• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

When two worldviews collide.

2PhiloVoid

Copernican Political Pundit!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,585
11,476
Space Mountain!
✟1,355,975.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It's irrelevant whether or not you think they were real or not.
Yes, it is relevant----because what "I think" is drawn from various strands of scholarship (even competing scholarship). Don't ever tell me that what I thnk is irrelevant when you don't actually know that it is. You haven't engaged my sources or my perspective one iota, so you have close to ZERO justification for evaluating how much "relevance" what I think actually has.
I don't believe my interpretation of Eves temptation is at all contrived. She was deceived, however she was deciev d based upon what looked good to her. What was the temptation again?

The serpent said to the woman, “It is not true that you will surely die; because God knows that on the day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it had a pleasing appearance and that the tree was desirable for making one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her; and he ate.
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 3:4, Genesis 3:5, Genesis 3:6 - Complete Jewish Bible

You will be like God. You will not die. Eve saw it was good for food. It looked good to eat, she desired it to eat. She also wanted it to be like God. A desire for power of knowledge and wisdom.
Why don't you compare the 'female evaluative outlook' that Eve seems to express in the Genesis passage with that of the Proverbs 31 woman....

... in my interpretive evaluation they're not dissimilar.

When Paul says that Eve was deceived, that's what he means, and to be deceived in the way that he describes precludes the automatic assumption that Eve was simply being manipulative and/or purposely self-seeking. I'll be more than happy to pit my Hermeneutical sources against yours. No problem. In fact, I have a feeling that your biblical interpretation is done on your own private steam rather than from more extensive learning and education.

Show me that I'm wrong, rjs330! SHOW ME YOUR SOURCES so I can engage them !!!!!
As to your third point I already acknowledged that men have been in control politically since the beginning of time. But just cause they were in control doesn't mean they are worse than women. It just means they were in control. Had women been in control then their sins and desire would have been out front. Just look at the women today who have political power. I won't go naming them but you get the point. Give women the power men had and things wouldn't be any better. They might be different, but not better.

Now if course there is no way to prove that since they weren't. And there is no way to prove that they would have been any better cause they weren't. But women are not any less sinful than men. Their sins just might look different. So don't think your several hundred sources will make any difference because they won't refute anything I said. Because I fully acknowledge that men have been in control. I'm saying if women had been it wouldn't have been better, just different b cause women are just as bad a sinner as men it's just different sin.

I never said that women aren't "sinners" too. This is a tangent introduced by you that isn't a part of the equation here.


And yes, my several hundred sources do a fine job of dismantling what you've all too over-confidently asserted. My guess is that, like so many fellow Christians, you'll refuse to engage those sources fully, accurately and robustely in order to just hand-wave away any critiques that you find personally affronting. ... to do so isn't exactly the height of intellectual honesty or integrity. It's time for Christians everywhere to stop appealing to superficial, cardboard thick answers and do the work of critical thinking.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: FireDragon76
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,061
9,032
65
✟429,080.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
All of us, as a community.
How and why?
People won't seek to do the right thing by others without force?
This is a have you stopped beating your wife question. Who says it's the right thing to do? What if it's not the right thing to do.
From what I can find online, there are more people who want to job share, but employers aren't open to it.
That doesn't counter my point that there aren't enough workers to do that.
I'm providing context.
No you twisted what I said. And I countered it.


Your whole argument rests on a false dichotomoy between working and raising a child. It is very possible to both work and raise a child well. Until you get that, the rest of this conversation is going to rest on false premises.
Not at all. Women CHOOSE to raise a child instead of working. They would rather be home with their child than work. It's their choice. Now I'm not making some claim that ALL women want to do that. Some women would rather work than stay home. While others would rather stay home.

Some mothers are better mothers than others. Stay home work whatever. They may not be a good mom. Staying home doesn't automatically make you a good mom. Working doesn't automatically make you a bad mom.

But it's the moms choice. And often they choose to stay home and do t want to work outside the home until the kids are in school. Not because they'd rather be working but because they'd rather stay home. Until you get that the conversation is going to rest on a false premise of moms would rather be working. Or working AND staying home.
 
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
10,078
7,209
70
Midwest
✟368,334.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That's very interesting. I hadn't come across that before.

