But MA, how many times have I heard you say that when Jesus came, EVERYTHING changed.
Mesquite Wrote:
Quote:But MA, how many times have I heard you say that when Jesus came, EVERYTHING changed.
I did not mean God changed, and I think you know that Mesquite. Would you be toying with me a bit here again?
Foxfyre wrote:It never ceases to amaze me how glibly the anti-religious, aka Joe and Mesquite, assign their version of 21st morality to a people and culture of more than 2000 years ago as PROOF that Christianity sucks. You might as well say that medicine of 2000 years ago is PROOF that modern medicine is all snake oil or that science of 2000 years ago is evidence that you can't trust any of it now.
Reality check. Ministers are still teaching from a 2000 years old book. Medicine is practiced with continually updated material.
Yes, and I teach from that 2000+ year old book. I added the + because most of the manuscripts included in it date back well before the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. What you don't realize, is that educated ministers teach it through the eyes of those who wrote it. Those of you trying so hard to discredit it attach 21st century language and meanings to it and thus thoroughly corrupt what is actually there.
Foxfyre wrote:The universal truths of the Bible, howver, have stood the test of time in much better shape than has many other concepts that the anti-religious think are just fine now.
Uh huh, and I am sure you keep your silence in church, avoid cameras and images or carvings of living things etc. The universal truths, they would be...sex is bad...slavery is acceptable...women are subservient?
Please refer to my previous comment. Also look up the concept of 'universal truth'. Whether those included in Shakespeare or the Old or New Testaments, the ancient meanings contain lessons for modern times but do not extrapolate into modern culture.
Foxfyre wrote:And Mesquite, what 'passage' are you asking about as being voluntary? My comment about the Christian home is that it is purely voluntary on the part of the husband and wife. Nobody can be considered oppressed or mistreated or disrespected or subjugated when the Christian wife gives the gifts of her role freely, joyfully, and without reservation. The benefits are quite remarkable and more than worth the effort.
Why do you say Christian home? Your comments could just as easily apply to any home that works out a satisfactory relationship. I would assume that a Christian home would imply living in accordance with biblical teaching and I do not see any voluntary aspect to the biblical line.
I say Christian home because I was talking about a Christian home and it was that which was being attacked as 'sexist', 'chauvenist', 'outdated', and a number of other unflattering adjectives. That you see no voluntary aspect to the Biblical line simply shows how nonobjective and inaccturate any Bible teaching you may have had has been.
We were discussing this passage; 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. , and I see no hint of voluntary in the passage. Now if you mean voluntary to the modern day Christian due to the art of picking and choosing, then I understand.
Momma Angel wrote:Mesquite Wrote:
Quote:But MA, how many times have I heard you say that when Jesus came, EVERYTHING changed.
I did not mean God changed, and I think you know that Mesquite. Would you be toying with me a bit here again?
Mesquite: Let me try to explain. When Christians, okay Intrepid, some Christians speak of change, it's change that is at their convenience and comfort. You've got a commandment that says the followers of God must slay all the men and boys of a conquered city and enslave all the women? Oh, they say, why that is no longer operative as law because it is Old Testament. See? Follow me so far? But if you have a law, even one that doesn't appear in the Old Testament text but is only referred to, like the one you have been inquiring about, that law can be brought forward by the Apostle Paul. Quite a guy that Paul, in a stroke he can wipe out 1000 years of kosher food preparation or make sure all the women of the new Christian era keep their thoughts to themselves.
Actually it was Peter who wiped out 1000 years of kosher foods, but he was taking his marching orders from the Holy Spirit. You have to actually read what's there to report accurately about these things. Paul, however, did struggle with his Jewish upbringing and obedience to the law versus his understanding that Christians are no longer bound by the law but operate under a higher principle. He finally reconciled that with the explanation of 'when in Rome, do as the Romans do' and otherwise follow common sense principles. As I said, both Jesus and Paul took exception to rigid interpretation of the law as the Pharisees taught and both were very big on common sense.
It does raise the conflict that Frank posed so long ago. The God speaks and commands his people to act in a clearly immoral way. Come'on, killing all the men and boys and enslaving all the women is clearly immoral and was immoral even when Moses wrote that little ditty down, he was looking for philosophical cover for the Israelites' actions and he got it by putting that commandment, that law, into the mouth of God. Nothing new. Been done by high priests, shamans and muftis for generations. Okay.
