Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa")
Pages
Author | Topic: Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") |
---|---|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6700
|
written Wednesday, July 11 2007 04:37
Profile
Homepage
In order to maintain an interesting discussion on extraterrestrial beings and mankind's fascination with finding them without the risk of getting it burned up in a flamewar, let us move the hotter stuff out. The relevant posts: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote:Okay.... That should be it. To the mods and/or admins: I'm in a bit of a rush and don't have time to go back for formatting. Feel free to fix it for me :P . -------------------- -Lenar Labs What's Your Destiny? Ushmushmeifa: Lenar's power is almighty and ineffable. All hail lord Noric, god of... well, something important, I'm sure. Posts: 735 | Registered: Monday, January 16 2006 08:00 |
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, July 11 2007 05:27
Profile
Here's my prior lengthy post that didn't make it in before the cutoff: quote: Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, July 11 2007 06:02
Profile
Homepage
quote:Lawrence v. Texas struck them all down. They are no longer considered constitutional. quote:Define "world war." quote:We haven't recovered fully yet from the disastrously bad conditions of a few decades ago. However, thirteen percent of the black adult male population losing the right to vote, no matter how bad, is still a better statistic than one hundred percent of the black adult male population being denied the right to vote. You simply cannot say that our values of equality have declined in the past few decades. It's just not true. You can try to claim that other values have declined, but not these. And even if we did accept your splitting hairs about the Golden Rule, if you scroll down to the bottom of the Wikipedia page, you will find, "Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence." (Mencius VII.A.4) That's still several hundred years before Jesus and in a completely different context. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Wednesday, July 11 2007 06:16
Profile
Homepage
Huh. I guess I really did stop paying attention to current events after high school. Hardwick I know, but I don't remember even hearing about Lawrence. Shame on me! -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, July 11 2007 06:22
Profile
Lawrence v. Texas is fairly recent - I believe 2003. Nevertheless, it does represent a pretty profound sea change, at least with regard to challenging the basis for laws whose sole justification is morality, which I think is a good thing. [ Wednesday, July 11, 2007 06:28: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Wednesday, July 11 2007 06:46
Profile
quote: quote:I think this is where I have a problem. You play fast and loose with hyperbolic "facts," and then backpedal and re-define your terms so that your "fact" can't be disproven. You know, it is okay to be wrong. I've been wrong, and I would wager that most everyone here has been wrong. I do admire your steadfast belief in your religion, but I don't share it. I, as a skeptic, have a hard time with unwavering belief in anything not tangible. Even your Golden Rule (as you claim to be a disciple of Christ, that makes it your rule) is suspect. It is a great maxim if you are trying to peacefully co-exist in a utopian landscape, but when applied universally it fails. This is a world of eat-or-be-eaten, and the long list of extinct species is titled "The Golden Rule." If Christian belief in the after-life is good enough for you, then so be it. But I will continue to live in a world of the corpus, and let others worry and fret about what may or may not be happening after death. -------------------- WWtNSD? Synergy - "I don't get it." Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
Infiltrator
Member # 4248
|
written Wednesday, July 11 2007 06:49
Profile
I read an article about world wars few months ago, from a magazine that is simple titled History. It defined a world war as something to the effect of "series of aggressive conflicts spreading over, and affecting, most of human population". By that definition, at least two or three wars *before* WW1 can be considered to have been world wars, and WW2 has never really ended. I'm quite happy with that explanation. -------------------- I have nothing more to do in this world, so I can go & pester the inhabitants of the next one with a pure concscience. Posts: 617 | Registered: Tuesday, April 13 2004 07:00 |
Lifecrafter
Member # 6700
|
written Wednesday, July 11 2007 07:10
Profile
Homepage
1. Stillness, welcome to Spiderweb. You will find that most members are either agnostics or hard-core atheists. And most of them actually know what they're talking about, and aren't afraid to walk all over you to demonstrate. But, if you leave your sanity at the door as suggested, allow yourself to have a little bit of an open mind, respect the others, and know that you have to pick your battles carefully, you'll find that despite the many conflicting political and religious views present here, we're all a great bunch... if not a little hard-headed at times. :P Who knows, if you pay attention to our little market of ideas, you may actually learn something. 