Why do some men minimise or deny the reality of domestic violence?

[Paidiske]

It's translating enubrizo, "to insult, outrage." "Despite unto" is a very strange and archaic construction now.

 

[SkyWriting]

It's translating enubrizo, "to insult, outrage." "Despite unto" is a very strange and archaic construction now.

"has outraged the Spirit of grace?"
You and you alone have created a very strange construction, now.
Thousands of people have translated this working in teams.
Here


Read that to be "insulted the Spirit of grace".
Not "The Spirit of grace was outraged".

Back to your question....No. There is no room for outrage. Mostly never.
Unless your church sells beer or had games of a gambling type at
church festivals.

 

[Paidiske]

The NRSV uses "outrage." So it's not me and me alone.

However. The point stands. I could go and find countless examples of God being angry or God's servants being rightly angry.

And I submit that abuse is one situation at which it is reasonable both for Christians to be angry and to extrapolate God's anger from God's known attitudes.

 

[SkyWriting]

The NRSV uses "outrage." So it's not me and me alone.

However. The point stands. I could go and find countless examples of God being angry or God's servants being rightly angry.

And I submit that abuse is one situation at which it is reasonable both for Christians to be angry and to extrapolate God's anger from God's known attitudes.

The point failed. Your example was the Spirit was being outraged upon.


Further examples will show that God does not get angry, but writers have
illustrated it as such. Being human, we have few ways to explain things.
It impossible for God to get angry unless He was getting "angry" at Himself.
He knows the outcome and source of every event and has the power to
change something before it started. Anger is impossible. But some stories
do illustrate it as such, but from a very human perspective only.

The scriptures are perfect in that the story of God's love for us manages
to get through the retelling, literacy, translating, and editing by humans.
It is Spiritually perfect. As you've discovered, even the sentence
structure can cause confusion here and there. Literacy is not perfect.
Seminarians are far from perfect teachers. My home church was where
the seminary teachers went for worship. Some were kooky.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

If Scripture can speak of even the Holy Spirit being outraged (as in Hebrews 10:29), does that not suggest there is a place for it in the Christian life?

Isn't that text is referring to a gospel issue not a feminist platform?

Isn't the writer of Hebrews dealing with people running back to works of the law to justify themselves, and abandoning their faith in Christ? Isn't that what the Holy Spirt is outraged about? Is it proper exegesis to applying the verse to anything that outrages us personally?

 

[Paidiske]

I was simply arguing that outrage is not intrinsically wrong.

But you know what? Feminism is a gospel issue. In the shadow of the cross there is no place for oppression of one human being, or one group of human beings, by another.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I was simply arguing that outrage is not intrinsically wrong.

But you know what? Feminism is a gospel issue. In the shadow of the cross there is no place for oppression of one human being, or one group of human beings, by another.

What exactly is your definition of the gospel?

 

[Paidiske]

I don't usually have to distil the kerygma down into a sentence, but if I were to try, it would come out something like, "Jesus Christ came down from heaven for us, and for our salvation; for our sake he was crucified; he rose again and ascended into heaven, and his kingdom will have no end." (As you can see, that's basically taking soteriological points out of the Nicene Creed, which would be my go-to starting point for orthodox Christian belief).

And then in unpacking what the kingdom of Christ really means we discover the fundamental equality and dignity of all human beings, and our obligation to live in ways which make that a concrete reality.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I don't usually have to distil the kerygma down into a sentence, but if I were to try, it would come out something like, "Jesus Christ came down from heaven for us, and for our salvation; for our sake he was crucified; he rose again and ascended into heaven, and his kingdom will have no end." (As you can see, that's basically taking soteriological points out of the Nicene Creed, which would be my go-to starting point for orthodox Christian belief).

And then in unpacking what the kingdom of Christ really means we discover the fundamental equality and dignity of all human beings, and our obligation to live in ways which make that a concrete reality.

If your are correct in your explaining of the gospel (the first paragraph) how does the outworking of it match your second paragraph? Leaving out your definition of equality for the moment, when did Christ ever state a purpose of bringing "equality for all"? Are we not on His mission, and has He not prescribed that mission as making disciples, baptizing, teaching all that He commanded?

 

[Paidiske]

If your are correct in your explaining of the gospel (the first paragraph) how does the outworking of it match your second paragraph? Leaving out your definition of equality for the moment, when did Christ ever state a purpose of bringing "equality for all"? Are we not on His mission, and has He not prescribed that mission as making disciples, baptizing, teaching all that He commanded?

‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.’

That was Jesus, reading from Isaiah in the synagogue at Nazareth at the beginning of his ministry (according to Luke). To release the captives, to free the oppressed, to bring the Lord's favour... that looks to me like a raising up of those who have been made less than equal; an affording them the dignity of being also in the image of God and having a place in the kingdom of God. (And so on; you get the gist).

Should we ignore this, in living as Christians?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.’

