Intellectual Honesty?

[cvanwey]

No it isn't. Non-Christians have no access to "Christian Apologetics" unless they first read and agree to the SoP for that forum, and indicate their agreement on the forum signup thread.

If I understand the situation correctly, the OP doesn't wish to do that.

Actually, I was not aware, and will certainly attempt to do so in a new post. I want Christianity to be true. However, in being honest with myself, the more I explore 'objectively', without personal bias and emotion, the less it appears to serve reality.

Thnx

 

[cvanwey]

I think that many times people only look at scripture from their own 2018 viewpoint, but scripture has existed throughout history and things were not like 2018 for most of history.

Then is it actually objective or unchanging? If God knows that times will later change, where it's discovered that women can be leaders, and not denied the same leadership rights as men, merely because of their possessed genitalia, then wouldn't a more universal message be conveyed in a claimed 'forever' book? It appears more rational it was written by chauvinistic men, which was the norm for it's time period.

My second point is that a man making the final decision in the family is how God set things up in the Bible. The problem arises because people have to add their own experiences and biases of life to what God says.

Please read my response directly above again.

My last point is that I think back in the days of the apostles, if women spoke up I think it was a big issue. Women in Hebrew culture could not inherit and had little rights, so IMHO I think of a woman spoke up it would cause issues between say her husband and the elders or say her son and the elders.

Please read my response directly above again.

 

[Radagast]

Any religious text is valid to get to God.

No.

Just, no.

 

[GodsGrace101]

No.

Just, no.

OK OK!

Have you read Romans 1:20?
What do you make of it?

 

[Hawkins]

If one does not agree with 1 Timothy 2:11-12 (A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.), but claims Christianity, how might one reconcile their faith in an intellectually honesty way?

Thank you in advance for any/all responses.

First, men and women didn't receive equal education back then. The reason Paul said this is because women back then didn't have the biblical knowledge to make a speech on stage. A women could make an equal position inside the church usually by her charisma or even the use of adultery. It's because of her lack of biblical knowledge that usually her doctrine is randomly fabricated and not subject to any logical and biblical refutation. That's why Paul made those comments.

Second, do you mean to say that today's "equal" status of men and women can build a more healthy society? I have to disagree then. Today's divorce rate is all time high. Today's families are never stable ones. This subsequently affects negatively how the kids grow. I speculate that the family relationship portrayed by the Bible however can build a more healthy society.

 

[JackRT]

First, men and women didn't receive equal education back then. The reason Paul said this is because women back then didn't have the biblical knowledge to make a speech on stage. A women could make an equal position inside the church usually by her charisma or even the use of adultery. It's because of her lack of biblical knowledge that usually her doctrine is randomly fabricated and not subject to any logical and biblical refutation. That's why Paul made those comments.

Second, do you mean to say that today's "equal" status of men and women can build a more healthy society? I have to disagree then. Today's divorce rate is all time high. Today's families are never stable ones. This subsequently affects negatively how the kids grow. I speculate that the family relationship portrayed by the Bible however can build a more healthy society.

The fact is that the patriarchy of Biblical times and almost ever since is now dying a slow and painful death. This is long overdue and it necessitates changes in beliefs and behaviours and societal structures and these change slowly. In short, we are in a time of transition.


"It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out nor more dangerous to handle than to initiate a new order of things; for the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order; and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order; this lukewarmness arising partly from the incredulity of mankind who does not believe in anything new until they actually have experience of it."
~~~Niccolo Machiavelli

 

[Hawkins]

The fact is that the patriarchy of Biblical times and almost ever since is now dying a slow and painful death. This is long overdue and it necessitates changes in beliefs and behaviours and societal structures and these change slowly. In short, we are in a time of transition.


"It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out nor more dangerous to handle than to initiate a new order of things; for the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order; and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order; this lukewarmness arising partly from the incredulity of mankind who does not believe in anything new until they actually have experience of it."
~~~Niccolo Machiavelli

That happens and is happening. My point is what the Bible says is what was intended as a design. I thus speculate that it's a better one.

 

[cvanwey]

First, men and women didn't receive equal education back then. The reason Paul said this is because women back then didn't have the biblical knowledge to make a speech on stage. A women could make an equal position inside the church usually by her charisma or even the use of adultery. It's because of her lack of biblical knowledge that usually her doctrine is randomly fabricated and not subject to any logical and biblical refutation. That's why Paul made those comments.