2. "Morality" is drawn from a clearly-defined set of values and social standards. "Morals" are personal values derived from the implications of a set of social values. They also, to an extent, assist in defining said social values. Simple observation suggests that a specific core set (not the entire thing) of these social values are necessary for social stability, and that many of society's values, including the definition of freedom, the content and context of the family unit, the prominence of religion, and others, naturally evolve from context and society. I do believe through my theological research and convictions that there is only one working set of these core values... and that they are still prominent in Western society. I have come to the conclusion that conservatives, churches, and political activists are chasing the wrong ball. The fact of the matter is that morals are always in "decay" because some morals are always changing, i.e., the definition of freedom, the development and formation of the family unit. The fact of the matter is, a society does not internally collapse when morals decay, it collapses when people stop caring about it. I point to the Roman Empire, obvessively religious, even Christian when it fell. 3. Our current "Moral decay" has not come because people are not being religious. Religion may help establish values, but it does not demand them, is not the only source of them, and, if truly of the god that it claims to be from, obviously does not derive from them. Interesting that Confucious got mentioned. And I am surprised, Stillness, that you have not recognized Romans 1:18-32 which, for those who don't feel like loking it up, states that the will and knowledge of God is ingrained into all men and his glory revealed through nature, etc. Point is, you can be moral without being religious because mankind intrinsically knows right from wrong. This "decay" is occurring because two major changes in value have been made: First, value has been purposefully shifted away from society to the individual, ignoring or ultimately rejecting standing social values. From the perspective of those with "traditional" values, this is chaos, and indeed, there is and will be a large period of instability as both social and personal values will need to realign. But from the perspective of those who want the values changed, yes, humanism is finally winning. Second, the recognition of absolutes has been abolished, and from any perspective except the secular humanist, this is a very bad thing. Without absolutes, laws have no effect, science is merely the observation of slanted perspective and not fact, and an individual's rights are correlated to how much control they have over others. Power reigns, not law, and stability arrives in the form of a military anarchy. 4. So as to explain where I'm coming from to the newcomers, I am a disciple of Christ. A born-again, baptized, Bible-believing Christian, for those of you who require the lingo to believe it. For those who care, I do not speak in tongues, because an online translator can do that for me. 5. That said, my theological research has led me to believe that there is only one set of core values that will be stable in any society (best summarized here, if you're interested.), and that just about everything else will fall into place once these values are considered social absolutes. EDIT: I missed deleting half a sentance from a rant I decided not to go on. Drew, thanks for inserting that post. Sorry I missed it. -------------------- The Silent Assassin knows exactly two things: that he knows nothing about why my car is covered in pink paint, and that he knows that he doesn't know why my car is covered in pink paint. Liar. That's three. [ Wednesday, July 11, 2007 07:18: Message edited by: Lenar ] -------------------- -Lenar Labs What's Your Destiny? Ushmushmeifa: Lenar's power is almighty and ineffable. All hail lord Noric, god of... well, something important, I'm sure. Posts: 735 | Registered: Monday, January 16 2006 08:00 |
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, July 11 2007 07:35
Profile
quote:I now kill people in the name of Drew. Are you responsible for their deaths? That being said there are people who do not fight in wars and do everything in their power to be peaceable because they imitate Christ and obey him. quote:I also said I place a high value on human life. Do I marginalize humans and equate them to cars as well? No. You’re just reading into my words what you please. quote:Again, I meant mother, father, children when I spoke of what we agreed on. Clearly I don’t think you agree with the Bible as you have made your sentiment on it quite plain. Neither 2 Corinthians nor any other scripture says women should be “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.” A good wife should obey her husband. The Bible also says that a good husband should honor his wife and love her like Jesus love his congregation to the extent that he gave his life for it. Jesus also served his his disciples. If a husband does not do this, the Bible is clear that God will not listen to his prayers. So is the man belittled because God’s attention is dependant on how he honors his wife and is willing to serve her to the point of giving his life? Why do I have to be willing to serve and give up my life just because I’m a man? And while we’re on the subject, why does the mother and not the father get to share the special bond with children that comes from carrying the child for 9 months and breastfeeding? Why can’t we be equal to women in that respect? Why does a person’s offspring have to honor and obey them to receive God’s favor? Am I less of a person than my mother just because she’s older and I came