Fowler's definition of Stage 4 isn't a perfect fit, but it's very close indeed. And reading about his stage 5 it tends to fit as well. Although science was my 'next stage of awareness.' Specifically evolution and more specifically evolutionary psychology. I'll read more.
It seems to be a process of individuation, letting go of external authority and claiming inner authority.. Stage 5 independently, critically and freely reclaims some of the symbols of earlier stage.

When two world views collide they are often a conflict between these stages.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paidiske
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Copernican Political Pundit!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,585
11,476
Space Mountain!
✟1,355,975.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Moving into Fowler Stage 4. Congratulations.

Lol! I seem to have begun in Stage 5 and have thus stayed in Stage 5. Not that that has made me happier than anyone else where religion is concerned ...
 
Upvote 0

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
8,081
2,557
✟263,306.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
How and why?

This is a have you stopped beating your wife question. Who says it's the right thing to do? What if it's not the right thing to do.

That doesn't counter my point that there aren't enough workers to do that.

No you twisted what I said. And I countered it.



Not at all. Women CHOOSE to raise a child instead of working. They would rather be home with their child than work. It's their choice. Now I'm not making some claim that ALL women want to do that. Some women would rather work than stay home. While others would rather stay home.

Some mothers are better mothers than others. Stay home work whatever. They may not be a good mom. Staying home doesn't automatically make you a good mom. Working doesn't automatically make you a bad mom.

But it's the moms choice. And often they choose to stay home and do t want to work outside the home until the kids are in school. Not because they'd rather be working but because they'd rather stay home. Until you get that the conversation is going to rest on a false premise of moms would rather be working. Or working AND staying home.
I remember a good friend had her baby 6 months after me. I stayed home, and she wanted me to babysit for her when maternity leave ended. I will never forget her saying I have to do both. To which I replied, when you take your child to work with you, while you work, then you will be doing "both". Until that time you are leaving your child for another to care for, when you go to do your job. This was not to say a woman and mother cannot, or should not work "OUTSIDE THE HOME". It just irritated me that women who stay home also work, when raising their kids.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: rjs330
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
10,078
7,209
70
Midwest
✟368,334.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Lol! I seem to have begun in Stage 5 and have thus stayed in Stage 5. Not that that has made me happier than anyone else where religion is concerned ...
Well, It is more a world view than a stage of holiness or spiritual evolution.

But it must be frustration for you since most people seem to be stage 3 or 2.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,625
16,323
55
USA
✟410,525.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Well, It is more a world view than a stage of holiness or spiritual evolution.

But it must be frustration for you since most people seem to be stage 3 or 2.

What is the stage for faith is too dull to bother thinking about?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Copernican Political Pundit!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,585
11,476
Space Mountain!
✟1,355,975.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, It is more a world view than a stage of holiness or spiritual evolution.

But it must be frustration for you since most people seem to be stage 3 or 2.

It can definitely be frustrating. But I keep in mind that this is to be expected in relation to religion and philosopy on the whole. :sorry:
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
35,809
20,101
45
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,703,045.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
If there are individuals who have not yet been changed in their beliefs then changing the system will more or less be forcing these people perhaps the majority into living within a system they don't believe or agree with. That sound awefully similar to totalitarianism.
There will always be people who think whatever the system is, it can be improved (and they're generally right, because sinful humans don't run perfect systems). But I find it fascinating that in your analysis, all the hospitality and generosity is expected to be in one direction; and none is expected in the other direction.
They happen but they have nothing to edo with mascullinity.
I described a "set of behaviours, attitudes and ideologies about masculinity." They might not have much to do with authentic masculinity, but as long as our culture relates those behaviours, attitudes and ideologies to masculinity, that's part of the problem.
But when we look at all the factors there are many contributing reasons which ideologues ignore.
Alright; put one forward. If you think there's a causative factor we can actually tackle to make positive change, then let's have it.
have you noticed now we are always talking about identities.
What I notice is that when we don't talk about it, the problems experienced by different people (yes, in different groups) simply become invisible and easy to ignore. Don't talk about sex or gender and women's problems in a system stacked against them magically disappear!
Why do I have to publish or otherwise its I cannot comment.
Because if your "research" is watching a bunch of videos on YouTube, and if your conclusions aren't being subjected to any academic rigour, it doesn't hold much weight.
So wait a minute. I just said "do you want some evdience" how is that a conspiracy. Conspiracy theories usually lack evdience.
You were describing a theory of the "infiltration" of academia, institutions and government. If that doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory, I don't know what does.
I thought I did,
I asked about your experience.
The other side is the experiences of the deominant culture at the time. They are not representative of past cultural beliefs and ideas. Its wrong to assume that everyone is racist by connection to the past.

