lpetrich

I wonder which version of the Bible that Metacrock is reading, because every version I've ever read is full of

command no 1, don't do this. comand no 2, do this....

What does Metacrock think that the Ten Commandments are? What the Sermon on the Mount is?

And why doesn't the Bible include all the "historical background" that is allegedly necessary for understanding it? It ought to be a complete book, right?

Seems to me like this "historical background" is a cover for cafeteria theology. At least New Agers are honest about making a principle out of cafeteria theology.

Metacrock

Meta => Yes, 1)not because women are intresically less then men, but so they will be won over!

2) Submission does not equal Obey.

Submitting is an attitude that you take yourself. It is not something you can be commanded to do. The stenence structure here is not in the imparative.

3) submission = cooperation.






Meta => But that's an ironic quote, because two or three times Sarah gave Abraham orders, and he did what she said. In fact God told him "do what your wife tells you and put the other woman out of the camp."





Meta => Greek for head is Kephale does not mean "boss" or commander. It means source or origin. Reference to Adam as the source of Eve in the the first marraige.




Meta =>So what's oppressive about being self controled and pure? or in a society where women were limited to the home, what's wrong with being busy at home? And look, the reason he gives is not any kind of intrinsic inferiority on the part of the woman, but so the gospel would not be maligned! Patriarchal culture, it was important for them to not be seen as a source of social strife. The same reasoning today would argue in our culture for supporting a woman in her career choice.






The given example of Sarah, who obeyed her husband and called him "Master" shows how women are to be submissive.

Of course, women may never have authority over men:

1 Timothy 2: A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.



Meta =>That's talking about teaching in the chruch. That's not talking about a wife, its about church offices.





Meta =>NO! becasue he does have a specific group of women in mind. Women from Pagan cult who were trying to interveen as new converts and cliam the atuthority they had as pagans.




Paul disobeyed a Biblical command, so what? That doesn't make the Bible any less sexist.



Meta =>What Biblical command? Of course they were sexist! They didn't lose their humanity when they got coverted, they still lived in the same culture. The question is how do we apply it to our own context not how do we recreate the context of their day!





Meta =>Well you just need to read more of the Bible. Because it does tell them that. Deborah the men were commanded (in Judges) to follow a woman into battle. Women had authorith in the Pauline chruch. It never tells women to call their husbands masters. Sarah did that becasue of the day in which she lived. it never proscribes to women to do that in any time.




It provides rules for when a victim of rape must be stoned:


Meta =>Unfair to drege up OT examples! Ancient world, really old, long time ago. That was their concept of justice which was in process of evolving. It was belief in Chrsitain God which brought it to a hiher standard of human compassion. But along the way it was very barbaric because they were barbarians!




I think it's ashamed that yoou aren't man enough to ask the Evangelical Feminists! They are waiting for your questions! They are smart, they feminsts, they christians, they are waiting for you to post. Go ask them!


Here's the Link again: Egalitarian Message Board.

Metacrock

Meta =>The Version I read is the Nestle Alond Greek New Testament with Critical Apparatus






Meta => I didn't say there are no commands ennumerated in the text. I said the whole thing isn't that.




Meta => What a stupid question. How could it do that? That's like asking why didn't Shakespire include all the footnotes that litterary critics would someday ask about his work? Well that's because you assume verbal penary inspiration. God is writting a memo to us all, and so he wants us to understand it like an instruction manuel. It's not a memo, it's not an instruction manuel. It's a collection of writtings that the early chruch endoursed from among the culture litterture of Israel. IT's writtings by people who e xperienced the divine, not a memo from God.



Meta => It's so musing to me how atheists are so uncritical when it comes to their own skeptical methods. They just want everything cut and dried, black and white. Have you ever taken a literature class? Do you really think that all texts are just transparent? Do you not seek to understand cutlural background when it comes to other texts? What an uncritical reader you are! That's one reason I quite being an atheist. It's so anti-intellectual!


Aren't you man enough to go ask the Christian feminsts? If you really care about feminism and the equality of women it looks like you would actually go ask some women who knwo what they are talking about!

here's the link

http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/31727

Dargo

Well let's see. Most of those annoying commandments are found in the old testament law which is according to Paul no longer binding. Of course, Jesus said not one jot or tittle of the law will fail until heaven and earth passes away, but Paul's teaching is a lot easier to live with so we'll just assume Jesus was speaking metaphorically. There are still plenty of do's and don'ts found in the new testament, but we should see them as good advice rather than silly outdated and burdenous commandments. Beside Christianity doesn't have nearly as many rules as Islam and is less oppressive toward women, so it's obviously the true religion.

Metacrock

Meta =>What you need is some theolgoical understanding. You are thinking about all of it as rule keeping. I'm sorry if you were expossed to a rule keeping form of religion as a child, so was I. But that is not the nature of the Christian faith. It's not about rules, it's about the attitude of your heart.

You need to understand the concept of Grace. This what it's all about. It's not about keeping rules. Even in the OT, Paul points out, the concept of Grace was more important than just a wote keeping of the law.

Jesus didnt' say that the keeping of rules will never pass away, he said his word would not. His word is not just keeping rules, it's about God's work in the heart. Jesus himself is the fulfillment of that word, he's the telos toward which the law moves us. So the culmination in Grace is the point of the law, and that's why it wont pass away, becuase it's fullfilled!

So we don't worry about rule keeping, we worry about what our hearts are doing, are we seeking to know God in our hearts.

Vinnie

I don't ahere to such a naive form of inspiration. Natural or qualitative. I think I've switched from Q to N though but functionally, I still use the Bible the same. There isn't much of a difference and its more of a terminology thing than anything else.

A good system for morality? Love God and love thy neighbor.

Implement that principle in your life and you will do well. And a special note to all the non-theists, to do the latter is to do the former and to do the former is to do the latter.

If you think that is flawed give me a better one.

Vinnie

Dr Rick

"Be most excellent to one another, and party-on, dudes!" Bill and Ted

Vinnie

Touche.

Vinnie

Metacrock

ahahahahahah, o the catagorical imparative! ;-)

orac

That amuses me no end.

You're saying that the Bible is human's code of justice evolving.

You're going to find this really hard to believe, but there actually are people who think the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. Bizzare, isn't it? You don't even want to know about the people who think Jesus was real - they don't understand that he was one more barbarian saying what he thought was right. After all, you've established that God is incapable of passing laws that are different to what the people living at the time think are right.

And now you're telling us that rather than God's laws being written down, regular human beings were writing barbaric laws for themselves, and attributing them to God.

Oh, sorry, I see your point - they were less barbaric because they believed in God, but they were still writing the laws that they thought were right, rather than writing the laws that God said were right.

Quick questions: The OT is obselete, because human society is more civilised today. Fine, I believe that completely. I won't even try to persuade you that the OT is still relevant. What makes a roughly 2000 year old book (the NT) relevant today? Isn't that for the people of the time, not for the people of today?

Hey, it's ancient! "Ancient world, really old, long time ago." I believe is your opinion. What relevance does your bible have today?

I fully agree with you - it's ancient barbaric superstition with no place in the modern world.

And your profile says you're a christian. How odd.