from her? From a biblical perspective this is vain questioning because divine order is what it is. Yet in terms of worth women and men are equal. Your view of the Bible teachings on male-female relations is skewed. quote:I’m not really aiming to prove God exists to you. I’m saying that Christian morality is the best thing for humanity and the more we deviate from it the worse off this planet is for it. The proof is in the pudding. In general the world is at it’s worst. I’m not talking about the fact that I can drink from any water fountain I please by law in this pocket of the globe. I’m talking about bad human relations in practice, the breakdown of the family unit, the mental and physical problems caused by extra/premarital sex, poverty, human suffering, etc. If the world was a better place I’d be with you. As it stands, it is not a better for establishing morality outside of the divine. quote:A war affecting most of the larger nations and most of the world. I don’t want to focus on the world wars alone though, because my point was that the conflicts of the past century mark this period as unique. That can be seen from the fact that three times as many died as in the past 19 centuries. But if you want to focus on the world wars then look at the link to wikipedia and compare the lesser of the two to any other war you’d like by comparing the map that shows how much of the world was involved and the chart that has the numbers and see why any historical reference you can think of will say that WWI was unprecedented in scale and thus bears the title World War 1. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Wednesday, July 11 2007 07:35
Profile
Huh, I didn't know that we could be broken down so cleanly. I do believe that there are powers beyond my ken, but I don't believe that there is anything to the Judeo-Christian/Muslim/Buddhist religions that can't be explained away by fear-mongering to support the formation of fledgling society/civilization. So that makes me not an atheist, and maybe a light-duty agnostic. So, who are the hardcore atheists? And more importantly, do we need a poll? :D -------------------- WWtNSD? Synergy - "I don't get it." Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
Warrior
Member # 6401
|
written Wednesday, July 11 2007 07:54
Profile
As I understand it, atheism is having no belief in a being that is god. So being an atheist really depends on how you define god, or what you would consider a god to be. I can quite happily, and without evidence, believe in the possibility of beings beyond my experience, but none of those beings need be a god. They might be omnipotent, infinite etc, but that doesn't make them gods. I do consider myself an atheist. Then again, atheist/agnostic etc are just labels. It's such a complex and subjective area that I find it misleading to group people together too much. And yes, a poll! -------------------- I think this is really wonderful. Posts: 147 | Registered: Tuesday, October 18 2005 07:00 |
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, July 11 2007 08:14
Profile
quote:Jumpin, I’m not seeing your point on me being wrong and back-pedaling. Is it with the term “world war?” I reckon it’s a matter of relativity and semantics. Let’s say I’m wrong with my use of the term and bow before your rightness. That doesn’t change my points in the least bit. quote:Give me an instance where your animalistic view of life and humanity is better than Christ’s and mine, which is based off of love. What would the world be like if everyone viewed the world as you do? What would the world be like if everyone viewed it as Christ? quote:Thanks. I have found the gang here as you say: very blunt and lacking a bit of courtesy, but smart. And I have learned a great deal. This is why I stay. quote: quote:I actually had in mind Romans 2:14, 15 which mentions the nations doing the things of the law by nature because it is written on their hearts. But I also had in mind Jeremiah 10:23 which says that man cannot direct his own steps. The truth of that is all to clear when one examines our history and sees that from near the very beginning “man has dominated man to his injury.” (Ecclesiastes 8:9) Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, July 11 2007 08:55
Profile
"I now kill people in the name of Drew." That's well and good, except that I'm here to deny that I support such behavior, as well as sue you for defamation. Christ, however, is not around to refute such a statement made in his name, and how do you even know what he backs? "Well, the Bible says this, and I KNOW in my heart..., etc., etc." That's great. There are thousands of people who claim to be Christians and know the will of God, and who have thousands and thousands of interpretations that vary in whole or in part from yours. The authority is not clear. For all you know, Christ could have been okay with, say, the War in Iraq and the deaths of all the innocent Muslims. Prove to me that he wasn't. After all, the President, a good God-Fearing Man, believes that Christ is with him on that one. Further, lots of people choose to be peaceable without doing so for the sake of being Christ-like. Christ does not hold the monopoly on peace. The patriarchy issue I think my analogy was pretty apt. You identified that God values woman for their usefulness to the family; not necessarily as individuals. That's pretty denegrating. So is Paul's instruction that wives should obey their husbands. You aren't going to argue your way out of the fact that the Bible and