I'm not talking about "the past." I'm talking about what people alive today have experienced and continue to experience, right now.
But don't assume a worled that is just black and white, male or female, gay or heterosxual as that in itself is racist, sexist and homophobic and divides people.
It's not "just" these things. But it is also these things. As a woman I've experienced discrimination, I've experienced exclusion, I've experienced aggressive hostility, I still face significant barriers. I refuse to pretend this isn't happening just so that men can be more comfortable while those things go on.
But the system is not oppressive in this regard.
It can be. When it means people don't have access to the means for their own flourishing, it definitely can be. One example I see a lot is non-English-speaking parents struggling to navigate the NDIS for their children; the system is difficult for people who have good education and English, people without those advantages often miss out on much needed support.
But what ideologues do is they don't see that side but only oppression where all deifficulties and deifferences are attributed to oppression.
When our systems are not structured to allow people with disadvantages to have their needs met, that is oppression!
There are some fundemental differences. For example part of DEI policy is affirmative action and policies that give minorities advantages over the rest of society to help and ensure they end up with a similar outcome say graduating Uni or getting a job. That is different to equal opportunity which is based on merit.
"Equal opportunity" often isn't all that equal, though. That's what DEI is aimed at shifting.
The point is when you add all the intersecting factors which include natural differences such as biology, genetics and natural talent, individual differences such hard work, effort, personalities such as temperament introvert, extrovert, neurotic, agressive, personal experiences such as upbringing, environmental, geography, family and upbringing and others the race, gender and sex is dispelled in its importance as influncing forces for differences.
No. No it is not dispelled. Biology, genetics, talent, etc. don't account for the times women are obstructed in education. They don't account for the times people aren't hired because of their race. They don't account for the times women are excluded from leadership opportunities. They don't account for the times diverse cultural backgrounds are seen as a liability.

It is a simple fact that there are whole areas where I simply cannot apply for the kind of work I do because I'm a woman; it's outright gaslighting to suggest that this is due to lack of hard work, or be because of temperament!

Yes and I think we do a pretty good job at it. Not perfect and we can always improve things. But people should not make out that theres this big evil oppressive system.
Lack of access to needed supports is an aspect of an oppressive system.
We should also be concerned that we have our own citizens suffering as well.
It's fascinating that you think our own citizens might not face a language barrier.
Maybe multiculturalism doesn't work, has anyone considered that.
It works as well as we want to make it work. But hey, I grew up in a home where the occupants had been born in three different countries and spoke four languages between them, what would I know about multiculturalism? Mostly what I know is the hostility of Australians who see the "other" as a threat. (There's two worldviews colliding).
I don't think anyone should be investing in one individual more than another that seems unfair.
Some people need more investment. I've got a kid on the autism spectrum; so far the government has invested a heap in speech therapy for her. And it's paid off; her language skills have gone from being severely delayed to normal; which will give her much better chances at meaningful employment, living independently, and so on. Why is that unfair?
Then why is race and gender so often mentioned maybe 10 or 20 times over all other factors.
Maybe because they are areas where the impact is blatant, obvious and entrenched, and where the instances where they impact are so often profoundly, personally hurtful.

That is what I said. You support to our take away livelihood , our ability to live
It's not that I want that to happen, but I recognise that if some people outright refuse to abide by basic, necessary workplace policies, maybe those workplaces aren't the right fit for them.

How and why?
That can be part of the conversation, rather than assuming that the status quo is the best of all possible worlds.
This is a have you stopped beating your wife question. Who says it's the right thing to do? What if it's not the right thing to do.
Employers, as the more powerful participant in the employer-employee relationship, have a responsibility for the welfare of their employees. So yes, being open to making changes which are beneficial to the welfare of your employees, even when it is sometimes not the most beneficial thing to the business, is the right thing to do. Otherwise we end up with employers who will exploit and mistreat their workers, simply because they can.
Not at all. Women CHOOSE to raise a child instead of working.
Except the majority who work while raising a child...
Working doesn't automatically make you a bad mom.
An important point that often seems to be obscured in these discussions.
But it's the moms choice.
Except often women don't have access to the choices that would work best for them and their households.
Until you get that the conversation is going to rest on a false premise of moms would rather be working. Or working AND staying home.