I doubt very seriously that Moses 'wrote a whole lot of anything down'. The Torah is attributed to Moses by ancient scholars, but the chronology simply doesn't fit and we would have to presume that Moses recorded his own death. It is probable that he did leave bits and pieces of writing in his own hand at various shrines as they trundled about the desert, and some of these no doubt were incorporated into later manuscripts, but all this is simply interesting more than really important.
What is important is that the ancient Hebrew perceived what God wanted and what God commanded very differently than was understood after Jesus came. This I think is what MommaAngel meant when she said that "Jesus changed everything'. Jesus changed humankind's perception and helped (most) to understand that God is not the angry, vindictive, demanding God they had always presumed, but is rather a loving God who wants only the best for humankind.
The instructions from prophets many hundreds of years after Moses
were different from those recorded in the earliest manuscripts--hint: you can find those contradictions C.I. was infering if you compare the earliest manuscripts with the later ones containing some of the same information, but I'm going to make him find them--he hasn't identified any yet--and instructions given to the early Church after the death and resurrection of Jesus were different still again.
The people thought, learned, prayed, and experienced things differently over the millenia and their perceptions of God changed. It's all there for any with the interest to see it. Those who do not wish to acknowledge that will of course keep plucking this verse and that verse out of context and holding them up as "proof" of the invalidity of the Christian faith.
But now you've got a problem because now someone with an actual sense of morality has to stand up and say "No, God is wrong about this." If no one stands up you are stuck with a God which sanctions mass murders. Uh oh.
It's the same with the "law", written not-written, whatever, concerning women and their place. Clearly, women and men ought to be equal creatures. They are, the last time I looked, both full and complete humans, yet we have this unwritten, but referred to, law from the sometimes, if convenient, operative Old Testament which has been brought forward by Paul (Was he Pope then? I don't remember.) So unless someone stands up and says "No, this isn't right." We are stuck with an unequal, unnatural relationship between the sexes. And, of course, all which that then portends.
Some prefer it that way. I don't doubt that it's comfortable, but it's made up law, not natural law, and the comfort comes from acquiescence and subjugation.
I think some of what man has devised, presumed, or concluded then and now is indeed 'made up' and some of it is wrong. I know that what you, Frank, Mesquite, Phoenix, and C.I. conclude from various passages has been wrong. You are all--well mostly you all--are intelligent, educated people. So if you can get it wrong, it isn't difficult to imagine that a primitive nomadic people wandering around in a desert for decades would get some of it wrong. And yes, some 'laws' were devised purely in an effort to please a God they knew and experienced but poorly understood. Jesus did away with those 'devised laws' and instituted a very different and much better way of relating to God. The Church then went ahead and committed many of the same mistakes made by their Jewish forefathers--some devised 'laws' in an attempt to please God or sometimes for less noble purposes and in effect put people back into a bondage of rules and disciplines.
And despite all this, the Church has survived, many (most?) Christians find much joy, power, help, and satisfaction in their faith, and the universal truths of the Bible are no less valid now than they were then. No amount of religious prejudice or anti-religious sentiment can take that away from those who have it. Pretty amazing huh?
For Paul himself, he kept himself well away from women his whole life. Little wonder. Meanwhile, in the words of Sojourner Truth, Christ himself was a product of a woman and a God, no man had nothing to with it.
Paul was unmarried and remained so and, because he was under the misconception that Christ's return was imminent, thought marriage to be an unnecessary distraction. Then he realized all didn't share his view of that and sanctioned marriage for those who did not wish to go without it.
But Paul 'kept himself away from women'? I think not since some of his letters were addressed to women, he had women in his administration, and spoke quite highly of them. For his time and culture, Paul really gets a bad rap as a chauvenist. He was no doubt celibate and probably was used to later consign mandatory celibacy to Roman Catholic priests for many generations, but I never implied that we humans have got it all figured out yet.
Joe(if the prison is large enough, the inmates notice not their plight.)Nation
One non-believer trying to explain it to another non-believer. Doesn't matter if they understand what they are saying....they will still be in agreement. Knowledge is not important at this point, presenting preconceived notions of what was meant in the bible and then finding ways to discredit them is all that matters. mesquite wrote:Foxfyre wrote:It never ceases to amaze me how glibly the anti-religious, aka Joe and Mesquite, assign their version of 21st morality to a people and culture of more than 2000 years ago as PROOF that Christianity sucks. You might as well say that medicine of 2000 years ago is PROOF that modern medicine is all snake oil or that science of 2000 years ago is evidence that you can't trust any of it now.