the Christian religion aren't inherently patriarchal - there's a whole seminary of believers on Lexington Road in Louisville, Kentucky that I grew up a block-and-a-half away from that would say otherwise, fervently, and many, many books on the topic. The Women's Movement wasn't made out of whole cloth, you know. Stillness, Christian morality is nothing other than a rehashing and rebranding of older, fairly universal moral ideas with a patriarchal bent and the intent essentially that a body of priests, be it in the form of the Catholic Church, or charismatic Pastor Billy Joe Bob of Salvation Mega Bible Church can call the shots. You may prefer that, but I call it a tyranny of the arbitrary, and I'll have none of it. Historically, they've done a pretty poor job of calling the shots, too - see, e.g., the Crusades, justifying slavery, opposing interracial marriage, homosexuality, gay marriage, etc. Sure, the church has adjusted its benighted views in several of these instances, but it has always done so not as a result of further consultation with the scriptures (though if they would just adhere to the "loving your neighbor" bit to a greater degree, they might get there), but from the external influence of reason and respect for liberty, the notion that we are each free to live as we choose, provided that we do not unnecessarily infringe on the liberty of another. Really, it's all about how morals are imposed that's important to me, and I think the Christian spin on this is bankrupt, because it's authoritarian and (I believe) predicated on fiction. No Christian God = no authority, and therefore no incentive to obey. The Constitution, on the other hand, has much more authority in my eyes, because it's predicated on notions of equity and liberty, and was decided on more or less democratically. Furthermore, though it's difficult to, it can be changed if the need arises, and that sits better with me than just having to swallow whatever poison pill of wisdom my particular sect of Christianity decides to call the Word of God. That's ceding a bit too much control over my personal liberty for my comfort. For the record, I'm a secular humanist; skeptic; agnostic; and dynamite dancer. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Wednesday, July 11 2007 09:32
Profile
quote:[/b] The Bible, well, yeah. But I'd argue that the New Testament at least presents principles that undermine patriarchy, and that it is in a sense as unpatriarchal as it reasonably could have been in its times and places of composition. It makes explicit parallels, for instance, between the obediences owed by wives to husbands and by slaves to masters. It does not actually endorse patriarchy any more than it endorses slavery. It certainly condoned both, on the grounds that spreading the gospel was a higher priority at that time than trying to right entrenched social wrongs. It's the scripture of an otherworldly religion, after all. But it asserts that women and men, as slaves and free, are equal before God. William Wilberforce certainly felt that he was fighting slavery under the inspiration of the New Testament, and he beat Abe Lincoln by a good thirty years. A strong case can be made that enthusiastic Christians have done more for ethical progress than bold freethinkers. Yeah, it could be that all this ethical progress, even the part led by Christians, was in spite of Christianity rather than because of it. But I think it must be naive to treat such a massive factor in Western intellectual history as Christianity as though it can so easily be distinguished from humanism and reason. I'd be much less quick to dismiss the pervasive intellectual and moral influence of capitalism, for instance. Christianity is a huge thing, with strands going every which way, and it shapes its cultural children even in rejection. Most major reforms were won, not by trumping Christianity with humanism, but by trumping one Christian tradition with another — which is itself one of the oldest and most important Christian traditions. There are some female bishops these days. [ Wednesday, July 11, 2007 10:01: Message edited by: Student of Trinity ] -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Wednesday, July 11 2007 09:39
Profile
quote:Is that pretty much it? The reason I made that point is because in your first post regarding war, you didn't call it "world war," yet later said you did. Therefore I've changed the term "world" to "mass" in order to reflect the evident nature of fast and reliable transport as a mechanism for war. The Mongol hordes engaged in mass war. The Persians engaged in mass war. The American natives engaged in mass war. Polynesians engaged in mass war. Europeans, Romans, Africans, we all have engaged in mass war. It is an unusual event to see death tolls in the millions, but in terms of effect on a population, there have been far greater wars than the Great War. When all males in a city of 10,000 were killed, is that a lesser event than WW 2? The issue that I see is that people are continuously seeking to expand their territory, whether it be personal space, social space, or real space. We will keep doing so despite the traditions inspired by the original peacenik. It is nice that humans aspire to be (insert 10 Commandments here,) but it isn't our nature. And as a learned response, it seems to be a denial of our true selves. As I'm not a believer in the traditions of Christ, I can't really tell you what a world may be like if those teachings ascribed to him were universally followed, but it sounds very "sameish." Overcrowding would be a huge issue, which in turn would lead to more desires for personal space, more denial of that need, and then a shedding of the artifice once more. My world, aka where we are now, can be pretty much summed up by looking around. As far as which is better, I guess that depends on the person. I enjoy that which I have now, and it appears you do as well. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by animalistic, but if you are implying that I view humans as just another species on the planet, then you are right. I'm surprised that anyone rational person could see it any differently. -------------------- WWtNSD? Synergy - "I don't get it." Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, July 11 2007 09:43