Most mums would prefer to work part time. Many of them don't have access to that option. (And yes, working from home can be great with small kids, although it doesn't work equally well for each household. My office is in the house and the flexibility is great. It does also have drawbacks, though, and I understand why some people prefer to be on site at least some of the time!)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,047
15,655
72
Bondi
✟369,761.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
When two world views collide they are often a conflict between these stages.
You've certainly got that right.

I get quite a few people giving me a hard time in the forum accusing me of just thinking about myself. And that's because I will readily admit that 'it's all about me'. But that doesn't mean that I'm always right or I must have what I want and the devil take everyone else. It's that eventually one comes to accept that responsibility comes from within. So whatever version of 'I was only following orders' is offered must be denied.

The hardest part is accepting that one is often wrong. But I'm trying, Ringo. I'm trying real hard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,047
15,655
72
Bondi
✟369,761.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Getting back to my original response to this thread...

In the past Western societies were based on Christain values ...
I disagree. I do not think Christianity came up with these values. Rather, I think society came up with them, and when Christianity moved in, it took them, claimed it had invented them, and took credit for morality that had existed long before Christianity.
...but in the last few decades God and Christainity has been rejected and in its place the State has become the arbitor of societal morals and infringed more on peoples private lives.
In my experience, it has been the right-wing religiously motivated people pushing for laws that invade people's private lives.
But the result of all this is that there is a growing division between the Christian Worldview and the Secular Worldview to the point that they clash even violently like people want to destroy Christains aned opposing views and it seems the State is actively siding with the a secular position with the help of certain lobbyist.
In my experience, governments tend to side more towards the right wing and non-secular viewpoints. In any case, I'd love to know what specific situation youa re talking about here.
They have been actively dismantaling Christainity and taking God completely out of the picture in our institutions and public life generally, I should say its not always just Christains but also traditionalist and others who believe in the Truths that the West was built upon such as Enlightement and Democracy. Many on the Left also seem to support some sort of Marxism so this polarisation seems to be political and religious.
Care to give some actual examples of this?
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,061
9,032
65
✟429,080.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Yes, it is relevant----because what "I think" is drawn from various strands of scholarship (even competing scholarship). Don't ever tell me that what I thnk is irrelevant when you don't actually know that it is. You haven't engaged my sources or my perspective one iota, so you have close to ZERO justification for evaluating how much "relevance" what I think actually has.
No it's not relevant to the point. Whether or not you think they were real doesn't matter. The story is informative and informs us of a point of how human kind fell into sin. It's an important point that women and men were portrayed and how the temptation occurred.
Why don't you compare the 'female evaluative outlook' that Eve seems to express in the Genesis passage with that of the Proverbs 31 woman....

... in my interpretive evaluation they're not dissimilar.

When Paul says that Eve was deceived, that's what he means, and to be deceived in the way that he describes precludes the automatic assumption that Eve was simply being manipulative and/or purposely self-seeking. I'll be more than happy to pit my Hermeneutical sources against yours. No problem. In fact, I have a feeling that your biblical interpretation is done on your own private steam rather than from more extensive learning and education.
The proverbs 31 woman is a description of a valuable wife. It's not a description of women in general. A wife of value would do all those things listed in Proverbs. Or at least strive to. Since you are familiar with how Biblical literature works you understand that the book of proverbs is a writing of wise thoughts. Just like:

The lazy person wants but doesn’t have;the diligent get their desires filled. He who fails to use a stick hates his son,but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.
Bible Gateway passage: Proverbs 13:4, Proverbs 13:24 - Complete Jewish Bible

Yes Paul says the woman was deceived. But how is the question.

The entire context of what Paul says is this.


but I do not permit a woman to teach a man or exercise authority over him; rather, she is to remain at peace. For Adam was formed first, then Havah. Let a woman learn in peace, fully submitted; Also it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who, on being deceived, became involved in the transgression. Nevertheless, the woman will be delivered through childbearing, provided that she continues trusting, loving and living a holy life with modesty.
Bible Gateway passage: 1 Timothy 2:12, 1 Timothy 2:13, 1 Timothy 2:11, 1 Timothy 2:14, 1 Timothy 2:15 - Complete Jewish Bible

Eve was deceived because the serpent played upon her own desires. She fell first. Eve saw that the fruit was good for food (lust of the flesh), pleasing to the eye (lust of the eye) and for wisdom(pride of life).