God was not aware that later down the road, that women would become literate, or 'better' taught? The verse has not been updated. Does this mean this 'law' was a subjective law? Meaning, it does actually change later, and we, as humans, are supposed to determine when this law no longer becomes valid, without an update from the God of the Bible??

Most men were illiterate at this time, as well. Seems more logical for the verse to state only teach if you are literate, not instead because you own a vagina. These verses seems to more fall in line with the times. Meaning, most males were chauvinists.

Second, do you mean to say that today's "equal" status of men and women can build a more healthy society? I have to disagree then. Today's divorce rate is all time high. Today's families are never stable ones. This subsequently affects negatively how the kids grow. I speculate that the family relationship portrayed by the Bible however can build a more healthy society.

I wouldn't even know where to begin, with all the blanket assertions made? Families are 'never' 'stable'? "More healthy society"?

 

[Uber Genius]

If one does not agree with 1 Timothy 2:11-12 (A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.), but claims Christianity, how might one reconcile their faith in an intellectually honesty way?

Thank you in advance for any/all responses.

Paul also tells Timothy to get circumcised. And tells Christian women to wear veils in church, and prohibits Christians from eating food sacrificed to idols.

In general, if you lift any scenario out of its ancient context and transport it 1000s of years into the future and remark about its absurdity you have just committed a textbook example of anachronism.

So we are not called as Christians to adopt the 1st century Greek, Roman, and Jewish cultural standards carte blanche. We are called to understand the context and determine which items are culturally bound and which are trans-cultural across time.

This process is call hermeneutics.

Now there is much debate whether Paul's commands are still in force today. It is a controversial issue. I believe it is not in force.

I have sat under women teachers and leaders. I am more than happy to attend a church with a woman assistant pastor.

Part of the beauty of Christianity is that there is only a small set of beliefs one must hold. Who Christ is, and his death and resurrection, desire to enter into a relationship with him as Lord. Women pastors, how we live a moral life (to drink or not to drink), end times views, various theologies are all secondary.

There are a plethora of denominational and non-denominational Christian expressions available.

 

[cvanwey]

Paul also tells Timothy to get circumcised. And tells Christian women to wear veils in church, and prohibits Christians from eating food sacrificed to idols.

In general, if you lift any scenario out of its ancient context and transport it 1000s of years into the future and remark about its absurdity you have just committed a textbook example of anachronism.

No. If one wants to claim this book provides objective standards, then please replace/substitute the word 'anachronism' with 'rationalization'.

As stated prior, the observation is made that woman are not to teach, period. It is only because humans have decided to change, based upon our own local moral standards (which now contradict 1 Timothy 2:11-12). It is very simple:

'A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.'

The above is pretty clear. Objective instructions do not change, unless such caveats are injected in context...

So we are not called as Christians to adopt the 1st century Greek, Roman, and Jewish cultural standards carte blanche. We are called to understand the context and determine which items are culturally bound and which are trans-cultural across time.

I do not see an expiration date on 1 Timothy 2:11-12

This process is call hermeneutics.

And yet, give the above verses to ten scholars and watch the fireworks show; using their own 'objective' and literal interpretation of such verses There exists no universal standard for Hermeneutics. To mention this topic/subject only becomes more subjective agents judging scripture.

Now there is much debate whether Paul's commands are still in force today. It is a controversial issue. I believe it is not in force.

I have sat under women teachers and leaders. I am more than happy to attend a church with a woman assistant pastor.

And in doing so, if the Bible actually demonstrates objective dictates, you are in direct violation of scripture

Part of the beauty of Christianity is that there is only a small set of beliefs one must hold.

Yes, hence the title of this thread 'intellectual honesty.' You simply discard/rationalize/ignore the parts you do not agree with...

Who Christ is, and his death and resurrection, desire to enter into a relationship with him as Lord. Women pastors, how we live a moral life (to drink or not to drink), end times views, various theologies are all secondary.

There are a plethora of denominational and non-denominational Christian expressions available.

Now all that is required, is to demonstrate any of these supernatural claims, while not appealing to circular reasoning, hearsay, oral tradition, and growing legendary tales.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Actually, I was not aware, and will certainly attempt to do so in a new post. I want Christianity to be true. However, in being honest with myself, the more I explore 'objectively', without personal bias and emotion, the less it appears to serve reality.

Thnx

...and that's when you double down on studying the complications of epistemology, cvanwey, as well as send up a little prayer saying, "Lord, please help me see!"

 

[cvanwey]

...and that's when you double down on studying the complications of epistemology, cvanwey, as well as send up a little prayer saying, "Lord, please help me see!"

