A Christmas Story

[cvanwey]

Hi c,
very interesting the way you write. Even if there are intellectual problems I can't solve, God can, that's my impression. Option 1, just like option 2, are too complex for me to consider. I think this is venturing into the business of "seeing" God's character... when we don't even see him physically. For me: impossible.

I disagree. Regardless of ever seeing/knowing such a God, or not, the (either/or) proposition still stands. Just like any other claimed agent in which people see or don't ever see... (i.e.):

1. Might makes right, and He can change His mind without reason/justification.

(or)

2. God appeals to another 'standard' of 'right/wrong' outside His own decision.

Either way, the necessity for a God to justify your 'morals' becomes arbitrary. Why?

Either God issues dictates for others to follow, (or), God appeals to another established set of rules.

And like I stated, I'm planting my flag on option 1, IF He exists.

This is why, in the video, Frank Turek attempts to 'invent' a third option, which is merely a regurgitation of the first option

Check it out on your phone maybe Type in 'Frank Turek Euthyphro" into youtube and select the first link.

That's just my belief.

Why is this your belief? Were you raised in it? Or, did you study differing claims, and this one just feels right? Or, other?

Bible states he is a perfect sacrifice for my sins (see Hebrews 7:26).

The Bible states a lot of things, in which I will address below.

I needed this.

Jesus states you 'need this'. But How do you know He is the real deal? Is faith in an agent you admit you cannot see justified?

Actually, the whole biblical doctrine wouldn't make sense without Jesus's declared perfection, as I see it. If he had had sins, then he would merely have died for the sake of his own sins... but not for mine.

Okay. He claims He's perfect. But below, you disagree with the four options presented. Interesting... (see below)...

no .

Then I again ask... If [you] think He's perfect, you would have to agree with the 4 points below. But you don't. Can you explain this contradiction?

1) Bible openly says there is no difference in importance between man and woman, if they belong to the kingdom of God. It even says "there is no male and female" in Galatians 3:28.

It also says, just for starters:

"11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."

Hence, women are less than men, at least where authority is concerned. How is Jesus perfect, while you openly disagree to His direct proclamations?

2) I stay neutral on homosexuality... you know Christianity right now is having some problems with it, in my opinion. They often go as far as to insult gays and lesbians (speaking from own experience). Also, they are discriminated against within the Christian community, which is also wrong as I see it. So I stay neutral towards any aspects such as "is homosexuality a sin?"... and I solely focus on questions such as what can be said in this regard and what should not.

[You] might choose to remain neutral. However, God appears to have weighed in on this topic. And it's clear God does not approve of homosexuality.

Again, how is Jesus perfect, while you openly disagree to His direct proclamations?

3) I agree. In faith Christians get saved. Faith is worth more, in my opinion.

Before I respond to the claim that 'faith is better than evidence', what is (your) definition of faith?

4) no. Freedom is better.

God disagrees. God allows for humans to claim other humans as property. Exodus 21:20-21 and Leviticus 25:45-47

Again, how is Jesus perfect, while you openly disagree to His direct proclamations?

 

[muichimotsu]

I don't drink. I have never done drugs of any kind. I TRUST IN MY OWN ABILITY to think and reason. Your conclusion that one's own experiences do not use "critical thought", while unreasonable, becomes possible because you already reject the possibilities involving the question. You state that the concept of God is outside the universe and therefore beyond our capacity to explore. My point is that the pursuit of truth requires a willingness to search alone--without the protection of others who can verify your findings. It is a choice to limit your search to only questions that can be physically verified.

As for me, I truly don't care what others think about my quest. I trust in my own ability to seek the truth and critically evaluate whatever I'm able to find. The Master taught, "Seek and ye shall find". I possess a powerful desire to learn the truth of things, and I fully recognize that with some matters, it might not be possible to show my findings to others so they can see. But I'm not going to stop moving ahead. My individual journey can't be shared with others, but I have already learned far more than I originally thought was possible.

You trusting in your own ability to the point you don't remotely question any experience out of the ordinary suggests you're relying on hard solipsism, practically speaking.

I don't reject the possibility, I reject the coherence of the entity God as described by pretty much everyone I've come into contact with, I don't have to reject possibility when it's cognitively incoherent in the first place anymore than I have to reject a square circle

I said the concept of God is incoherent, outside the universe is your claim, most likely, I'm not making such absurd claims

Verifying your findings is kind of the best way to actually see the reliability of those findings rather than just assuming they're right because of personal credulity, which appears to be your method

When you reduce the scope to your positions and your notions of what is reasonable, you've already thrown critical thought and intellectual honesty out the window.

 

[thomas_t]

For me the euthyphron dilemma is to difficult to think it through.
God will solve that question, I'm convinced.

I stay entirely neutral to any stance to whether or not homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible.
Within the Christian ranks there are many who insult gays/lesbians as perverts or openly compare them to rapists and pedophiles. I won't say anything with regard to the alleged sin aspect of it until the slander talk against them from within Christianity will stop.

Why is this your belief? Were you raised in it? Or, did you study differing claims, and this one just feels right? Or, other?

I happen to have this faith. I was raised in it, too. It feels right.

How do you know He is the real deal? Is faith in an agent you admit you cannot see justified?

I think it is. My faith tells me it's the right deal.

If [you] think He's perfect, you would have to agree with the 4 points below.

Ah no.
I stay neutral to the homosexuality aspect.
But I don't have to agree to the alleged superiority of males. If women don't have any problems with being calm and study and never speak up against their males... then the equation "no male and no female" still stands. If they are happy with being sex No. 2, it's ok. If everyone is allright with this it's ok. This is how it used to be thoughout the centuries, but recently this came to a halt.
Nevertheless, Paul is still right here..

"11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."

so if women can't teach and are to learn in quietness and can't have authority over a man... and if women think this is not fair in and of itself... they need to be compensated in some form.
I'm speaking about women at church.
Maybe then .... men shouldn't have authority over the women, either. Men should also be quiet. And if women can't teach... they can be the prophets in the congrgation, if they wish....
Maybe this makes them happy again with this regulation that I was just making up.
In any case, churches need to decide for themselves how they are going to handle the issue so that noone is unhappy.