Profile
Well, the Southern Baptist Convention has swung pretty decidedly in the direction of a patriarchal outlook. Also, I would say that while there are some female Anglican bishops out there, how long had the church been around before this took place? And again, did it arrive at that decision from its own doctrine, or as a result of wider societal forces? I think while it may result from a combination of the two, it's predominantly been a result of the latter. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
Law Bringer
Member # 6489
|
written Wednesday, July 11 2007 10:12
Profile
Homepage
quote:In 1800, the world's population was approximately 978 million. 50 years before that, it was only 791 million. In 1900, the population had increased to 1.65 billion, and in 2005, it was a staggering 6.45 billion. No wonder more people died in the past century. The world's population increased exponentially. There were more people around that [b]could[/b] die. -------------------- "You're drinking liquor because you're thirsty? How nasty is your freaking water?" —Lazarus Spiderweb Chat Room Avernum RP • Summaries • OoC • Roster Shadow Vale - My site, home of the Spiderweb Chat Database, BoA Scenario Database, & the A1 Quest List, among other things. Posts: 1556 | Registered: Sunday, November 20 2005 08:00 |
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Wednesday, July 11 2007 10:22
Profile
I edited my previous post a bit. It took forever to get female Anglican priests; after that, bishops were quick, as everyone knew they would be, because there was no good sand for drawing lines in past the priest point. Did Anglicans ordain women priests — as not all Anglicans even yet do — through their own doctrine? Certainly, since Anglicanism has for centuries (though it doesn't have many centuries, compared to Rome) defined its doctrinal base as a tripod of reason, revelation, and tradition. And when Rome ordains women, it too will do so by its own doctrine, because the Pope will authorize it. That's what having a Pope is all about. The idea that Christianity is about adhering forever to an exhaustive code that can never change is a heresy. Some basic doctrines are certainly fixed, but the whole enormous issue of doctrinal authority, which the older churches have all handled at length in their various ways, presumes that lesser but still important doctrinal decisions must continually be made. Semper reformandum is one of the fixed Christian doctrines. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, July 11 2007 10:29
Profile
Okay. But it's amazing how much of a sticking point that "wives obey their husbands" bit can be - I've been to many "Put Jesus in Your Bed"-style weddings, and that always seems to show up. It does seem pretty antiquated to me, though, and I know that my wife would have some choice words for me should I try to invoke that bit of scripture. How about yours, SoT? ;) Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
Guardian
Member # 6670
|
written Wednesday, July 11 2007 10:35
Profile
Homepage
By SoT: quote:I do agree with your point that the Bible isn't exhaustive, but Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda est secundu Verbum Dei actually says the opposite of what you said in the previous paragraphs: a Reformed church must always be correcting itself to return to the Bible. It's not changing as much as reverting. EDIT: Hmmm. May be a mis-read on my part. Or I'm mis-reading the mis-read. Meh. -------------------- All those who believe in psychokinesis, raise my hand. - Steven Wright [ Wednesday, July 11, 2007 10:37: Message edited by: Dintiradan ] Posts: 1509 | Registered: Tuesday, January 10 2006 08:00 |
Shaper
Member # 6292
|
written Wednesday, July 11 2007 10:36
Profile
Tyran wrote: "the world's population was...in 2005...a staggering 6.45 billion." Has it hit 6.66 billion yet? If so, the end must be nigh. Head for the hills. -S- -------------------- A4 Items • A4 Singleton • G4 Items • G4 Forging • G4 Infiltrator • NR Items • The Lonely Celt Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00 |
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, July 11 2007 13:04
Profile