I prayed for 30 years, in accordance with Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23, with no perceived Godly communication forthcoming.

So to move forward, as you suggest, would only prove purposefully self-diluting myself...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I prayed for 30 years, in accordance with Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23, with no perceived Godly communication forthcoming.

So to move forward, as you suggest, would only prove purposefully self-diluting myself...

...that's assuming that you and I both understand the purpose and process of prayer, in which case I'd say that prayer is typically NOT the often proffered Charismatic/Faith Movement formula. In fact, you might want to try reading W. Bingham Hunter's book, The God Who Hears, before completely tossing in the towel on the Christian faith. (Yes, and just to give a spoiler, the title of Hunter's book indicates that God's Hearing us isn't necessarily tantamount to His doing for us what we would like to see happen in ipso facto terms.)

Anyway, just a suggestion. Or, you can get your boxing gloves on and we can bout it out. [Oops! I forgot where I put my boxing gloves ... ].

 

[cvanwey]

...that's assuming that you and I both understand the purpose and process of prayer, in which case I'd say that prayer is typically NOT the often proffered Charismatic/Faith Movement formula. In fact, you might want to try reading W. Bingham Hunter's book, The God Who Hears, before completely tossing in the towel on the Christian faith. (Yes, and just to give a spoiler, the title of Hunter's book indicates that God's Hearing us isn't necessarily tantamount to His doing for us what we would like to see happen in ipso facto terms.)

Anyway, just a suggestion. Or, you can get your boxing gloves on and we can bout it out. [Oops! I forgot where I put my boxing gloves ... ].

How do all other Christians hear/receive messages, if they did not read this book?

Seems as though this would be a rather large discovery, in such a book... I figured maybe such a book would be better known? I mean, this would be just about the largest discovery in recent human history, from my estimation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How do all other Christians hear/receive messages, if they did not read this book?

Seems as though this would be a rather large discovery, I figured maybe such a book would be better known? I mean, this would be just about the largest discovery in human history, from my estimation.

Well, there is the "principle" of commercial and capitalist wishful thinking that seems to be able to produce a sudden wave of 'other' choices (even false choices) onto the market of ideas. Of course, this might be why Jesus and His apostles basically said to all of us to be careful who we listen to, right?

 

[cvanwey]

Well, there is the "principle" of commercial and capitalist wishful thinking that seems to be able to produce a sudden wave of 'other' choices (even false choices) onto the market of ideas. Of course, this might be why Jesus and His apostles basically said to all of us to be careful who we listen to, right?

If I only have my brain to determine natural (vs) possible supernatural communication, how am I supposed to conclude which voices are from my own thoughts, verses God, verses Satan, verses other?

What special proxy agent do some possess, which I apparently do not?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If I only have my brain to determine natural (vs) possible supernatural communication, how am I supposed to conclude which voices are from my own thoughts, verses God, verses Satan, verses other?

What special proxy agent do some possess, which I apparently do not?

You need a proxy agent? I don't, and I don't think you do either. In fact, I'm confident that your brain is as good as mine (maybe better). So, with that being the case, you should be able to make your way forward fairly well.

 

[cvanwey]

You need a proxy agent? I don't, and I don't think you do either. In fact, I'm confident that your brain is as good as mine (maybe better). So, with that being the case, you should be able to make your way forward fairly well.

I am able to make my way forward... But unfortunately, much of the Bible does not appear to enter the equation any longer; after much honest study...

Which is quite a bummer, since I wanted it to be true very much so; as I was raised in it, and wholeheartedly believed many assertions presented from the Bible... (prior to intense study).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am able to make my way forward... But unfortunately, much of the Bible does not appear to enter the equation any longer; after much honest study...

Ok. It's understandable that you could reach this conclusion. That is one rational outcome, but it's not the only rational outcome. Besides, this is how you feel about it today; tomorrow may come, and it often does, during which time you might touch upon new strands of understanding.

Which is quite a bummer, since I wanted it to be true very much so; as I was raised in it, and wholeheartedly believed many assertions presented from the Bible... (prior to intense study).

Well, I've had episodes in my life where existential crisis poured in a like a raging wave and I thought I'd be lucky if my faith remained intact. But then, after some time passed and my perceptions grew and changed, I slowly began to see some things in different ways which allowed for my faith--what moderate to little I'll admit that I have compared to those who claim to be spiritual giants--to return.

I'm not going to offer any formula for "getting faith," because I don't think it all works that way. Yet I will suggest for you to keep your sails up since you can never see the wind coming ...

 

[JackRT]

Luke 12:57--- Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?