Reality check. Ministers are still teaching from a 2000 years old book. Medicine is practiced with continually updated material.
Yes, and I teach from that 2000+ year old book. I added the + because most of the manuscripts included in it date back well before the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. What you don't realize, is that educated ministers teach it through the eyes of those who wrote it. Those of you trying so hard to discredit it attach 21st century language and meanings to it and thus thoroughly corrupt what is actually there.
Yes, of course some of the Bible is much older than 2000 years and some of it is a bit newer than 2000 years. So what? The important point is that it is stuck in a time warp, never to improve, unless some of your educated ministers would like to rewrite a 21st century version so that believers would not have to role play for understanding. I rather doubt that will happen though.
Foxfyre wrote:The universal truths of the Bible, howver, have stood the test of time in much better shape than has many other concepts that the anti-religious think are just fine now.
Uh huh, and I am sure you keep your silence in church, avoid cameras and images or carvings of living things etc. The universal truths, they would be...sex is bad...slavery is acceptable...women are subservient?
Please refer to my previous comment. Also look up the concept of 'universal truth'. Whether those included in Shakespeare or the Old or New Testaments, the ancient meanings contain lessons for modern times but do not extrapolate into modern culture.
I took your advice and looked up "universal truth" There are many but I suspect this one is applicable to this discussion. "Everything makes sense to someone"
Foxfyre wrote:And Mesquite, what 'passage' are you asking about as being voluntary? My comment about the Christian home is that it is purely voluntary on the part of the husband and wife. Nobody can be considered oppressed or mistreated or disrespected or subjugated when the Christian wife gives the gifts of her role freely, joyfully, and without reservation. The benefits are quite remarkable and more than worth the effort.
Why do you say Christian home? Your comments could just as easily apply to any home that works out a satisfactory relationship. I would assume that a Christian home would imply living in accordance with biblical teaching and I do not see any voluntary aspect to the biblical line.
I say Christian home because I was talking about a Christian home and it was that which was being attacked as 'sexist', 'chauvenist', 'outdated', and a number of other unflattering adjectives. That you see no voluntary aspect to the Biblical line simply shows how nonobjective and inaccturate any Bible teaching you may have had has been.
Ah, yes, blame it on the teaching for the inability to interpret dooky as perfume.
We were discussing this passage; 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. , and I see no hint of voluntary in the passage. Now if you mean voluntary to the modern day Christian due to the art of picking and choosing, then I understand.
You didn't even read the explanation, did you? In fact, I think most of you anti-religion types who hold Christian teachings in contempt are not even trying to comprehend the explanations given because they do not fit with the pre-conceived negative point of view you have to hold in order to attack them. If you read the passage closely--I believe it is erroneously attributed to the Apostle Paul--you will see that it is an instruction from one presumed church leader to another and that particular passage expresses that particular church leader's policy. It is not purported to be from "God's ear to yours'. Say what? That was the point of my simple question, "what law?" The phrase "as also saith the law" is a clear reference to God's Law. The Church was very young and finding its way and operating in a time and culture very different from our own.
You will note that most Christian churches are no longer organized specifically as expressed in the Book of Timothy. Intelligent people can take the universal truths expressed in the scriptures and apply them to our modern time and culture.
The explanation for that particular rule of decorum has been explained in prior posts. If you are incapable of reading or understanding it, please say so and we'll try to put it into simpler language.
What that all boils down to is that some people will find what ever they want in the Bible to reinforce their own values and prejudices. As a moral guide it is less than useless and a net drag on modern civilizations.
Some of the most knowledgeable posters on biblical issues in this forum cannot even agree on the trinity or the existence of Hell to mention just two areas of not minor issues.
No need to lecture me on my ability to interpret biblical literature. I do not post trick passages out of context in an attempt to make something look bad that is not. There is far too much which is plainly crapola for that to be necessary. For example, the slaughter and rape of children in Numbers 31.
Would you like to attempt to put a positive spin on that one? Go ahead and read it through the eyes of those who wrote it, and then report back with the moral lessons we can extract from it to apply to the war we are engaged in today.