That was Jesus, reading from Isaiah in the synagogue at Nazareth at the beginning of his ministry (according to Luke). To release the captives, to free the oppressed, to bring the Lord's favour... that looks to me like a raising up of those who have been made less than equal; an affording them the dignity of being also in the image of God and having a place in the kingdom of God. (And so on; you get the gist).

Should we ignore this, in living as Christians?

We shouldn't ignore it. We should properly understand it.

Retaining your first paragraph from your earlier post, which is the gospel, how does what Jesus said above fit with that? Is not everything Jesus states above regarding salvation for sinners?

Did Jesus let the those (truly) oppressed by Rome physically free from Roman rule?

Was not Jesus referring to restoring spiritual sight? If it's physical, how have you been continuing this work?

Did Jesus release everyone who was imprisioned (captives)? Or, was He referring to we who are captives to sin and satan?

Did Jesus bring good news to the financially poor, e.g., there is a pot of gold under that tree. Or, is He referring to the riches of knowing Him and His redemptive work to the spiritually bankrupt?

Are you not trying desperately to attach your social gospel to the true gospel? Where so you find a word about your version of equality coming from His mouth? Where in the above is He endorsing socialism?

He came to restore sight to the blind. . .

 

[Catherineanne]

‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.’

That was Jesus, reading from Isaiah in the synagogue at Nazareth at the beginning of his ministry (according to Luke). To release the captives, to free the oppressed, to bring the Lord's favour... that looks to me like a raising up of those who have been made less than equal; an affording them the dignity of being also in the image of God and having a place in the kingdom of God. (And so on; you get the gist).

Should we ignore this, in living as Christians?

All of that and more, yes.

Christ is proclaiming himself as the Jubilee; the Year of the Lord's Favour.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_(biblical)

 

[Paidiske]

We shouldn't ignore it. We should properly understand it.

Retaining your first paragraph from your earlier post, which is the gospel, how does what Jesus said above fit with that? Is not everything Jesus states above regarding salvation for sinners?

Did Jesus let the those (truly) oppressed by Rome physically free from Roman rule?

Was not Jesus referring to restoring spiritual sight? If it's physical, how have you been continuing this work?

Did Jesus release everyone who was imprisioned (captives)? Or, was He referring to we who are captives to sin and satan?

Did Jesus bring good news to the financially poor, e.g., there is a pot of gold under that tree. Or, is He referring to the riches of knowing Him and His redemptive work to the spiritually bankrupt?

Are you not trying desperately to attach your social gospel to the true gospel? Where so you find a word about your version of equality coming from His mouth? Where in the above is He endorsing socialism?

He came to restore sight to the blind. . .

No, I don't think you can reduce the kingdom of God to salvation for sinners. It is that, but it is so much more.

Christians who live and work to make the kingdom of God a reality will seek to reform oppressive rule, to reduce poverty and alleviate ill health, and so on and so forth. The gospel is social as well as spiritual.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

No, I don't think you can reduce the kingdom of God to salvation for sinners. It is that, but it is so much more.

Christians who live and work to make the kingdom of God a reality will seek to reform oppressive rule, to reduce poverty and alleviate ill health, and so on and so forth. The gospel is social as well as spiritual.

Repeating your narrative while avoiding my questions has not gone unnoticed, and it signals that you are not being intellectually honest, which is the basis for any productive discussion.

 

[Paidiske]

I was trying to answer your questions.

Perhaps we can come at this another way. Brian, why do you think the kingdom of God is only to do with salvation from sin, and nothing to do with dealing with social issues of oppression, poverty, health, and so forth?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I was trying to answer your questions.

Perhaps we can come at this another way. Brian, why do you think the kingdom of God is only to do with salvation from sin, and nothing to do with dealing with social issues of oppression, poverty, health, and so forth?

I won't continue (which is OK with me, and likely is for you) if you don't answer the questions in my previous post.

 

[Paidiske]

I thought I did. Perhaps I thought you would understand the implications of my point. Let's do this the long way, then.

Retaining your first paragraph from your earlier post, which is the gospel, how does what Jesus said above fit with that? Is not everything Jesus states above regarding salvation for sinners?

How does the Isaiah manifesto fit with the kingdom of God? It is the content of the kingdom of God. It's what the kingdom of God is intended to make real in our experience. As such, what Jesus states is about salvation for sinners, yes, but also much more. (Or perhaps I should say, "salvation" as understood very broadly, to do with healing and personal wellbeing, not just "not going to hell").

Did Jesus let the those (truly) oppressed by Rome physically free from Roman rule?

Not immediately. But he condemned that oppression and commanded his followers to be a community of people who did things differently, a community which would be salt and light in that oppressive world. To the extent that Christians have political agency, he required them to use it in ways which would make a difference.

There's something here too about already-inaugurated eschatology, but perhaps we don't want to go there in this thread. I have no idea what your eschatology is like.

