended by God, looks like.
It has helped me a lot to stop looking at a few verses as if they stand alone, and were EVERYTHING God has to say regarding an issue. In this case, marriage. There's Jesus' example. His teaching on wanting authority and to lord it over others. 1 Corinthians 13 and what it means to love, which Paul taught as "the better way", and so on. The wifely submission passages don't stand alone in the Bible, and shouldn't be singled out as the basis for a hierarchal relationship of men and women.
Yay from me too!
I haven't experienced this in my own flesh the way you and others have, but what I have experienced has been enough to put me off that hierarchy too. IMO, the Bible doesn't support that hierarchy, so I don't buy it.
It's hard when you're married to someone who does buy it, and has support....
|
|
|
Post by madame on Jan 31, 2010 5:56:53 GMT -5
I agree that in the long run, what matters is not nit-picking an ancient text, but doing what your heart tells you is right. But I do believe that my way of reading the text is more viable than theirs-- not because "only my grid is God-Approved," but because my grid actually uses scholarly techniques in a consistent manner, and theirs does not. So as long as they take the text and twist it into all manner of meanings without anything to support their meaning as what the authors actually intended-- I will nitpick their readings of the text. KR, While I don't agree with all egalitarian conclusions, I admire the consistency you are talking about here. You seem to practice less selective literalism, especially within one genre. If Paul is ALWAYS giving timeless commands, why interpret some as timeless and some as not? Why not try get the "spirit" of what is meant? On a personal note, Egalitarian men seem to respect women a lot more for who they are, not only when they are in the kitchen serving them.
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Jan 31, 2010 5:58:55 GMT -5
I can really, really relate to where Journey is right now. I don't believe we can really KNOW what the truth is about whether there is a God--but enough things happen without explanations within the natural world that I think it's reasonable to believe. I'm also not sure I'm capable of not believing. But since there's so much that we just don't know and can't know, I think it's reasonable to choose what beliefs we follow based on what, to the best of our knowledge, appears to be good.
|
|
|
Post by sabertruth on Jan 31, 2010 8:17:09 GMT -5
Asserting something is not proving anything. Once again, I gave my perspective, not a formal proof. Straw man, Ambrosia. Evolution has been used to undermine whole races, do you reject that too? You keep blaming the gun instead of the one firing it. To you. Ambrose, can you show me that there's at least one atheist in the world who can admit that even they accept things by faith alone? You believe that everything came from nothing, and you can't prove it.
|
|
|
Post by barbaraw on Jan 31, 2010 9:05:45 GMT -5
lifted right out of context and interpreted as though they were a memo from the Boss left on our desks yesterday. I love that image. I may have to borrow it from you (with attribution, of course).
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Jan 31, 2010 11:26:37 GMT -5
snip... They are along the lines of many I have heard before. How can an intelligent, thoughtful, educated woman actually be a Christian?! I understand that no insult was meant by the question-- but the question, by its very nature, is insulting, as is plain to see if I reverse it: How can an intelligent, thoughtful, educated woman actually be an atheist?! -- which is something I would never ask, because I respect the atheist position enough not to believe it's impossible for an intellectual person to honestly believe atheism. See what I mean? ;D I don't see the problem you're implying. Why does respect for a position necessarily entail never asking about it? I am perfectly content to support my position, and I guess that's where I encounter difficulties. When I ask the same questions of believers they are offended. OK, I guess I do see the problem. Your comment however gives me the opportunity to correct a misconception: atheism is not something one believes, it is simply a lack of belief in the supernatural. I have had no evidence of the existence of god, fairies, whatever. If convincing evidence were presented, I would believe although belief at that point would be irrelevant since there would be evidence. Unfortunately, the kinds things that are used as supports for belief in god tend to be internal to each believer, therefore not much use as evidence to someone else. I do not mean to say that a believer's faith is not real to the believer, just that it doesn't constitute proof to unbelievers.
|
|
|
Post by sabertruth on Jan 31, 2010 11:40:42 GMT -5
atheism is not something one believes, it is simply a lack of belief in the supernatural. I disagree, unless you're really defining agnosticism, since a negative cannot be proved. But isn't atheism an active disbelief, that is, it asserts that no god exists? If so, then it truly is a faith. What evidence would you accept? If you have arbitrarily ruled out the supernatural, then there must be some natural event or phenomenon you'd accept as evidence. I believe Jesus rose from the dead because I accept the testimony of hostile and friendly eyewitnesses as reasonable. My faith rests in a legally verifiable event in history. And of course I say 'legal' because scientific is not the only evidence in existence. I'm confident that you yourself accept non-scientific evidence for historical claims. "Real to the believer" sounds like "true for me but not true for you", or as if you think we are deluding ourselves, as if we have a psychosis of some kind. But consider this: by eliminating the supernatural the atheist has a limited understanding of the universe, while the theist considers all forms of evidence. Ours is a much less restricted view.