Slavery was there because there was no alternative at hand, I suppose.
So I don't think I don't agree with Jesus. There is no contradiction between what I believe and what Jesus says, I'm convinced for now. Maybe, when I see one, I need to rethink some issue.

Faith for me is believing in Jesus, that he still lives and that he has saved me.

Thomas

 

[cvanwey]

For me the euthyphron dilemma is to difficult to think it through.
God will solve that question, I'm convinced.

I feel you are not giving yourself enough credit Thomas. The video explains it quite simply. Dr. Turek actually does a pretty good job simplifying the concept. My point was to demonstrate that he too acknowledges that if this either/or proposition IS the only two options, then God would be arbitrary, regarding 'morality'. Hence, the reason he invents a third option - which is the same as the first option essentially The philosophical 'dilemma' is an either/or proposition (i.e.):

1. Might makes right - because I say so
2. God appeals to another standard

The either/or renders God arbitrary, where 'morality' is concerned.

It's only 'difficult' to solve because the 'dilemma' seems to corner the concept of God (in a sense). Theists then must make unjustified assertions to side-step the 'problem.'

I stay entirely neutral to any stance to whether or not homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible.

My point is that God directly weighed in on this topic. He disapproves. It is 'sin.' Your deciding to ignore, avoid, or remain neutral does not sway the 'fact' that God spoke about this topic, and renders it sin.

Within the Christian ranks there are many who insult gays/lesbians as perverts or openly compare them to rapists and pedophiles. I won't say anything with regard to the alleged sin aspect of it until the slander talk against them from within Christianity will stop.

Well, God thinks such a concept is sin, according to the Bible. You either agree or disagree. If you agree, then you are at least lightly fundamentally 'with' the accusers, whom tell others they are 'wrong'. If you disagree, then how can you state Jesus is 'prefect'?

I happen to have this faith.

Is faith reliable?

I was raised in it, too.

Do you think this might represent a bias towards Christianity? Do you think that if you were raised in some opposing set of beliefs, that you instead might adhere to that set of beliefs? Have you objectively studied ALL represented claims, and not just yours or a small handful?

It feels right.

Is this what makes it true for you, that is just feels right?

But I don't have to agree to the alleged superiority of males. If women don't have any problems with being calm and study and never speak up against their males... then the equation "no male and no female" still stands. If they are happy with being sex No. 2, it's ok. If everyone is allright with this it's ok. This is how it used to be thoughout the centuries, but recently this came to a halt.
Nevertheless, Paul is still right here..

Many women disagree. Many women do have a problem with this entire concept. As do men. I'm sure many women did back then as well, but weren't allowed to say so publicly. So now what? Are we right now, allowing women to serve, which goes against orders? Or are we now wrong and against God, and His wishes?

so if women can't teach and are to learn in quietness and can't have authority over a man... and if women think this is not fair in and of itself... they need to be compensated in some form.
I'm speaking about women at church.
Maybe then .... men shouldn't have authority over the women, either. Men should also be quiet. And if women can't teach... they can be the prophets in the congrgation, if they wish....
Maybe this makes them happy again with this regulation that I was just making up.
In any case, churches need to decide for themselves how they are going to handle the issue so that noone is unhappy.

It is not for humans to decide. If Paul is speaking for God, then God states God > men > women. Scripture supports this concept. If Scripture is from God, then this is God's will.

Do you agree? If you do, I would like to know why? Because God says so, or other? If you don't agree, then I again ask... How were you able to determine God is perfect?

Slavery was there because there was no alternative at hand, I suppose.
So I don't think I don't agree with Jesus. There is no contradiction between what I believe and what Jesus says, I'm convinced for now. Maybe, when I see one, I need to rethink some issue.

Yes, please rethink this response Thomas. Jesus never abolished the allowance of slavery. Hence, slavery is presumed still okay. Jesus instead weighed in on the topic as well. (i.e.)

"Slaves and Masters 5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ;6 not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.7 Render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not to men and women,8knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are slaves or free."

Had Jesus not mentioned slavery at all, then one might argue it is no longer under the 'old covenant' or other... But He apparently did, rending slavery still applicable.

I again ask... If you disagree with slavery, then I would ask how you are so sure Jesus is perfect?

 

[thomas_t]

no the whole euthyphron thing is over my head.

My point is that God directly weighed in on this topic.

here, I'm entirely neutral.

If you agree, then you are at least lightly fundamentally 'with' the accusers, whom tell others they are 'wrong'.

no... regardless of what you think about homosexuality... insulting others should be a no-go.

Is faith reliable?

I think so.

Do you think this might represent a bias towards Christianity? Do you think that if you were raised in some opposing set of beliefs, that you instead might adhere to that set of beliefs? Have you objectively studied ALL represented claims, and not just yours or a small handful?

yes, yes and no.
Well, it's not a bias that I have. I feel inclined to believe since early childhood.

But I didn't study all claims. I didn't have time for this. I admit, it's a weakness.

It is not for humans to decide. If Paul is speaking for God, then God states God > men > women. Scripture supports this concept. If Scripture is from God, then this is God's will.

Do you agree?

God said in the Galatians passage there is no male and no female. I agree with this. But you're right when you say this is not negotiable. What is negotiable is how these rules in the Bible are implemented in the local church so that nobody feels discriminated against.

Jesus never abolished the allowance of slavery. Hence, slavery is presumed still okay.

When they didn't have any other option, it was tolerated by Jesus, yes, I think. Even in Jesus's times, I think. The whole Roman system could not have worked without the slaves, I guess.
But today there are other options at hand.
I agree with Jesus.

Thomas

EDIT: oh, I forgot your passage about changing attitude twoards women. You say women didn't like their role back then. It's your assumption, you didn't back it up by anything. When tGermans had the discussion whether women be allowed to vote in Germany 1918... the majority of women opted against it, as far as I know. If you want to, I'll look for sources.

 

[cvanwey]

no the whole euthyphron thing is over my head.

The euthyphro is integral into this entire line of conversation. You might want to understand the concept

1. Because I say so - we merely follow orders
2. God appeals to another standard - So why do we need God for morality?

Either option, completely arbitrary....

here, I'm entirely neutral.

It's a yes/no question to ask. Is something fundamentally right or wrong? You can add 'qualifiers' to it, but you essentially agree/disagree with the general concept. For the Christian, is it right/wrong in the eye's of God? Seems as though, in THIS case, there exists no qualifiers.

(i.e.) Thou shalt not murder - Ultimately, you either agree or disagree to the general concept. I would hope we both agree that murder is 'wrong.' But caveats exist, which 'justify' such actions from 'murder', to instead become a justified 'killing'.

no... regardless of what you think about homosexuality... insulting others should be a no-go.

I agree with you that to insult others for something they cannot control is 'wrong.' But this is not my point. God thinks the fundamental concept of same sex partnership is wrong? Do you? Please remember, I'm asking for your general conceptual answer, like I would ask you about murder - (as expressed above)

I think so.

How is faith reliable?

yes, yes and no.
Well, it's not a bias that I have. I feel inclined to believe since early childhood.

I too was indoctrinated at an early age, and thought I believed for decades. But then I read the Bible. I see too many inconsistencies. I am now presenting some of them here, and I feel you may be attempting to turn a 'blind eye' to the subjects I raise, demonstrating believe preservation. I hope I'm wrong?

God said in the Galatians passage there is no male and no female. I agree with this.

If it began and ended there with that verse, I would at least then agree with what the Bible says. However, the Bible also says many other things, contradictory to this proclamation. One of them being the verses already provided - 1 Timothy 2:11-12. How do you reconcile the two simultaneously?

But you're right when you say this is not negotiable. What is negotiable is how these rules in the Bible are implemented in the local church so that nobody feels discriminated against.

'Discrimination' seems like a perfectly suitable conclusion, when it states in the Bible - men > women. When it also states that a woman is not to have authority over a man. Again, if God did not directly weigh in on the topic, then one could not reasonably argue that God does not like it. But He apparently did. If the church does not abide by such commands, then such a church is deliberately going against God's wishes.

I again ask you, do you agree or disagree with God's will, in regards to men > women? If so, please reference option one of the euthyphro dilemma and let me know if this appears justified? If you disagree, then how is Jesus perfect?

When they didn't have any other option, it was tolerated by Jesus, yes, I think. Even in Jesus's times, I think. The whole Roman system could not have worked without the slaves, I guess.
But today there are other options at hand.
I agree with Jesus.

Even IF everything you stated above were true, you have not acknowledged my point. Jesus never abolishes slavery. Which means it's okay forever Further, Jesus never updates/eliminates the rules and regulations expressed in the OT. Instead, He merely reinforces them, below is a refresher of OT verse (i.e.)

"20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

"45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Is such slavery okay today? If you don't think so, then why doesn't God agree with you?

EDIT: oh, I forgot your passage about changing attitude twoards women. You say women didn't like their role back then. It's your assumption, you didn't back it up by anything. When tGermans had the discussion whether women be allowed to vote in Germany 1918... the majority of women opted against it, as far as I know. If you want to, I'll look for sources.

No need. I doubt it's a stretch to think that some women felt discriminated against, but never voiced their concerns. Furthermore, it's probably also not a stretch to consider that the culture back then was to teach women, at an early age, that they are inferior and need to assume specific roles. Hence, many would just reconcile this assertion, as I'm sure many asserted this was the 'teaching from their God'. Just like the many whom likely also used the Bible to justify slavery ownership to their slaves.

 

[thomas_t]

Now I think I've found the reason for your doubts:
you say you would feel terrible as a slave. You say women must feel terrible under the conditions laid out in the Bible*. And then you infer that the whole humanity must feel the same under unfree conditions. I think this is wrong and Bible teaches otherwise. We know from the Bible (if we were to take as factual...) that the Israelites - first complaining about slavery in Egypt indeed - went as far as to wish the situation back, in which they used to be enslaved. (see whole story in Numbers 11:5, I presented my own interpretation), feel free to ask me for other Bible verses in which there is what is called Stockholm syndrom today.
BTW, you still didn't back up your assertion that women wanted more rights before the women's rights movement even started to operate in the mid 19th century. I'd say, there was no Simone de Beauvoir in the Roman empire. No Coco Chanel in the Middle Ages. No terre de femmes in times of the French Revolution. All these heroes come
from modern times only. But feel free to prove me wrong.

1 Timothy 2:11-12.

As I said, when women want equal rights, they need to have them. My idea: then no teaching at church... and everybody needs to be taught from internet sermons, or other sources. But when they don't want equality, it's ok.
But they do have the right to equality within the church, in my opinion. As Gid said in Galatians.

...
No, the euthyphyon dilemma is too difficult for me. I would have to ponder about option 1 "might makes right" - which is too hard for me.

Seems as though, in THIS case, there exists no qualifiers.

I even stay neutral on the assessment if this is a yes-or-no question or not. You would have to look up the wording as used and then evaluate if "homosexuality" in terms of sexual orientation is meant or not. This is difficult to assess, in my opinion.
This being said... I stay neutral on the purported sin nature of it.

God thinks the fundamental concept of same sex partnership is wrong? Do you? Please remember, I'm asking for your general conceptual answer,

that's exactly where I stay neutral. In a situation in which many Christians accuse gays and lesbians to ruin the whole society, I won't add a single word to the "sin nature"-theory. Be it pro or contra.

How is faith reliable?

I think the other person whom my faith refers to, i.e. God, He is reliable.

I too was indoctrinated at an early age, and thought I believed for decades. But then I read the Bible.

It's always a sign of strength to speak from own experience, thank you very much.

 

[cvanwey]

Now I think I've found the reason for your doubts:
you say you would feel terrible as a slave. You say women must feel terrible under the conditions laid out in the Bible*.

Nope. I'm a moral relativist. I'm only interested in knowing [your] position, as compared to God's stance on homosexuality, women inequality, and slavery.

You see, if you had watched this little 3 minute video, Frank Turek also asserts that humans 'know' right from wrong. Thus, we should all agree But we don't. And yet, God makes direct pronouncements. And now, I'm watching as you dance all around it. See below

And then you infer that the whole humanity must feel the same under unfree conditions. I think this is wrong and Bible teaches otherwise. We know from the Bible (if we were to take as factual...) that the Israelites - first complaining about slavery in Egypt indeed - went as far as to wish the situation back, in which they used to be enslaved. (see whole story in Numbers 11:5, I presented my own interpretation), feel free to ask me for other Bible verses in which there is what is called Stockholm syndrom today.

My only point is that the OT God weighed in on the topic of slavery. The NT Jesus did as well. Again, if He never spoke of slavery, then you could, by default, conclude He's maybe against it? Hence, slavery is okay, under the conditions of the Bible, forever. Do you agree?

BTW, you still didn't back up your assertion that women wanted more rights before the women's rights movement even started to operate in the mid 19th century.

I've already 'backed up' plenty, for which you are avoiding Besides, as stated in my last reply...

"I doubt it's a stretch to think that some women felt discriminated against, but never voiced their concerns. Furthermore, it's probably also not a stretch to consider that the culture back then was to teach women, at an early age, that they are inferior and need to assume specific roles. Hence, many would just reconcile this assertion, as I'm sure many asserted this was the 'teaching from their God'. Just like the many whom likely also used the Bible to justify slavery ownership to their slaves."

I'd say, there was no Simone de Beauvoir in the Roman empire. No Coco Chanel in the Middle Ages. No terre de femmes in times of the French Revolution. All these heroes come
from modern times only. But feel free to prove me wrong.

You have again missed my point entirely. God makes an assertion, and never adjusts/abolishes it. Thus, we still live under the same 'law.' Women are to not hold authority over men. Do you agree? Yes or no?

As I said, when women want equal rights, they need to have them. My idea: then no teaching at church... and everybody needs to be taught from internet sermons, or other sources. But when they don't want equality, it's ok.
But they do have the right to equality within the church, in my opinion. As Gid said in Galatians.

Again, God made a very specific pronouncement in 1 Timothy 2:11-12. This means that if a woman was to do the contrary to this assertion, this would displease God. And yes, you can find verses to support 'another' position. However, you still then need to attempt to reconcile the contradiction. Which one(s) do you accept, and which one(s) do you ignore?

No, the euthyphyon dilemma is too difficult for me. I would have to ponder about option 1 "might makes right" - which is too hard for me.

Let me make your pondering simple If God exists, He is the law maker. This makes 'morality' arbitrary. Why? Simple. If you don't agree, too bad. If you don't abide by His laws, you can be punished by God. If He should later change His mind about a law, and you don't like that He changes His mind, too bad. If you watched the simple 3 minute video, it would all be clarified.

I even stay neutral on the assessment if this is a yes-or-no question or not. You would have to look up the wording as used and then evaluate if "homosexuality" in terms of sexual orientation is meant or not. This is difficult to assess, in my opinion.

"Men shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Doesn't seem very difficult, if you ask me

This being said... I stay neutral on the purported sin nature of it.

You have completely ignored my prior response. I will post it again:

"It's a yes/no question to ask. Is something fundamentally right or wrong? You can add 'qualifiers' to it, but you essentially agree/disagree with the general concept. For the Christian, is it right/wrong in the eye's of God? Seems as though, in THIS case, there exists no qualifiers.

(i.e.) Thou shalt not murder - Ultimately, you either agree or disagree to the general concept. I would hope we both agree that murder is 'wrong.' But caveats exist, which 'justify' such actions from 'murder', to instead become a justified 'killing'."

that's exactly where I stay neutral. In a situation in which many Christians accuse gays and lesbians to ruin the whole society, I won't add a single word to the "sin nature"-theory. Be it pro or contra.

Again, God deems it sin. Fundamentally, you either deem the generalized act sin or not, which means you either agree with God, or you don't. Please answer the question. I've asked several times. I'm not asking you to explain why others chastise them.

It's always a sign of strength to speak from own experience, thank you very much.

You are quite welcome

 

[Silmarien]

BTW, you still didn't back up your assertion that women wanted more rights before the women's rights movement even started to operate in the mid 19th century. I'd say, there was no Simone de Beauvoir in the Roman empire. No Coco Chanel in the Middle Ages. No terre de femmes in times of the French Revolution. All these heroes come
from modern times only. But feel free to prove me wrong.

The women's rights movement is at least as old as the Reformation. There was a thread about this in the Egalitarian forum about a month ago: Women of the Reformation. Marie Dentière was one of the major figures calling for a larger role for women, but not the only one.

Women's rights was also a fairly serious aspect of the French Revolution, as there was militant feminist activism during that period pushing for full citizenship. One of the most famous figures is Olympe de Gouges.

As for feminist heroines, I think one of the biggest of all is Mary Wollstonecraft, 18th century.

 

[thomas_t]

I've already 'backed up' plenty, for which you are avoiding Besides, as stated in my last reply...

"I doubt it's a stretch to think that some women felt discriminated against, but never voiced their concerns. Furthermore, it's probably also not a stretch to consider that the culture back then was to teach women, at an early age, that they are inferior and need to assume specific roles. Hence, many would just reconcile this assertion, as I'm sure many asserted this was the 'teaching from their God'. Just like the many whom likely also used the Bible to justify slavery ownership to their slaves."

I meant backing it up providing sources. Your paragraph comes across as mere assumtion and guesswork to me.

I'm watching as you dance all around it.

I said this topic is too demanding intellectually. Why is this dancing. I'm saying it's simply too much for my brain. But I could answer you saying that God's existence makes " 'morality' arbitrary". This seems to be but a detail in this dilemma. My brain can answer this: no, in my opinion. It's just as arbitrary as God want's to have it. But all the covenants in the Bible make it clear that he is against arbitrary rules: for covenants are written down and everlasting, as I understand it.

Hence, slavery is okay, under the conditions of the Bible, forever. Do you agree?

under the conditions of that time... then I agree. Slavery's better than simply killing all captive soldiers after their defeat, for instance.

God makes an assertion, and never adjusts/abolishes it. Thus, we still live under the same 'law.' Women are to not hold authority over men. Do you agree? Yes or no?

over the man (singular). Yes I agree. But now the Bible believer can infer that the man is not to assume authority over the woman, either. Here is why: When she wants equality... and the woman should have any authority over a man, then this is what follows naturally. No authority between the sexes, at all. Why not.

Which one(s) do you accept, and which one(s) do you ignore?

It's not a question of ignoring Bible passages. All is true. All people need to do is adding up the verses and draw the conclusions the way I did just above this qoute, in my opinion.
So I did adress your point. Bible rules never change. It's up to us to draw modern conclusions from it and apply it to modern life, including the expectations from modern women in this case.

Again, God deems it sin. Fundamentally, you either deem the generalized act sin or not, which means you either agree with God, or you don't. Please answer the question. I've asked several times. I'm not asking you to explain why others chastise them.

no, I won't answer nor take a stance in the questions whether or not Bible qualifies this as sin.
There are too many Christians chastising them... so I'd rather focus on this than take a stance by myself.
I don't ignore your points about homosexuality. I simply don't take a stance for myself. This is permitted in a discussion board, I think. You have a right to neutrality for a particular subject.
If I would answer your questions in this regard, I would give up my neutrality, which I don't do.

Thomas

 

[cvanwey]

I meant backing it up providing sources. Your paragraph comes across as mere assumtion and guesswork to me.

I need to justify that women were/are taught to be subservient to men? I also need to provide sources demonstrating that women did/don't not speak their mind, when it came to women inequality? Further, I need to justify, or provide sources, regarding the early indoctrination of women, which caused them to think it's 'normal' that the man is the head of the household?

But even if I did, would you address it, and change your position? I doubt it.

My point is the Bible itself speaks about inequality. I already provided a BIG source, according to you. The Bible. It advocates men > women. You choose to instead sidestep it... To find a verse to instead support a differing position. That's fine. But please understand, as I stated prior, you need to ignore my verse, to support yours

I said this topic is too demanding intellectually. Why is this dancing. I'm saying it's simply too much for my brain. But I could answer you saying that God's existence makes " 'morality' arbitrary". This seems to be but a detail in this dilemma. My brain can answer this: no, in my opinion. It's just as arbitrary as God want's to have it.

All I can ask, again, is that you watch the 3 minute video. I know you have the ability to see it. Go to your mobile device, pull up youtube, type in "Frank Turek euthyphro". It's the first video. Explains everything. My point is that even he has to acknowledge that if there does not exist a third option, then 'God is arbitrary.' Hence, he regurgitates a new view, which is the same as the first position in the 'dilemma'. Again, you are either not giving yourself nearly enough credit, or you are deliberately not addressing it.

But all the covenants in the Bible make it clear that he is against arbitrary rules: for covenants are written down and everlasting, as I understand it.

And the new covenants continue to endorse slavery and women inequality, among other topics of interest. Care to address these realities?

"Slaves and Masters 5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ;6 not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.7 Render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not to men and women,8 knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are slaves or free."

"22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord.23 Whatever your task, put yourselves into it, as done for the Lord and not for your masters,24 since you know that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you serve the Lord Christ."

"1 Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed.2 Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. False Teaching and True Riches Teach and urge these duties."

"11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."

under the conditions of that time... then I agree. Slavery's better than simply killing all captive soldiers after their defeat, for instance.

You did not answer my question. Again, there is no 'that time.' Furthermore, slavery was not merely reserved for prisoners of war. But even if it was, that's the best plan God could instruct (i.e.) "don't kill them, just take them as slaves for life"? Using the Bible as authority, it is okay to take slaves now, and until the earth is no more, or people are no more. Do you agree that slavery is okay forever - (until the earth is no more)?

over the man (singular). Yes I agree. But now the Bible believer can infer that the man is not to assume authority over the woman, either. Here is why: When she wants equality... and the woman should have any authority over a man, then this is what follows naturally. No authority between the sexes, at all. Why not.

You have to rationalize the verse to do this, and God would know this Please read the verse carefully. Please read the verses in context even. God states the woman sinned first. Hence, they are to remain under the man. This is ultimately God's command. Thus, anyone whom attempts to spin it, is merely favoring their own opinion over God's. And anything a person does, which goes against God's command, He will not like. So I again implore you to watch the 3 minute video, and understand that 'might makes right' is a plausible conclusion Your opinion does not really matter to God

I'm simply here to get you to realize there are things in the Bible you likely don't agree with. So you will instead rationalize them. I see this clearly in your responses.

It's not a question of ignoring Bible passages. All is true. All people need to do is adding up the verses and draw the conclusions the way I did just above this qoute, in my opinion.
So I did adress your point. Bible rules never change. It's up to us to draw modern conclusions from it and apply it to modern life, including the expectations from modern women in this case.

There is no 'modern conclusion' under the Bible. Slavery was okay then, and will be okay moving forward. Men > women was also okay then, and also will be until the earth's end.

no, I won't answer nor take a stance in the questions whether or not Bible qualifies this as sin.

Then I can only speculate as to why

If I were to ask you if stealing, murder, trespassing, proclaiming false testimony of others was fundamentally bad, I doubt you would have a problem answering. You would say it is 'bad.' We might then discuss how there still exists caveats in which God might accept. (i.e.) Lying to Hitler to save a Jew from extermination.

But in the case for homosexuality, you don't want to provide the same fundamental answer??????

 

[thomas_t]

you've made a positive claim stating that women had a problem with that before the women's rights movement even started. You didn't back your claim up providing sources for this claim though. Thus I regard it as your assumtion. Providing sources is no rocket science, normally. But when someone doesn't want to do it... their claim should be regarded as presumption, it's not bound to be false but it is just that: presumption, in my opinion.

As I said, when women want their equality they have every right to get it within the church, in my opinion. Man>woman is right so long as the women are ok with that. This is my standpoint, at least.

Hence, they are to remain under the man.

so if they are to remain under the man... and if there is equality as stated in Galatians... then mutual submission is what follows. There is no contradiction saying so. I'm not ignoring any Bible verse, either.

Again, there is no 'that time.' Furthermore, slavery was not merely reserved for prisoners of war. But even if it was, that's the best plan God could instruct (i.e.) "don't kill them, just take them as slaves for life"?

Slavery was better than killing all captive soldiers. So Jesus was ok with it so long as it meant preserving captive soldier's lives, for instance. I don't see anything wrong with that.
At that time they didn't have a social system to integrate those who didn't speak their language.
For today's time... I'm against slavery. As I can see here in Germany, foreigners can be integrated in society without resorting ti slavery. Thanks to God - to him be the honor.
But first off, integrating foreigners costs money. Paying the language course, paying the apprenticeship, covering their basic needs as long as they can't work... and more. In ancient Israel, they didn't have that money, neither did they have the social infrastructure that supported foreigners. Where did they get their clothing? Here we luckily have the Red Cross distrubuting second-hand garment. But the Red Cross didn't come into being until 1850. All of this is very new.

But in the case for homosexuality, you don't want to provide the same fundamental answer??????

If I hold the view that homosexuality is right... the conservatives among the Christians would feel challanged and many among them would feel inclined to rant hurling out insults and condescending remarks against them.
If I hold the view that homosexuality is wrong... then I would simply join the ranks of all those who rant hurling out insult and condescending remarks against them.
So I say nothing. I solely focus on how Christians speak about them.

I agree with everything in the Bible. Believe me .

No I won't watch your video since the topic is too difficult for me to solve. The euthyphron dilemma is intellectually too high. I would have to know what the essence of "good" really is. I can't do that.
Since you are insisting I should watch it... Let's compare it to the arts dilemma: either arts is arts when artists say so.... or it is arts due to some other standards outside the arts world? To solve that question, you would have to know what arts really is in order to make a decision. Even if I could solve the arts dilemma... I can't answer the euthyphron dilemma, since I don't know what good really is, as I said. But I'm not interested in knowing, either.

Regards,
Thomas

EDITED

 

[cvanwey]

you've made a positive claim stating that women had a problem with that before the women's rights movement even started. You didn't back your claim up providing sources for this claim though. Thus I regard it as your assumtion. Providing sources is no rocket science, normally. But when someone doesn't want to do it... their claim should be regarded as presumption, it's not bound to be false but it is just that: presumption, in my opinion.

I provided a source several times. You continue to ignore it

Thanks to books, like the Bible, women were taught they are under men. (i.e.) 1 Timothy 2:11-12

It does not take 'rocket science' to discern that again, women were indoctrinated to think they were less than a men, hence; when later asked direct questions, merely agree with 'written law'. It also does not take 'rocket science' to discern that women were not allowed a voice in this region, and in this time. Any female Bible authors? Nope. The sparse humans, whom were educated during this era, were only men. It's fair to say women were considered second class citizens in this region, and in this time.

As I said, when women want their equality they have every right to get it within the church, in my opinion. Man>woman is right so long as the women are ok with that. This is my standpoint, at least.

@thomas_t , this is exactly my point [Your] opinion differs from God's. Please stay with me here...

God has made a pronouncement. [You] are saying men > women, only as long as it's okay with the woman. But it does NOT say this in Chapter 1 Timothy 2 anywhere. Thus, you are inventing your own alternative conclusion, to 'justify' the given pronouncement. You see what I'm getting at here?

so if they are to remain under the man... and if there is equality as stated in Galatians... then mutual submission is what follows. There is no contradiction saying so. I'm not ignoring any Bible verse, either.

Ready for my second assertion @thomas_t ?

My first is "might makes right". My second is that "God is the author of confusion".

You have just validated this point, yet again. Again, read Chapter 1 Timothy 2 entirely. I don't recall seeing a footnote in there, referencing Galatians The order(s) in 1 Timothy 2 appears pretty straight forward about specific given 'law.' The orders are concise.

Again, like I stated prior, yes, you can find verses to support [your] alternative position, which may even contradict my view. But this IS also the point. God is the author of confusion. If you disagree, start counting denominations

Slavery was better than killing all captive soldiers. So Jesus was ok with it so long as it meant preserving captive soldier's lives, for instance. I don't see anything wrong with that.
At that time they didn't have a social system to integrate those who didn't speak their language.
For today's time... I'm against slavery. As I can see here in Germany, foreigners can be integrated in society without resorting ti slavery. Thanks to God - to him be the honor.
But first off, integrating foreigners costs money. Paying the language course, paying the apprenticeship, covering their basic needs as long as they can't work... and more. In ancient Israel, they didn't have that money, neither did they have the social infrastructure that supported foreigners. Where did they get their clothing? Here we luckily have the Red Cross distrubuting second-hand garment. But the Red Cross didn't come into being until 1850. All of this is very new.

You have again avoided everything I stated @thomas_t

Please allow me to simplify:

- Slavery is okay forever
- Jesus never rebukes the allowances of OT slavery law
- Hence, slavery, which includes the allowance of the beating and keeping for life, continues.

If a future leader were to reference Biblical verse to again 'legalize' slavery, He/she would be justified, under the Bible.

You say, "I'm against slavery". Well then, you disagree with God. As God is either indifferent to or endorsed slavery. So as I said, "might makes right". You are wrong, just as I am We both disagree with God's Word here. But you are the one whom stated 'God is perfect'???????????????

Can you explain?

I agree with everything in the Bible. Believe me .

This is incorrect, for two reasons; as shown above. You are against slavery. God is not. Some verses demonstrate men > women, while you can find others to state to the contrary.

Getting back to homosexuality, I would assume when you state you 'agree with everything in the Bible', you are agreeing with God's pronouncement on this one.

I then ask you... Is it wrong because God does not like it, or is it wrong because of some other reason? You see, this is essentially the euthyphro dilemma in a nutshell. Not too hard now is it?

No I won't watch your video since the topic is too difficult for me to solve. The euthyphron dilemma is intellectually too high. I would have to know what the essence of "good" really is. I can't do that.

I'm confused now. Before you stated you can't watch it, due to technical difficulties. Now you are instead saying you won't watch it? You'd rather spend much more time in text exchange, verses spending three lousy minutes watching a concise video, which may have eliminated many future exchanges?

Your response above is a testament as to why you need to see the video. I'm not after the definition of 'good' per se... Again, the premise I want to speak about is quite more elementary... My assumption is that you can handle it just fine.

A. Something is good because God likes it
B. Something is good for another reason

A. is arbitrary because... 1.) He dictates and we either follow orders or not. If we don't, we can be punished. 2.) Also, He could later change His mind about what He thinks is 'good'.

B. is arbitrary because if something is already deemed 'good' outside God's say-so, why would we need God to justify 'morality'?

This is why theists, like Dr. Turek, have to try and invent alternatives. Because He too knows the 'dilemma' poses issue. And now, I'm pressing you for your stance.

Since you are insisting I should watch it... Let's compare it to the arts dilemma: either arts is arts when artists say so.... or it is arts due to some other standards outside the arts world? To solve that question, you would have to know what arts really is in order to make a decision. Even if I could solve the arts dilemma... I can't answer the euthyphron dilemma, since I don't know what good really is, as I said. But I'm not interested in knowing, either.

Regards,
Thomas

EDITED

Incorrect. Please see my explanation above My point is that morals/good/bad become arbitrary, using the 'God' framework.

 

[thomas_t]

I provided a source several times. You continue to ignore it

Thanks to books, like the Bible, women were taught they are under men. (i.e.) 1 Timothy 2:11-12

I didn't ignore that. However, I asked for a source for your claim that women had a problem with their situation in society.

But it does NOT say this in Chapter 1 Timothy 2 anywhere. Thus, you are inventing your own alternative conclusion, to 'justify' the given pronouncement.

You are right in asserting that this conclusion doesn't figure in 1 Timothy 2. And then you go on saying...

Again, read Chapter 1 Timothy 2 entirely. I don't recall seeing a footnote in there, referencing Galatians The order(s) in 1 Timothy 2 appears pretty straight forward about specific given 'law.' The orders are concise.

But this doesn't make it wrong to conclude that, in lights of Galatians, there needs to be mutual submission. In case the woman is not ok with her situation. Even if Galatians isn't mentioned in 1 Timothy 2. As a Bible reader you are allowed to think and combine verses. This is nothing going against God's will.

God is not the author of confusion, I think. Even if there are many denominations around.
I didn't avoid everything you've stated.
I don't think my opinion differs from God's.
As I said, slavery was ok at that time for God. Now things have changed. I'm against slavery in the current situation and I agree with God. If there will be a future leader on earth trying to convince that slavery will be right... times will have shown already that avoiding slavery is possible. So, this is a change in situation. So, that hypothetical leader wouldn't be able to say that doing without slavery is impossible.
I'm neutral on the assertion "might makes right".

No I won't watch the video because the question it covers is too difficult for me to solve. It depends on how you define "good". This I can't do... and then I can't take a stance in the euthyphron dilemma. Since I know this before hand... I won't watch the video.

Incorrect. Please see my explanation above My point is that morals/good/bad become arbitrary, using the 'God' framework.

I don't think it was incorrect. I've seen your answer above and answered your assertion about it purportedly being arbitrary in post # 170 (below second quote). Then you said that if even the guy in your video can't solve the dilemma then it must be a compelling dilemma. But here I don't agree. Even if your guy can't solve the dilemma, this doesn't mean that God can't solve it, either... and that morality needs to be arbitrary.

EDITED

 

[cvanwey]

I didn't ignore that. However, I asked for a source for your claim that women had a problem with their situation in society.

And I provided a source. From the Bible. Many responses ago. 'Back in the day', women were not schooled. But sure as heck, many of these same women were taught the Bible. Early indoctrination promoted women < men. So when a woman is later asked, they will either agree, due to their 'teaching', or likely not furnish their inner answer, for fear of the man. Many women were taught assertions like this, at a very early age, to be considered below the man.

Again, all you need to justify my conclusion, is to quote the Bible directly

You are right in asserting that this conclusion doesn't figure in 1 Timothy 2.

Thank you. The conversation should end here, that the Bible advocates women inequality, and you either fundamentally agree/disagree. For which I would again ask you, do [YOU] agree to the fundamental inequality of men vs. women, like God does?

But this doesn't make it wrong to conclude that, in lights of Galatians, there needs to be mutual submission.

Disagree. At best, there exists confusion. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Sure, the Bible states many things, for which many can pluck out, and use virtually where ever. But in this case, the Bible speaks about specific circumstance. (i.e.):

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."

I see little/no room for 'mutual submission' here. But nice try

Regardless of any other verses, at best, you must choose to ignore one of them, to abide by the other.

I see pure 'rationalization' on your part. You have stated it is 'good' to apply mutual consent. And yet, God sees otherwise. You state you agree with God, But you clearly don't.

I again then ask, how is God perfect?

My take?

- Might makes right
- God is the author of confusion.

God is not the author of confusion, I think. Even if there are many denominations around.

You need to back this up. Tell us what verse 1 Timothy 2:11-12 means then, if God does not aid in confusion? And we all need a concrete answer to what God means here? Is there any verse in the Bible which is not up for interpretation? You are likely pinned either way you answer

I don't think my opinion differs from God's.

But it does. You seem to value mutual consent. In the verse provided, it does not adhere to such. See above... Again, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

As I said, slavery was ok at that time for God. Now things have changed. I'm against slavery in the current situation and I agree with God. If there will be a future leader on earth trying to convince that slavery will be right... times will have shown already that avoiding slavery is possible. So, this is a change in situation. So, that hypothetical leader wouldn't be able to say that doing without slavery is impossible.

The Bible does not furnish any/all situations which justify slavery. You are giving your own justification, as to why slavery is/was acceptable.

The Bible is fairly vague on the topic; only to specify statements, such as - you can beat them, keep them for life, and later, in the NT, that slaves should honor their slave masters higher, if they are Christ believers. Nothing above, in your response, is addressing what the Bible itself says. Care to engage in the actual conversation?

Using the Bible, a foreign dictator could legalize slavery, use the Bible, take you as a slave, beat you, keep you for life, and tell you that you need to respect him all-the-more - because He's Christian. He could proclaim this is the will and allowances of God.

Do you have any problem(s) with this what-so-ever? I have a hunch you do

I'm neutral on the assertion "might makes right".

I doubt it. Let me ask you again...

Is something deemed 'good' because God likes it, or is something deemed 'good' for any other reason - (and you don't even have to specify of the other reason(s)?

Simple question.

Basically, is it God, or ANY other reason?

You picking up what I'm putting down yet?

I feel I already know your answer, and you care not to fess up ?.?.?

No I won't watch the video because the question it covers is too difficult for me to solve. It depends on how you define "good".

As I stated many times now. You do NOT need to define 'good.'

Again...

Is something deemed good because God likes it, or is there another reason - (any other reason at all in which I will not ask you to explain)?

 

[Tinker Grey]

And I provided a source. From the Bible. Many responses ago.

I think he wants a source for "had a problem" with as in "women didn't like it", you know, like how one should provide sources for how slaves didn't like being slaves.

 

[cvanwey]

I think he wants a source for "had a problem" with as in "women didn't like it", you know, like how one should provide sources for how slaves didn't like being slaves.

LOL! Well, in that case, neither the women, nor slaves, were asked of their opinions back then. So in either case, I guess the 'sources' would be limited

 

[Tinker Grey]

LOL! Well, in that case, neither the women, nor slaves, were asked of their opinions back then. So in either case, I guess the 'sources' would be limited

Here's a couple: https://www.history.com/topics/womens-history/feminism-womens-history

In his classic Republic, Plato advocated that women possess “natural capacities” equal to men for governing and defending ancient Greece. Not everyone agreed with Plato; when the women of ancient Rome staged a massive protest over the Oppian Law, which restricted women’s access to gold and other goods, Roman consul Marcus Porcius Cato argued, “As soon as they begin to be your equals, they will have become your superiors!” (Despite Cato’s fears, the law was repealed.)

If one looks up Oppian law, this was established 215BC and repealed 195BC.

Same web page

Abigail Adams, first lady to President John Adams, specifically saw access to education, property and the ballot as critical to women’s equality. In letters to her husband John Adams, Abigail Adams warned, “If particular care and attention is not paid to the Ladies we are determined to foment a Rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice.”

I don't know if that is good enough for a German who may not know US history (not a dig; I don't know German history), but US lurkers should understand the significance.

 

[thomas_t]

Hi Tinker

I think he wants a source for "had a problem" with as in "women didn't like it", you know,

exactly. .
Bible teaches that women didn't like a lot of things: a woman complained about a sister not helping her in Luke 10:40; about a husband not loving her enough, Genesis 29:32; about not having children in Genesis 30:23. Women complained throughout the Bible (so did men) - there are many more passages. But never we see a passage in which a woman complains about not having equal rights as men. Well, up to now I don't find this passage... @Silmarien might prove me wrong?
Even Sarah didn't complain about being treated as a sex partner for other men Genesis 12:11. But later she complained a lot, but again... no single complaint about her rights with regard to women in society/wedlock.
Thanks for providing your source concerning the Oppian Law. So here we see genuine protest. But this was limited to one aspect only as I see it?
Abigail Adams - very interesting. But she can be an exception, I think. If it's just one woman... maybe other joined her but this is not proof for women to have had a problem with this in their masses.
In Germany, for instance, a hundred years ago women voted for the parties opposed to the right to vote for women (see this source in German language pages 6-7). It seems as a paradox? But in the churches I rarely meet true feminists, either.
Thomas

 

[thomas_t]

The conversation should end here, that the Bible advocates women inequality,

as I said you merely need to see this passage in lights of Galatians 3:28... and then you have equality again. So I conclude, God does not agree to inequality between the sexes at church, in my opinion. I agree with God. No need to ignore one single Bible verse, believe me.

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."

if women want equality in church (I assume Paul is talking about church, here), then they could be the preachers ... I mean those who have an evengelist heart. Men teachers, women preachers - and then we have equality again. These lines in case women agree with me. If sisters want another regulation at church that is in line with this passage, then they can come up with their ideas there.
I further propose that man should not have authority over a woman wanting equality, either... and men can also be quiet at church.
BTW "she must be quiet" is not the original text, as I see it, it's your translation. View the interlinear translation here 1 Timothy 2:12 Interlinear: and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness,
I hope, with this I have answered this comment of yours, too:

In the verse provided, it does not adhere to [mutual consent]. See above... Again, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Tell us what verse 1 Timothy 2:11-12 means then, if God does not aid in confusion? And we all need a concrete answer to what God means here? Is there any verse in the Bible which is not up for interpretation? You are likely pinned either way you answer

God spoke into a time in which women did not have equality. He also wanted to address those who liked the inequality of women.
Even if there is inequality, souls can be saved. I suppose God wanted to establish priorities: salvation first, equality last. Also, saved persons can feel equality at church better, I suppose.

Is something deemed 'good' because God likes it, or is something deemed 'good' for any other reason - (and you don't even have to specify of the other reason(s)?

as I said often... in order for me to answer this question I would have needed to understand the essence of good. This is what I can't do. My intellectuality is limited. Of course I need to define "good" in order to be able to answer this question.

Nothing above, in your response, is addressing what the Bible itself says. Care to engage in the actual conversation?

I did. It's better for a person to be beaten as a slave than to be killed as a captive. As I said. Slavery in and of itself existed in a situation in which they didn't know what to do with captive people, I suppose. (I'm reiterating myself here, already) Before times of slavery in Israel ... everyone from the peoples they conquered used to be killed, see Deuteronomy 2:34 for instance. I do see progress with regard to how captives were treated in the Bible. Normally, atheists complain about Israel having killed too much people, now you cite slavery.

Using the Bible, a foreign dictator could legalize slavery, use the Bible, take you as a slave, beat you, keep you for life, and tell you that you need to respect him all-the-more - because He's Christian. He could proclaim this is the will and allowances of God.

You didn't cite a passage in which God wants his Israelites to install slavery, though. So your dictator couldn't find a passage telling him he should take me as a slave. Bible has passages about how to deal with slaves if you had some to begin with.

EDITED