quote:(The Bible I use distinguishes between singular and plural “you” with all caps). Can a Christian retaliate to pay someone back for wrongdoing? (Matthew 5:44, 45) However, I say to YOU: Continue to love YOUR enemies and to pray for those persecuting YOU; that YOU may prove yourselves sons of YOUR Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righteous people and unrighteous. (1 Thessalonians 5:15) See that no one renders injury for injury to anyone else, but always pursue what is good toward one another and to all others. How did Jesus display this principle? (1 Peter 2:23) When he was being reviled, he did not go reviling in return. When he was suffering, he did not go threatening, but kept on committing himself to the one who judges righteously. Can a Christian kill other Christians just because they are from another country? (John 13:34, 35) “I am giving YOU a new commandment, that YOU love one another; just as I have loved YOU, that YOU also love one another. By this all will know that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love among yourselves.” Can a Christian bear arms to attack his enemies? (Matthew 26:51-53) But, look! one of those with Jesus reached out his hand and drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest and took off his ear. Then Jesus said to him: “Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father to supply me at this moment more than twelve legions of angels?” (John 18:36) Jesus answered: “My kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered up to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source.” Speaking of his disciples… (John 17:15, 16) “I request you, not to take them out of the world, but to watch over them because of the wicked one. They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world.” Can a person be a Christian without applying these laws and principles? (Matthew 7:21-23) “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew YOU! Get away from me, YOU workers of lawlessness.” quote:I did not do that. You’re making things up. How is telling wives to obey their husbands denegrading? I think you’re assuming some demigod marching around the house yelling out orders. That is not the divine way. Jesus follows God, husbands obey Jesus, wives obey their husbands, children obey their parents. That is divine order and no one is denegraded because they have to obey. Headship is not harsh and tyrannical in God’s arrangement. (Ephesians 5:25, 28, 29) “Husbands, continue loving YOUR wives, just as the Christ also loved the congregation and delivered up himself for it… In this way husbands ought to be loving their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself, for no man ever hated his own flesh; but he feeds and cherishes it, as the Christ also does the congregation.” The husband, although having headship over his wife and children, has to have a powerful love for his wife so that he cherishes her and is willing to deliver himself up for her as Jesus did. That doesn’t make him more important or better. It is simply the way God has arranged for order. Corporations select presidents and directors, not because they are better than anyone else but because organizations need leadership. The president may very well not be the smartest or most valuable player on the team, but structure is necessary nonetheless. Do you obey the government? Is that denegrading to you? Why? Is George Bush a better and smarter person than you are? You speak of patriarchies with disdain, so I thought I’d look it up to see what the accepted definition is. What I think of as a patriarchy is a social system in which the father/husband is the head of his household. The first definition on dictionary.com is this: a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe. I have a couple of problems with applying this definition to the Bible. The use of the word “supreme” and saying the children belong to the father’s clan. First God has always been the supreme authority for the households of faith from the very beginning. To illustrate this Abraham’s (the first person I think of when I hear “patriarch”) concubine and their son were causing problems in his household. Abraham’s wife kept telling Abraham to dismiss them, but he did not like that suggestion. So God says: “Do not let anything that Sarah keeps saying to you be displeasing to you about the boy and about your slave girl. Listen to her voice, because it is by means of Isaac that what will be called your seed will be. And as for the son of the slave girl, I shall also constitute him a nation, because he is your offspring.” First, Sarah felt free to keep expressing herself to her very powerful husband. And most importantly, God told Abraham to follow his wife’s instructions against his wishes and of course Abraham acquiesed. I think your view of things may not be what the Bible says and may have more to do with the abuse of womankind – something not sanctioned by God. Man and woman complete each other and are partners making a whole. The relationship is to be pleasant for both and governed by love and mutual respect. quote:I pretty much agree with that, although I would say absolutely universal because they come from the creator of the universe. quote:False. Christ calls the shots. quote:None of these things has anything to do with Christianity. They’re human creations and institutions. quote:Above I listed a scripture where Jesus said he was no part of the world and prayed to God that his disciples would remain that way. Jesus did not get involved in the politics of his day, in fact he fled when people were so overwhelmed by his activity that they tried to crown him as king. Practice of homosexuality, like any fornication, is unacceptable in the Christian congregation. What the world does is up to them, though. A person imitating Jesus would keep their nose out of political affairs. quote:These are Christian ideals! There’s hope for you yet. (1 Corinthians 10:29) “Why should it be that my freedom is judged by another person’s conscience?” Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Wednesday, July 11 2007 13:31