Was not Jesus referring to restoring spiritual sight? If it's physical, how have you been continuing this work?

Didn't Jesus heal the blind? There's a spiritual dimension to this, yes, but that's not all there is. As to the second part of your question, I prefer not to discuss how I manage my charitable giving in detail.

Did Jesus release everyone who was imprisioned (captives)? Or, was He referring to we who are captives to sin and satan?

This is getting tedious now. Can I just put "See above answers about Roman rule and so forth"?

Did Jesus bring good news to the financially poor, e.g., there is a pot of gold under that tree. Or, is He referring to the riches of knowing Him and His redemptive work to the spiritually bankrupt?

Isn't inaugurating a kingdom in which the poor are not to be exploited good news to the financially poor? Isn't what Paul calls a "fair balance" in 2 Corinthians 8:13 good news to the financially poor? So again, yeah, sure, spiritual dimension but that isn't the whole story.

Are you not trying desperately to attach your social gospel to the true gospel? Where so you find a word about your version of equality coming from His mouth? Where in the above is He endorsing socialism?

I see the "true gospel" as having profound social implications. It's not "my" social gospel, it's the gospel of Jesus Christ, applied at every level of human life.

As for socialism, it's a political/economic bunch of ideas which developed in the 19th century (admittedly with much earlier roots), and it would be anachronistic to attribute it to Jesus. Jesus is not a Marxist; his kingdom is above all human political systems and brings them all into judgement.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I thought I did. Perhaps I thought you would understand the implications of my point. Let's do this the long way, then.

Retaining your first paragraph from your earlier post, which is the gospel, how does what Jesus said above fit with that? Is not everything Jesus states above regarding salvation for sinners?

How does the Isaiah manifesto fit with the kingdom of God? It is the content of the kingdom of God. It's what the kingdom of God is intended to make real in our experience. As such, what Jesus states is about salvation for sinners, yes, but also much more. (Or perhaps I should say, "salvation" as understood very broadly, to do with healing and personal wellbeing, not just "not going to hell").

Did Jesus let the those (truly) oppressed by Rome physically free from Roman rule?

Not immediately. But he condemned that oppression and commanded his followers to be a community of people who did things differently, a community which would be salt and light in that oppressive world. To the extent that Christians have political agency, he required them to use it in ways which would make a difference.

There's something here too about already-inaugurated eschatology, but perhaps we don't want to go there in this thread. I have no idea what your eschatology is like.

Was not Jesus referring to restoring spiritual sight? If it's physical, how have you been continuing this work?

Didn't Jesus heal the blind? There's a spiritual dimension to this, yes, but that's not all there is. As to the second part of your question, I prefer not to discuss how I manage my charitable giving in detail.

Did Jesus release everyone who was imprisioned (captives)? Or, was He referring to we who are captives to sin and satan?

This is getting tedious now. Can I just put "See above answers about Roman rule and so forth"?

Did Jesus bring good news to the financially poor, e.g., there is a pot of gold under that tree. Or, is He referring to the riches of knowing Him and His redemptive work to the spiritually bankrupt?

Isn't inaugurating a kingdom in which the poor are not to be exploited good news to the financially poor? Isn't what Paul calls a "fair balance" in 2 Corinthians 8:13 good news to the financially poor? So again, yeah, sure, spiritual dimension but that isn't the whole story.

Are you not trying desperately to attach your social gospel to the true gospel? Where so you find a word about your version of equality coming from His mouth? Where in the above is He endorsing socialism?

I see the "true gospel" as having profound social implications. It's not "my" social gospel, it's the gospel of Jesus Christ, applied at every level of human life.

As for socialism, it's a political/economic bunch of ideas which developed in the 19th century (admittedly with much earlier roots), and it would be anachronistic to attribute it to Jesus. Jesus is not a Marxist; his kingdom is above all human political systems and brings them all into judgement.

Thank you, but rather than answer, you evaded much, which is no different than your earlier post.

 

[Paidiske]

I'm not evading, I'm genuinely trying to answer. I'm trying to put in front of you a vision of the kingdom of God which leaves no aspect of human life unredeemed. Why is that not coming through from what I've posted?

 

[vnct0000]

The statistics are there. They're not invented and they're pretty frightening, when we look at the reality of what proportion of women are abused in their own home.

So why, instead of being outraged and working with us to eradicate this, do so many men seem to want to minimise or deny it?

I honestly don't understand what good comes of trying to pretend this isn't real.

it's perhaps a manifestation of a male-dominated society. laws are predominantly made by men, interpreted by men and enforced by men. it is a social imbalance. it is men who create the wars throughout the earth. it is men who commit violent crimes.

my living parents are both men, homosexual pedophile. my father was charged with manslaughter (unconvicted though guilty) and his husband served 20 years in prison for kidnapping. yet they believe that its the rest of the world that has the problem.