Now hear me loud and clear. Eve was NOT worse than Adam. Adam like Eve could have chosen not to eat. But he did. He is not better. My point is simply women are not better than men and men are not better than women when it comes to sinfulness. Just different. Now there is not way to prove this I admit through history since women did not rule. But we have glimpses through history including scripture of wicked women. And today in politics we also have bad women as well as good ones. Just like we have bad men as well as good ones.

Look I have a degree in Biblical Literature. So I understand scripture very well and know how to use resources etc. So you claims in resources etc aren't impressive to me. I spent four years in research for my degree and have been studying scripture for 47+ years. So bother with the "all my resources" business. Let's just talk shall we?
And yes, my several hundred sources do a fine job of dismantling what you've all too over-confidently asserted. My guess is that, like so many fellow Christians, you'll refuse to engage those sources fully, accurately and robustely in order to just hand-wave away any critiques that you find personally affronting. ... to do so isn't exactly the height of intellectual honesty or integrity. It's time for Christians everywhere to stop appealing to superficial, cardboard thick answers and do the work of critical thinking.
I have no idea what your talking about here. I don't know what you think you dismantled. Or what you think is the height of intellectual dishonesty is etc. You have given any resources either. I don't know what you think is superficial or cardboard thinking.

Your words come off as a bit arrogant and condescending. Maybe you ought to tone it down a bit and let's just have a conversation. Cause I'm at the point of not really knowing where you are going or what your point is other than men have shown themselves to be bad.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,402
20,706
Orlando, Florida
✟1,503,190.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
No it's not relevant to the point. Whether or not you think they were real doesn't matter. The story is informative and informs us of a point of how human kind fell into sin. It's an important point that women and men were portrayed and how the temptation occurred.

The proverbs 31 woman is a description of a valuable wife. It's not a description of women in general. A wife of value would do all those things listed in Proverbs. Or at least strive to. Since you are familiar with how Biblical literature works you understand that the book of proverbs is a writing of wise thoughts. Just like:

The lazy person wants but doesn’t have;the diligent get their desires filled. He who fails to use a stick hates his son,but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.
Bible Gateway passage: Proverbs 13:4, Proverbs 13:24 - Complete Jewish Bible

Yes Paul says the woman was deceived. But how is the question.

The entire context of what Paul says is this.


but I do not permit a woman to teach a man or exercise authority over him; rather, she is to remain at peace. For Adam was formed first, then Havah. Let a woman learn in peace, fully submitted; Also it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who, on being deceived, became involved in the transgression. Nevertheless, the woman will be delivered through childbearing, provided that she continues trusting, loving and living a holy life with modesty.
Bible Gateway passage: 1 Timothy 2:12, 1 Timothy 2:13, 1 Timothy 2:11, 1 Timothy 2:14, 1 Timothy 2:15 - Complete Jewish Bible

Paul never wrote those passages. They were written by people decades later in the style of Paul. Half the NT was written several generations after Paul died.

The actual historical Paul considered the Christ-event to have radically changed the world, including the relationship between men and women. Later followers of Jesus wanted to find a way to incorporate their religion into the common prejudices of their society.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Copernican Political Pundit!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,585
11,476
Space Mountain!
✟1,355,975.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No it's not relevant to the point. Whether or not you think they were real doesn't matter. The story is informative and informs us of a point of how human kind fell into sin. It's an important point that women and men were portrayed and how the temptation occurred.
I didn't say that the Garden of Eden account wasn't informative about the underlying essence of humanities fallen nature. What I am saying is that no one is required to assent to the proposition that Adam and Eve were real, historical people.
The proverbs 31 woman is a description of a valuable wife. It's not a description of women in general. A wife of value would do all those things listed in Proverbs. Or at least strive to.
And the figure of Eve also isn't a general description of women across the board either. Eve was a wife as well. But my point in relating Eve to the Proverbs 31 wife is that both figures are shown to appraise and evaluate opportunities for what appear to be "good things" in both instances. But one figure, Eve, was deceived.

Since you are familiar with how Biblical literature works you understand that the book of proverbs is a writing of wise thoughts. Just like:

The lazy person wants but doesn’t have;the diligent get their desires filled. He who fails to use a stick hates his son,but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.
Bible Gateway passage: Proverbs 13:4, Proverbs 13:24 - Complete Jewish Bible
......................
Yes Paul says the woman was deceived. But how is the question.
Through sophistry from the Serpent, obviously. He bamboozled here, not merely by getting her to question, but by slanting the definitions and introducing false deductions.
The entire context of what Paul says is this.


but I do not permit a woman to teach a man or exercise authority over him; rather, she is to remain at peace. For Adam was formed first, then Havah. Let a woman learn in peace, fully submitted; Also it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who, on being deceived, became involved in the transgression. Nevertheless, the woman will be delivered through childbearing, provided that she continues trusting, loving and living a holy life with modesty.
Bible Gateway passage: 1 Timothy 2:12, 1 Timothy 2:13, 1 Timothy 2:11, 1 Timothy 2:14, 1 Timothy 2:15 - Complete Jewish Bible

Eve was deceived because the serpent played upon her own desires. She fell first. Eve saw that the fruit was good for food (lust of the flesh), pleasing to the eye (lust of the eye) and for wisdom(pride of life).
No, the appraisal of good fruit isn't lust; something pleasing to the eye isn't lust; and a desire for wisdom isn't lust. She wasn't lusting. She was being deceived, turned around in her understanding about what was truly good and useful, with the insinuation that God wasn't quite being forthright with His command to "not eat of that tree."

Actually, there's more to Paul's meaning in 1 Timothy chapter 2 than simply what you're referring to. I'd suggest you get a copy of Richard and Catherine Kroeger's book, "I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in light of ancient evidence" (1998) - Baker Academic. There's a lot more to this passage than what you've been told.
Now hear me loud and clear. Eve was NOT worse than Adam. Adam like Eve could have chosen not to eat. But he did. He is not better. My point is simply women are not better than men and men are not better than women when it comes to sinfulness. Just different.
Yes, and my point about men leading the world in sin doesn't say they're worse or better. Just different, too. They lead.
Now there is not way to prove this I admit through history since women did not rule. But we have glimpses through history including scripture of wicked women. And today in politics we also have bad women as well as good ones. Just like we have bad men as well as good ones.
You might want to get a copy of Gerda Lerner's book, "The Creation of Patriarchy." It accounts for the ancient historical cultural croppings from the time of Mesotamia to the Greeks with how Patriarchy formed and allowed men to rule over women............................
Look I have a degree in Biblical Literature. So I understand scripture very well and know how to use resources etc. So you claims in resources etc aren't impressive to me. I spent four years in research for my degree and have been studying scripture for 47+ years. So bother with the "all my resources" business. Let's just talk shall we?
Sure. We can talk. Being that we're both degreed Christians, I'm sure the discussion can get interesting.
I have no idea what your talking about here. I don't know what you think you dismantled. Or what you think is the height of intellectual dishonesty is etc. You have given any resources either. I don't know what you think is superficial or cardboard thinking.
Yes, I have. They're on my "about" page here on CF. Those books listed are just the first 20 of many.

My definition of "cardboard" thinking is any assertions, pedestrian or academic in nature, or otherwise, which don't actually dig into competing and diverse viewpoints. Maybe your own Christian point of view isn't cardboard, but I've talked to many a fellow Christian whose views are very thin indeed. I trust that yours actually aren't.
Your words come off as a bit arrogant and condescending. Maybe you ought to tone it down a bit and let's just have a conversation. Cause I'm at the point of not really knowing where you are going or what your point is other than men have shown themselves to be bad.
I've been told that I come off as arrogant. I'm actually not. I am confident of what I've learned in my own undergrad and graduate degrees, as well as the 1 years I spent in bible college and then 35 years of biblical studies afterward.

Yet, I never claim that I know everything. I don't because for anyone to do so would truly be the height of audacity.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,061
9,032
65
✟429,080.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
That can be part of the conversation, rather than assuming that the status quo is the best of all possible worlds.
I asked how and why and you provided nothing. Perhaps you haven't thought this through. So tell us. How this is beneficial to everyone and why is beneficial to everyone to do that. You provided an idea but have failed to defend that idea.
Employers, as the more powerful participant in the employer-employee relationship, have a responsibility for the welfare of their employees. So yes, being open to making changes which are beneficial to the welfare of your employees, even when it is sometimes not the most beneficial thing to the business, is the right thing to do. Otherwise we end up with employers who will exploit and mistreat their workers, simply because they can.
Yes employers should look to the welfare of their employees and be willing to be open to changes. Sometimes they cant. I gave you an example as to why it may not work. Maybe there aren't enough employees want to split time. Perhaps they need employees who are specialized and they can't find enough specialized employees who can or want to split time. There are a lot of reasons why it may not be able to be done. You certainly didn't refute it other than to say employers should.
Except the majority who work while raising a child...
Except a majority of those wish they weren't.
Except often women don't have access to the choices that would work best for them and their households.
Welcome to real life. Sometimes it just can't happen. And before you say it can, of course in some circumstances it can. And you'd have to take each job and each business on its own merits to say whether it can or can't.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,061
9,032
65
✟429,080.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Paul never wrote those passages. They were written by people decades later in the style of Paul. Half the NT was written several generations after Paul died.

The actual historical Paul considered the Christ-event to have radically changed the world, including the relationship between men and women. Later followers of Jesus wanted to find a way to incorporate their religion into the common prejudices of their society.
Well that's one theory anyway.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
35,809
20,101
45
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,703,045.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I asked how and why and you provided nothing. Perhaps you haven't thought this through.
I said there needed to be a conversation. I couldn't pre-empt the end result of that, but all I'm arguing for is that we don't refuse to countenance any possibility of any positive change.
I gave you an example as to why it may not work.
And if the employers advertise and recruit and can't find someone, fair enough. But don't claim that the people aren't there before you've even looked.
Except a majority of those wish they weren't.
Actually, most of us want to work part time.
And you'd have to take each job and each business on its own merits to say whether it can or can't.
And yet you're arguing hard against any possible change. Why is that? What is so threatening to you about even looking at possibilities for positive change?
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,061
9,032
65
✟429,080.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
didn't say that the Garden of Eden account wasn't informative about the underlying essence of humanities fallen nature. What I am saying is that no one is required to assent to the proposition that Adam and Eve were real, historical people.
No one is required to assert that. But it for sure was written to assist in understanding a bit about the falseness of both sexes.
description of women across the board either. Eve was a wife as well. But my point in relating Eve to the Proverbs 31 wife is that both figures are shown to appraise and evaluate opportunities for what appear to be "good things" in both instances. But one figure, Eve, was deceived.
The two passages are completely unrelated. Eve sinned because she listened to what the serpent had to say and was drawn by her desires. He lied to her. Yes that's deception, but the scripture is clear as to her part in in it. She saw it was good for food despite the fact God told her not to eat it and she wanted it. She saw it was pleasing to her eyes despite the fact God told her not to eat it it and she wanted it. She saw it was desirable to make her wise and she wanted it. Her desires were to obtain it. What did the serpent say?
The serpent said to the woman, “It is not true that you will surely die; because God knows that on the day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 3:4, Genesis 3:5 - Complete Jewish Bible

He lied about what would happen and he lied about God's motives.

But it Eve chose to believe the serpent rather than God. Because SHE saw it was good for food and SHE noted it looked good and SHE saw it was DESIRABLE to make her wise.

That fits very well with the passage in I John. She had a strong desire for those that things and it makes perfect sense to equate the two. And tying in with what James said about temptation and being drawn away by our own lusts it completely fits the scenario.

She knew what God said. She chose to believe the serpent. Because of how it seemed to benefit her.
Actually, there's more to Paul's meaning in 1 Timothy chapter 2 than simply what you're referring to. I'd suggest you get a copy of Richard and Catherine Kroeger's book, "I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in light of ancient evidence" (1998) - Baker Academic. There's a lot more to this passage than what you've been told.
Where did I say there wasn't more? How do you know what I was told? I think you are assuming a lot here.
Yes, and my point about men leading the world in sin doesn't say they're worse or better. Just different, too. They lead.
Yup and if women led it still would be a mess. You are talking what was and has been. Which is a legitimate consideration. I'm talking about what would be based upon an understanding that if women led instead of men, it would still be a mess because women are a mess. Just as much of a mess as men. I'm not going to keep going around in circles on this. Let me ask you this question. Let's just pretend for arguments sake that women were in charge and led instead of men. Is it your contention things would be much better?
You might want to get a copy of Gerda Lerner's book, "The Creation of Patriarchy."
Why? Because we have no argument over who has been in charge.
My definition of "cardboard" thinking is any assertions, pedestrian or academic in nature, or otherwise, which don't actually dig into competing and diverse viewpoints. Maybe your own Christian point of view isn't cardboard, but I've talked to many a fellow Christian whose views are very thin indeed. I trust that yours actually aren't.
Well I can't argue that. But you can't expect every believer to find deep Biblical study a liturgical study to be real interesting. A lot of people find it difficult enough just to read the Bible on a regular basis. I can't really look down on them for that. The best I can do is try and help them when they struggle. I'm certainly not going look down my nose at them.
I've been told that I come off as arrogant. I'm actually not. I am confident of what I've learned in my own undergrad and graduate degrees, as well as the 1 years I spent in bible college and then 35 years of biblical studies afterward.

Yet, I never claim that I know everything. I don't because for anyone to do so would truly be the height of audacity.
Well perhaps you ought to consider what others are saying. I know for a fact that forums and such are a very bad medium for good communication. People are forever misunderstanding, misinterpreting, and flat deliberately twisting what people write. Tone is very difficult to determine. That's why personal communication is so much better.

I don't know if people have ever told you that in person. Maybe in person you don't sound that way. But you did in the way you wrote. So lets just chalk it up to how you write.

And just so you know, I don't know everything either. And I took am very confident in my understanding scripture. We are certainly not going to agree on everything.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Copernican Political Pundit!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,585
11,476
Space Mountain!
✟1,355,975.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No one is required to assert that. But it for sure was written to assist in understanding a bit about the falseness of both sexes.

The two passages are completely unrelated. Eve sinned because she listened to what the serpent had to say and was drawn by her desires. He lied to her. Yes that's deception, but the scripture is clear as to her part in in it. She saw it was good for food despite the fact God told her not to eat it and she wanted it. She saw it was pleasing to her eyes despite the fact God told her not to eat it it and she wanted it. She saw it was desirable to make her wise and she wanted it. Her desires were to obtain it. What did the serpent say?
The serpent said to the woman, “It is not true that you will surely die; because God knows that on the day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 3:4, Genesis 3:5 - Complete Jewish Bible

He lied about what would happen and he lied about God's motives.

But it Eve chose to believe the serpent rather than God. Because SHE saw it was good for food and SHE noted it looked good and SHE saw it was DESIRABLE to make her wise.

That fits very well with the passage in I John. She had a strong desire for those that things and it makes perfect sense to equate the two. And tying in with what James said about temptation and being drawn away by our own lusts it completely fits the scenario.

She knew what God said. She chose to believe the serpent. Because of how it seemed to benefit her.

Where did I say there wasn't more? How do you know what I was told? I think you are assuming a lot here.

Yup and if women led it still would be a mess. You are talking what was and has been. Which is a legitimate consideration. I'm talking about what would be based upon an understanding that if women led instead of men, it would still be a mess because women are a mess. Just as much of a mess as men. I'm not going to keep going around in circles on this. Let me ask you this question. Let's just pretend for arguments sake that women were in charge and led instead of men. Is it your contention things would be much better?

Why? Because we have no argument over who has been in charge.

Well I can't argue that. But you can't expect every believer to find deep Biblical study a liturgical study to be real interesting. A lot of people find it difficult enough just to read the Bible on a regular basis. I can't really look down on them for that. The best I can do is try and help them when they struggle. I'm certainly not going look down my nose at them.

Well perhaps you ought to consider what others are saying. I know for a fact that forums and such are a very bad medium for good communication. People are forever misunderstanding, misinterpreting, and flat deliberately twisting what people write. Tone is very difficult to determine. That's why personal communication is so much better.

I don't know if people have ever told you that in person. Maybe in person you don't sound that way. But you did in the way you wrote. So lets just chalk it up to how you write.

And just so you know, I don't know everything either. And I took am very confident in my understanding scripture. We are certainly not going to agree on everything.

How about this assessment instead?: you and I will both disagree on many things pertaining to the Bible. And, what's more, we'll both be respectively strong minded in our assertions about what it is we think we know because we're both deeply educated about Christian Theology.

So, with this being the case, we can bow out from engaging each other because we'll likely find too much over which to disagree versus that which we might agree upon (even in Christ): you'll carry the torch for your robust, Pentacostal view, and I'll be pressing for my exploratory, historically broad existential Christian view.

And this is ok because you're not a heretic and I'm not a heretic; we're both going to make it into eternal life with Jesus. And that's good enough! :cool:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BPPLEE
Upvote 0