Profile
Homepage
A few relatively short points to cut through the slowly building quote ziggurats: Christianity is no longer based on the Bible, and Christ can't be calling the shots because he's not here. Christianity is based on hundreds or thousands of sects, some of which are rigidly organized and some of which are adamantly disorganized. Christian morals and the morals expressed by the Bible are not the same. I still don't buy your point on war. Yes, world wars that truly include the whole world (or at least most of it) are new. So is the ability to reach the whole world. I think technological and logistical advances are responsible, not some huge moral morass. Cut the words however you want, you cannot deny that the Bible treats men and women differently. You can make a separate but equal argument, but you cannot make an equivalency argument. In my view, and in the views of many others here, anything short of moral interchangeability for men and women is unacceptable. —Alorael, who thinks that gets back to one of the first points here. You say that morals are failing and the world is worse off because of it, or perhaps that the world is worse than ever before because of failing morals. Whichever way you order cause and effect, you're not going to get agreement. Many (most?) people on these forums do not believe that morals are declining or that the world is worse than it has ever been. The world is, in fact, in most ways at its peak. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 00:44
Profile
Homepage
quote:Even the bit about not coveting one's neighbour's goods? Because it seems to me that historically, societies that have tried to take that part seriously have fallen into stagnation at best. quote:Whether you like it or not, words mean what their present-day users think they mean, and that means that Christianity is whatever most people think it is, whether you like it or not, and whether Jesus would have liked it or not. That's how language works. quote:Pursuant to this, I can't resist making a Rawlsian argument at this point. Stillness, are you really saying that you would rather live the life of a randomly-selected person somewhere in the world at some time of your choosing in the past than the life of a randomly-selected person in the present day? Really? If you can seriously contemplate answering "yes" to that question, I think our worldviews are too different for us to have anything to say to each other. [ Thursday, July 12, 2007 00:52: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 03:25
Profile
Wanting your neighbor's yak is bad. But it's okay, as far as the coveting commandment is concerned, to want not their yak, but a yak of your own, just like theirs, or if possible better. This attitude is more likely to lead to production than to stagnation: stop gazing wistfully into your neighbor's field, and start working for your yak. About obedience in marriage: my wife might actually have gone for that, at least in theory, but in fact we didn't and don't buy it. I have a low view of the authority of scripture (which view is doubtless heretical) so in principle I'm happy to just disagree with the New Testament, if I have to. But what I find is that the explicit New Testament passages about subjugation of women all have something funny about them. A couple are followed by disclaimers that seem to indicate that the verses describe then-standard customs, rather than prescribing ideals. Of those that are not, the one that sticks in my mind is in (IIRC) 1 Peter, "In the same way, wives obey your husbands." But that 'in the same way' refers to the immediately preceding exhortation that slaves should obey their masters. Whatever may have been right or wrong in the early Roman empire, slavery is certainly out today. In the same way, I figure we can ditch patriarchy. About semper reformandum: Christian reform is indeed always cast as an improvement in fidelity to the true meaning of the original scriptures and/or tradition. What truly changes is the interpretation of what this true meaning is. Of course it does not change arbitrarily; the claim that the new interpretation is more accurate must be convincing. But this is a subtle game, because the text itself contains lots of divergent strands. This is not the same as saying the scriptures are self-contradictory. Any large text is bound to contain a number of contexts, and claiming contradictions between statements made in different contexts can be like insisting that Australians fall up. But once you admit that meaning depends on context, you admit a factor in interpretation that can be hard to pin down, because contextual weight can be very subjective. For example, does one interpret 'wives obey your husbands' in the light of 'there is now in Christ neither male nor female, free nor slave, Jew nor Greek'? Or does the light shine in the opposite direction? Which verse has the greater contextual weight? To me, the latter one definitely seems a lot heavier. It's a ringing peroration in a major theoretical epistle, the encapsulation of a long and crucial argument. The other statements seem to me, in comparison, to be mere boilerplate disavowals of social revolution as an immediate and primary goal. In past eras the balance of contextual weights may have seemed to tip the other way. If now it tips my way, we reform, and yet consider ourselves to be restoring the true message of the scriptures, rather than simply inventing a new message. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |