Genesis, how are women supposed to be treated?

[aiki]

If it is going to shift and change, then, yes, most definitely it is still evolving.

Again, equivocation. My body changes over time but my body, nonetheless, has some unchanging material characteristics and boundaries. My body, for instance, is a carbon-based life form whether it's fifteen or fifty, in the peak of health or dying of cancer. My body must have oxygen, and hydrogen, and calories in order to function. My hair may grow long and my body may become flabby and weak but my body will never be fifty feet tall, nor will it ever be able to leap over skyscrapers in a single bound. So, too, with the universe. While change goes on within its boundaries, the universe has certain established physical constants that are unchanging. In fact, these constants make the universe as we know it possible - and all the change we see within it, too.

Change and evolution (in the sense of a process of improvement) are not synonymous. Change can be value neutral or deleterious. Change within the universe does not necessarily mean positive progress (if that is what you mean by "evolving").

Selah.

 

[Hoghead1]

Again, equivocation. My body changes over time but my body, nonetheless, has some unchanging material characteristics and boundaries. My body, for instance, is a carbon-based life form whether it's fifteen or fifty, in the peak of health or dying of cancer. My body must have oxygen, and hydrogen, and calories in order to function. My hair may grow long and my body may become flabby and weak but my body will never be fifty feet tall, nor will it ever be able to leap over skyscrapers in a single bound. So, too, with the universe. While change goes on within its boundaries, the universe has certain established physical constants that are unchanging. In fact, these constants make the universe as we know it possible - and all the change we see within it, too.

Change and evolution (in the sense of a process of improvement) are not synonymous. Change can be value neutral or deleterious. Change within the universe does not necessarily mean positive progress (if that is what you mean by "evolving").

Selah.

Both consistency and change are part of evolution, however. For example, there are definitely unchanging features to your body, such as your sex. However, there are also changeable aspects as well. I have been male all my life, but I do not have anywhere near the same body now as I did when I was 16. All organisms on the planet are carbon based, but still they evolve. All land animals need O2, but still they evolve.
Change and evolution are in fact synonymous. Evolution means a change in the real internal constitution or "essence" of something. That continually happens moment to moment with everything in the universe. You can't put your foot in the same universe twice. No thinker thinks twice, either.
No, I don't mean "positive evolving." I mean, as I just said, change in the "essence' of something.

 

[Hoghead1]

Mark 2:19 and Ephesians 5:22-33, among other passages.

No, no , these passages are not saying Christ has a bride. Mark is using a parable to illustrate a point. Ephesians is using an analogy. That means there is a uniformity, definite likeness between Christ and a husband. However, that does mean they are absolutely identical situations.

 

[Hoghead1]

I stand by what I said. Pittenger denied much of the Creed, he published multiple attacks on C. S. Lewis, and those attacks contained multiple misquotes and misrepresentations.



Yes. Pittenger taught that Jesus was merely "One in whom God was active."



I stand by the Creed.

I'm not concerned with Pittenger and Lewis. I am concerned only with Pittenger and Christ. Pittenger's point is that God is omnipresent, present in all creatures, true. However, he also emphasized that Christ is unique, a powerful raising into consciousness of God as incarnate throughout the universe. Hence, God is present in Christ in a far richer way than is ordinarily the case. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself or herself. Also, as I asked you before, just how much Pittenger have you actually read?

 

[Paidiske]

Wasn't he the guy who famously said that the god of process theology was "too weak"? That process theology "doesn't give a strong enough picture of God's relationship to created reality to make God the ground of hope, or to give an account of God as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who raised Jesus from the dead"?

I'm not aware of that quote.

As I said, I read some of his work a long time ago - I'm not even sure now which books I read - and I found them helpful as I was studying science and trying to come to terms with, for example, the apparent freedom of the evolutionary process (or indeed some ideas in quantum physics) and the sovereignty of God. Polkinghorne gave me a framework in which I was able to integrate those.

But in my understanding, identifying the creation as part of the creator, rather than wholly other than and dependent on the creator, is a bit of a push too far, theologically.

 

[Hoghead1]

I'm not aware of that quote.

As I said, I read some of his work a long time ago - I'm not even sure now which books I read - and I found them helpful as I was studying science and trying to come to terms with, for example, the apparent freedom of the evolutionary process (or indeed some ideas in quantum physics) and the sovereignty of God. Polkinghorne gave me a framework in which I was able to integrate those.

But in my understanding, identifying the creation as part of the creator, rather than wholly other than and dependent on the creator, is a bit of a push too far, theologically.

Interesting. Why do you consider it going too far to view creation as ontologically part of the being of God? How familiar with the process rationale for so doing?

 

[Paidiske]

Interesting. Why do you consider it going too far to view creation as ontologically part of the being of God? How familiar with the process rationale for so doing?

It's been a while since I read much around this. I think some of the process rationale has to do with the subjectivity of creation, or something (so Whitehead)? But I am happy to learn from you about it.

For me, to see creation as part of the essence - the being - of God is to deny/diminish God's role as the free and generous creator of all that is. It makes God subject to the unfolding of creation rather than recognising God's sovereign rule. It places God alongside us rather than above us (or, perhaps more to the point, undermines the humility of recognising our own complete dependence and contingency on God).

And so on. I think you can see where I am going?

 

[Hoghead1]

It's been a while since I read much around this. I think some of the process rationale has to do with the subjectivity of creation, or something (so Whitehead)? But I am happy to learn from you about it.

For me, to see creation as part of the essence - the being - of God is to deny/diminish God's role as the free and generous creator of all that is. It makes God subject to the unfolding of creation rather than recognising God's sovereign rule. It places God alongside us rather than above us (or, perhaps more to the point, undermines the humility of recognising our own complete dependence and contingency on God).

And so on. I think you can see where I am going?

In process, the basic building blocks of the universe, the atoms, so to speak, are actual entities or momentary occasions of experience, drops of experience. Hence, Hartshorne stated that all things, in all their aspects, consist exclusives of souls. However, this does not mean that everything is conscious. Process emphasizes the fundamentality of unconscious experience. Only very high level creatures are capable of consciousness. This view is sometimes called panpsychism or panexperientialism.
I gather you have issues with teh transcendence of God in process. Don't worry many do. That's understandable. I don't know if you read a previous most of mine today that addressed that issue with another member. So, at the risk of repeating myself, here is the process take:
Many feel that they can put no faith in a God who does not predestine and control absolutely everything. In process, this God is seen as "too big." The problem is that of freedom. If we have genuine freedom, then God cannot predetermine or dictate all we do. God cannot decide our decisions for us. We have to decide for ourselves. God leads by luring us along, not forcing it. Democracy is about the worst form of government, until you consider the alternative. However, it takes far more talent to rule a democracy than to be a cosmic dictator. Hence, God is the ideal model of power, power over powers, participating in the free self-decisions of others. So, in process, yes, God is limited by the decisions of others, who can choose to what extent they will actualize God's aim for them. That means nothing can be guaranteed.
In process, the fact that God is transcendent does not mean that God is wholly other than. God is seen as the chief exemplification of all metaphysical principles, not their negation. For example, the principle of relativity (Whitehead) claims that all of reality is interconnected. Every entity is an item in the real internal constitution of every other. This means there is an empathy and omnipresence among all things. However, God transcends all creatures in that God is omnipresent in the fullest sense of the term. God enjoys a direct, immediate empathic reaction to any and all creaturely feeling. We, in contrast, are strangers to sensitivity on that grand of a scale.

Process understands God as needing the universe. For example, I argue that creation is God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into consciousness and self-actualization. Now, of course, the classical or traditional model of God went on the notion that God would be inferior if God had any needs. But I hold that is a prejudice about being needy. Was Toscanini any less of a conductor because he needed an orchestra? If teh most powerful have the most needs. So I have no problem in assuming God needs the universe. Actually, I see no reason why God bothered with it if God could have been happy, whole and complete without it as with it. If God doesn't need it, if God is not affected by it, then the universe is totally meaningless to God. Of course, some will complain I am presenting God as being very egotistical. Yes, God is egotistical, the most egotistical that there is, but God is also altruistic, the most altruistic that there is. We tend to naively assume egotism and altruism against one another, which in fact they go together. Since we are all social-relational beings, we cannot be happy unless others are happy. Thinking of your own well being is also thinking of the well-being of others. Just thinking about myself and worrying about my future is just as altruistic as it is egotistical. Moment to moment, I am a different person. Hence, to worry about my future is really to worry over the future of another person. Trouble is, we too often forget this. So the fact God needs us does not mean God can exploit us.

 

[Radagast]

No, no , these passages are not saying Christ has a bride. Mark is using a parable to illustrate a point. Ephesians is using an analogy. That means there is a uniformity, definite likeness between Christ and a husband. However, that does mean they are absolutely identical situations.

Of course it's a metaphor, not an "absolutely identical situation," but IMO the Biblical language needs to be taken seriously. The relationship between Christ and the Church tells us how husbands should behave, and the behaviour of human husbands, at their very best, tells us a little about Christ.

Pittenger's point is that God is omnipresent, present in all creatures, true. However, he also emphasized that Christ is unique, a powerful raising into consciousness of God as incarnate throughout the universe. Hence, God is present in Christ in a far richer way than is ordinarily the case. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself or herself.

Which is a far cry from "I believe in ... one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made. Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end."

 

[Radagast]

As I said, I read some of his work a long time ago - I'm not even sure now which books I read - and I found them helpful as I was studying science and trying to come to terms with, for example, the apparent freedom of the evolutionary process (or indeed some ideas in quantum physics) and the sovereignty of God. Polkinghorne gave me a framework in which I was able to integrate those.

My background is also in the sciences, and I also found Polkinghorne useful.

I'm not aware of that quote.

One of the quotes was from an interview, which can be found online here. Can't remember where the other was from.

 

[Hoghead1]

My background is also in the sciences, and I also found Polkinghorne useful.



One of the quotes was from an interview, which can be found online here. Can't remember where the other was from.

I also have a background in science. I have an M.S.in clinical psychology.

 

[Hoghead1]

Of course it's a metaphor, not an "absolutely identical situation," but IMO the Biblical language needs to be taken seriously. The relationship between Christ and the Church tells us how husbands should behave, and the behaviour of human husbands, at their very best, tells us a little about Christ.



Which is a far cry from "I believe in ... one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made. Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end."

Pittenger isn't an all denying that. He is reinforcing that. What on earth makes you think he is denying that?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I don't understand how I can live knowing I am born simply to be ruled over by men no matter what I do.

Husband, not "men".

 

[Hoghead1]

Husband, not "men".

In teh Bible, however, all men clearly are depicted as having the God-given right to govern over women. Read Paul. Divinely inspired as it may be, the Bible was also written by males and is the product of a sexist society. No doubt about it.

 

[Radagast]

Pittenger isn't an all denying that. He is reinforcing that. What on earth makes you think he is denying that?

Exhibit A:

Pittenger's point is that God is omnipresent, present in all creatures, true. However, he also emphasized that Christ is unique, a powerful raising into consciousness of God as incarnate throughout the universe. Hence, God is present in Christ in a far richer way than is ordinarily the case. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself or herself.

Exhibit B:

"I believe in ... one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made. Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end."

The differences between the two belief systems should be obvious.

Pittenger also said things like "the Easter gospel is not that the Tomb was empty (although it may have been)" [bolding mine].

The Creed does not refer to the Resurrection as something that might perhaps have happened, but as a core tenet of Christian belief. Those who deny it are "of all people most to be pitied."

 

[Radagast]

In teh Bible, however, all men clearly are depicted as having the God-given right to govern over women. Read Paul.

No. Paul does not say that. Read Paul.

Ephesians 5:22, for example, says "Wives, submit to your own husbands (τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν), as to the Lord." Nothing about submitting to other men.

 

[Hoghead1]

No. Paul does not say that. Read Paul.

I did. That's why I said what I said. Who told the women to shut up in church? Also, you might find it interesting to read an extra-canonical work called "Paul and the Acts of Teekel." It's a genuine work, though it never made it into the Bible. Anyhow it makes very clear that Paul really resented women having any real authority in the church. He had real issues with a woman named Teekel because when was more persuasive that he was and she was bringing in so many women that their numbers overshadowed the men. Paul, however, refused to baptize her. even after she performed to major miracles in the arena, where the Romans shoved her to be out to death. It is said that Teekel lived to preach another 75 years. In the East, she became a major saint.

 

[Paidiske]

In process, the fact that God is transcendent does not mean that God is wholly other than.

Process understands God as needing the universe.

I just picked these two things out as exemplifying my issue. God is - in orthodox thought - wholly other than creation. Creation is contingent, utterly dependent, on God as creator and sustainer.

To see creation as somehow part of God in effect denies creation as the free and unconstrained and generous act of a loving God who wished an other with which to be in loving relationship.

Does God need the universe? Not within Godself. In the sense that the Trinity expanded their mutual loving relationship outward to love another, I guess you could say that the universe allows God to make manifest something of God's nature which would otherwise not have been expressed. But God is not dependent on us, the way we're dependent on God. That's where I would have an issue.

Like Radagast, I don't see your understanding as compatible with the basic Creeds of Christian understanding.

 

[JCFantasy23]

MOD HAT ON

I've had to clean up almost every post in the last page.
Flaming is NOT allowed, whether members disagree or not. This includes potshots at people's faith.
If you are flamed, do NOT respond with a flame - please report the post.
A full list of the site guidelines and rules are here

Further issues with the thread may result in warnings or the thread having to be permanently closed.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[ScottA]

What bride? Scripture never says that Jesus had a bride or was even married.

What I said earlier that was cut out, was more appropriate, but this should do:
Matthew 9:15
And Jesus said to them, “Can the friends of thebridegroom mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Matthew 25:1
[ The Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins ] “Then the kingdom of heaven shall be likened to ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Matthew 25:5
But while the bridegroom was delayed, they all slumbered and slept.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Matthew 25:6
“And at midnight a cry was heard: ‘Behold, thebridegroom is coming; go out to meet him!’
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Matthew 25:10
And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding; and the door was shut.

Ephesians 5:31-33
31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.