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Jan 31, 2010 12:14:02 GMT -5
I don't know what you mean by evolution having been used to "undermine whole races". Evolutionary biologists are the ones who recently demonstrated that there are no races; that the differences we see and use to categorize races are superficial and don't correspond to actual genetic markers, is that perhaps what you mean by "undermin[ing] whole races?" If so, why would that be a reason to reject evolution?
|
|
|
Post by sabertruth on Jan 31, 2010 12:20:31 GMT -5
I don't know what you mean by evolution having been used to "undermine whole races". Evolutionary biologists are the ones who recently demonstrated that there are no races; that the differences we see and use to categorize races are superficial and don't correspond to actual genetic markers, is that perhaps what you mean by "undermin[ing] whole races?" If so, why would that be a reason to reject evolution? What I mean is that people, right or wrong, have used it to justify genocide. That was the counterpoint to the charge that my "belief system" is responsible for what some people do with it. That's all. I had, and still have, no intention of getting into the evo debate here; I've done my time on that one.
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Jan 31, 2010 12:27:00 GMT -5
Where does Ambrosia say she believes everything came from nothing?
If you are talking about the Big Bang theory of Universe origins, it does not postulate that "everything came from nothing". Current evidence points to the Universe having existed as a singularity 13.73 ± 0.12 billion years ago. "Singularity" is a state of infinite density and temperature - not "nothing" but everything squished into an infinitely tiny volume. When it expanded, it cooled to plasma and when plasma cools, it forms hydrogen gas. Coalescing hydrogen gas forms stars, and stars produce heavier elements through the process of nuclear fusion.
There is considerable evidence that points to the Universe expanding from its original state, considerable evidence for the existence of the process of nuclear fusion being able to create denser elements from lighter ones. Our own sun produces helium from hydrogen - that's how it produces the energy it sends to earth. That's why the so-called Big Bang hypothesis was accepted over the Steady State hypothesis - because the evidence pointed to an expanding Universe, not a fixed one.
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Jan 31, 2010 12:27:43 GMT -5
I don't know what you mean by evolution having been used to "undermine whole races". Evolutionary biologists are the ones who recently demonstrated that there are no races; that the differences we see and use to categorize races are superficial and don't correspond to actual genetic markers, is that perhaps what you mean by "undermin[ing] whole races?" If so, why would that be a reason to reject evolution? What I mean is that people, right or wrong, have used it to justify genocide. That was the counterpoint to the charge that my "belief system" is responsible for what some people do with it. That's all. I had, and still have, no intention of getting into the evo debate here; I've done my time on that one. What people used evolution to justify genocide, where and when?
|
|
|
Post by sabertruth on Jan 31, 2010 12:35:24 GMT -5
Coleslaw,
Atheism is what says everything came from nothing, because it rejects a First Cause. Where did the singularity come from, coleslaw? Which came first, the laws of physics or the matter they act upon? Atheism simply cannot account for anything existing at all. So while Ambrosia did not spell that out, it's part and parcel of atheism. And please be careful about arguing against a presumption, namely, that I must have been referring to the Big Bang-- a theory many atheists have rejected (google "plasma theory" or "scientists against big bang").
And FWIW, the Bible long ago spoke of an expanding universe: see Job 9:8, Ps. 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, 42:5, etc.
As for people who use evolution to justify genocide, read up on Hitler.
PS: A big Thank You to whoever gave me a negative karma rating. I don't believe in that anyway. ;D
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Jan 31, 2010 13:01:05 GMT -5
Coleslaw, Atheism is what says everything came from nothing, because it rejects a First Cause. Where did the singularity come from, coleslaw? Which came first, the laws of physics or the matter they act upon? Atheism simply cannot account for anything existing at all. So while Ambrosia did not spell that out, it's part and parcel of atheism. And please be careful about arguing against a presumption, namely, that I must have been referring to the Big Bang-- a theory many atheists have rejected (google "plasma theory" or "scientists against big bang"). And FWIW, the Bible long ago spoke of an expanding universe: see Job 9:8, Ps. 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, 42:5, etc. As for people who use evolution to justify genocide, read up on Hitler. PS: A big Thank You to whoever gave me a negative karma rating. I don't believe in that anyway. ;D Hitler? The Hitler who said: The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed. (Mein Kampf, vol. i, ch. xi) From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today. - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier) The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator. - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier) That doesn't sound to me like he accepted evolution - especially the statement "But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today." It was my understanding that Hitler's ideas were largely influenced by Nietzsche, the author of the essay "Anti-Darwin", who did not accept the evolutionary theory of his day. But I could be wrong about Nietzsche's influence on Hitler. I didn't presume you were talking about the Big Bang, I said " if you are talking about the Big Bang". You have a way of not making clear exactly what it is you are talking about, and then if someone asks you what you are talking about, you say what you were not talking about. Ambrosia is trying to understand your beliefs, and in response you are attacking what you presume to be hers.
|
|
|
Post by hannahthomas on Jan 31, 2010 13:03:23 GMT -5
One thing that it seems these groups don't wish you to use - unless they give permission of course - is common sense. If you read the bible, and search for the common sense - its in there! When common sense comes against some of their teachings? THIS is where you have the rub as they say. Their teachings are of 'faith', and your common sense WELL it isn't! Their mirco managing of gender roles is their way of fighting off some 'evil' that is always present, and you questioning of their mirco management is YOU clearly not understanding God's word.
Its pretty much my way or the highway!
They are not open to debate or questions. Its like they have restricted section. They concentrate so much on 'head' or 'authority' being stomped on that they missed the part if this was their 'nature' God would have it Pierce reality no matter what. Some women being unsubmissive and children not honoring them would not take away the gift that God has given them. They spend to much time trying to hold on to something that maybe isn't so natural after all. We are custom beings after all!
To me natural leaders just are. YES they can mature and get better, but to me its like a blooming artist. They have this natural gift, and when they go to art school how much better is their gift once they graduate. Their gift isn't Dependant on the types of art tools, canvas, etc. Heck if they have a lousy teacher one semester - their gift is still not lost. If they can't afford to go to art school, but find other ways of working to improve their gift - its still present.
These organizations are to busy trying to tell you that you MUST use this type of brush when painting, and if you use orange it MUST be in this Pantone shade - or your artwork is completely wrong. If you don't market your work via these avenues than you will never be successful. If you don't study this style that gift is being wasted.
Their contradictions are so easy to poke holes into. Recently they did an article about how some UK study showed that feminism is responsible for the downfall of the family. They didn't link to the study itself, but to some newspaper reporter that agreed with their view on life. When you do some digging you find the study, and alot of claims were not present at all. Guess what WAS there? Alot of common sense!
THEN of course towards the bottom of their article they make a quick note - I guess to show some sort of honesty?? That the report didn't mention feminism at all as a factor, and matter of fact stated it HARDLY is a factor! - What do they do then? Continue to rail against it. So basically they are picking a topic that has barely any substance to their plight, but they will continue because they figure its a threat their 'authority or leadership'. It doesn't matter if the point isn't true anymore. They made up their minds - so it is so!
This study shows them that their 'pet' cause is hardly a blimp on the radar screen, and instead of USING the study in question to show their error? They use the reporter's newspapers article viewpoint instead.
I have wonder if they think their followers are truly that stupid. Their spin on things is right in your face, and they play the politician role so well!
I don't think they truly believe that the man has an innate 'authority or leadership' personally. I think they just WANT to believe it.
Big difference. If you can't align common sense to some of their teachings it should bring some red flags up. lol the fact it doesn't? MAKES them dangerous and not reliable.
|
|
|
Post by Kaderin on Jan 31, 2010 13:10:35 GMT -5
Atheism is a lack of belief in Gods. It might involve actively believing in no Gods, but it's not part of the definition. Agnosticism is something else entirely. It's basically Schroedinger's God: There might be a god, or there might not be, but you can't tell.
Where did God come from, sabertruth?
Which brings me to my next point: For fuck's sake, stop telling other people what they believe. They know best what they themselves believe. So if an atheist contradicts your idea of what atheism is, consider that they just might know better, what with being atheists.
About evolution and Hitler: Equivalence fail.
Even if Hitler offered up evolution as the reason for his genocides (which he didn't, but let's say he did), that would still not reflect badly on evolution.
First of all, evolution is not a belief system. It's a fact. The thing about facts is that you can do whatever you want with them - including using them to confirm your biases, offering them as justifications or incorparating them into your belief system. Doesn't mean that those facts created your biases, or are responsible for them.
Let me put it like this...
A fact: Witches exist. A bias: Witches are an abomination and should be killed on sight.
Now, put these two together and you have a mass murderer on your hands. Doesn't mean the initial fact is responsible for the actions of the individual holding that bias, and it can't be held accountable.
But a belief system directly informs your actions and creates biases.
Belief system X says: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
And if someone were to follow that belief system, you, again, have a mass murderer on your hands. But here the belief system is directly responsible for the bias and actions of its follower and should damn well be held accountable for that.
|
|
|
Post by sabertruth on Jan 31, 2010 13:21:09 GMT -5
Hitler? The Hitler who said:... We can play quote mining all day, but I'll only play this one time: Then you weren't clear either. You sure spent a lot of effort on BB if it wasn't what you were presuming; you didn't ask me first. Huh? That isn't clear at all. Are you her spokesperson? How did I "attack" her exactly? How has she NOT attacked me by the same standard... if there is one? Show me precisely where I "attacked" her, because I did no such thing. Once again, merely supplying the answer requested about why women study the Bible is turned into an ad hominem fest. I do try to communicate and stay on topic, but this is a common experience with atheists. Just an observation.
|
|
|
Post by sabertruth on Jan 31, 2010 13:31:01 GMT -5
Atheism is a lack of belief in Gods. It might involve actively believing in no Gods, but it's not part of the definition. Agnosticism is something else entirely. It's basically Schroedinger's God: There might be a god, or there might not be, but you can't tell. What's the difference between "there might or might not be a god" and the atheist who doesn't actively believe in no gods? That's my point: the First Cause cannot be physical, hence it must be supernatural. Can you account for the existence of anything physical without infinite regression, which is no answer at all? For Christ's sake, stop telling Christians what they should believe. Or discuss. We just might know our own ideas of our faith better than you do. Then patriarchy doesn't reflect badly on the Bible. You can't have it both ways. The Bible does NOT teach what the patriarchalists say, which is why, per the original question, we study the scriptures and do all that "nitpicking" we were told is such a waste of time. Like atheism. Well, I did try to communicate but I see it isn't working. Sorry to ask such disturbing questions of the atheists here. I'll shut up now.
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Jan 31, 2010 13:36:25 GMT -5
atheism is not something one believes, it is simply a lack of belief in the supernatural. I disagree, unless you're really defining agnosticism, since a negative cannot be proved. But isn't atheism an active disbelief, that is, it asserts that no god exists? If so, then it truly is a faith. You may disagree all you want, but please do me the courtesy of assuming that I know what I believe. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, atheism is a disbelief in the existence of god, which is a completely different concept than a belief that god does not exist. I disbelieve in the existence of zeus as well, but I can't prove that he doesn't exist. There is nothing "arbitrary" about ruling out the supernatural. I have no experience of it, therefore there is nothing I can assert about it. I have never experienced a natural event that can't be explained by natural processes. I accept confirmatory historical claims that have been established as to provenance of time and authorship. I'm not sure what "legal" means in this context. There is a very good free online course through Stanford University called Historical Jesus. It is presented by a practicing christian by the way, and many of the biblical sources are less verifiable than might be thought. Oh please. If you said that you love X, and I happen not to, that doesn't mean that one of us has to be deluded. As for considering "all forms of evidence", you have previously implied that you consider evolution to be a malicious fraud even though there is 150 years of confirmatory evidence.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jan 31, 2010 13:44:09 GMT -5
lifted right out of context and interpreted as though they were a memo from the Boss left on our desks yesterday. I love that image. I may have to borrow it from you (with attribution, of course). Barbaraw, the "memo from the Boss" image comes from Joe Hinman, whose username is "Metacrock" on message boards. I have attributed it to him when I used it in past posts on this forum, but I neglected to do so this time. So if you do use it, please attribute it to him. Thanks! KR, While I don't agree with all egalitarian conclusions, I admire the consistency you are talking about here. You seem to practice less selective literalism, especially within one genre. If Paul is ALWAYS giving timeless commands, why interpret some as timeless and some as not? Why not try get the "spirit" of what is meant? On a personal note, Egalitarian men seem to respect women a lot more for who they are, not only when they are in the kitchen serving them. Madame, I appreciate that. And to clarify-- I'm not saying Paul wasn't a man of his times, or that he in no way imbibed of the misogyny of his culture. But I see in his writings, strides forward in addressing those issues, and I see those strides as inspired by God. I believe God accommodates inspiration to the human vessels who receive it, and that we should expect to see the human limitations of thought experienced by the human writers within their own times and places, whenever we read the biblical writings.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jan 31, 2010 14:22:24 GMT -5
snip... They are along the lines of many I have heard before. How can an intelligent, thoughtful, educated woman actually be a Christian?! I understand that no insult was meant by the question-- but the question, by its very nature, is insulting, as is plain to see if I reverse it: How can an intelligent, thoughtful, educated woman actually be an atheist?! -- which is something I would never ask, because I respect the atheist position enough not to believe it's impossible for an intellectual person to honestly believe atheism. See what I mean? ;D I don't see the problem you're implying. Why does respect for a position necessarily entail never asking about it? I am perfectly content to support my position, and I guess that's where I encounter difficulties. When I ask the same questions of believers they are offended. OK, I guess I do see the problem. Your comment however gives me the opportunity to correct a misconception: atheism is not something one believes, it is simply a lack of belief in the supernatural. I have had no evidence of the existence of god, fairies, whatever. If convincing evidence were presented, I would believe although belief at that point would be irrelevant since there would be evidence. Unfortunately, the kinds things that are used as supports for belief in god tend to be internal to each believer, therefore not much use as evidence to someone else. I do not mean to say that a believer's faith is not real to the believer, just that it doesn't constitute proof to unbelievers. Ambrosia, I am not sure from your above message, whether or not you understood what I was objecting to, so let me clarify: Here is the problem the way you originally posted it: 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. What you expressed was not merely asking about what I believe, or requesting that I support my position. You expressed an emotion of "dumbfoundedness" that it was possible for such a thing as Christianity to be adhered to by anyone who is intelligent, educated or thoughtful. The implication is that in believing Christianity, I am not exercising my intelligence, education, or power of thought. Do you see the insult, even though none was meant? As for atheism being merely a lack of belief in a god or gods, that is true. But most people who don't believe in a god or gods do have some positive beliefs that go along with that lack of belief. Some are Buddhists: they don't believe in a god or gods, but they do believe in "spirit" and in human spiritual ability to connect with something that is more than just the material world. Others (and these are the ones who usually self-identify as "atheists") believe that nothing exists that is not physical or material; that everything can ultimately be reduced to physical or material components. These are "atheist materialists" or "physicalists" -- but most people refer to this position by the short name, "atheism." Usually this is combined with a belief that science and scientific methods can tell us everything there is to know about the universe and ourselves. But science and scientific methods are limited in what they can tell us about the larger, metaphysical questions, such as why the universe exists or what meaning (or lack of meaning) it contains. What many people don’t realize is that the view that all of reality is comprised of what science can measure or infer, is itself a metaphysical position. As Alister McGrath, author of The Science of God, says, “Any suggestion that we may dispense with metaphysics is much more problematic than might at first seem to be the case. Metaphysical assumptions are actually implicit within the ideologies of those who oppose [them].” (emphasis in original). The belief that all that exists can be explained scientifically, is itself a metaphysical position, because there is no scientifically provable basis for asserting that all that exists can be explained scientifically. We humans cannot manage without metaphysical assumptions and beliefs-- we find that we must ask questions about ultimate meaning. The belief that there is no ultimate meaning, is still a metaphysical belief. To not have a metaphysical belief would be to never think about or address the question of meaning at all-- in short, it would mean to think as animals, not humans, think. We cannot escape being human. Metaphysical thoughts are part and parcel of being human. Those of us who are theists have expressed that we cannot answer the metaphysical questions in the same way atheists do. Neither the atheist position nor the theist position is ultimately provable beyond what is called "rational warrant," meaning belief because of reasonable reasons, and not beyond all doubt. Some of what you are hearing in this thread, is the resentment theists feel when non-theist materialists treat them as though there can be no rational warrant for theism-- i.e., that they are not using their intelligence, education or power of thought. I'm hoping that by explaining this, we can all understand one another better and be at peace here, because when it comes to the way certain forms of religion treat women, we are all on the same page and fighting for the same justice.
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Jan 31, 2010 14:29:37 GMT -5
I didn't say you attacked Ambrosia, I said you attacked what you presumed to be her beliefs.
|
|