Is 1 Timothy 2:11-12 Moral?

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Explain how this is not the classical definition of chauvinism? Furthermore, explain how punishment, for something someone else did, then applies to all future women, moving forward? Again, using your asserted Biblical view.

What's wrong with chauvinism and what is your justification against it?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

This is intellectually dishonest... You are avoiding the question. If you do not want to answer, then don't answer.

- excessive or prejudiced loyalty or support for one's own cause, group, or gender.
- an attitude of superiority toward members of the opposite sex
- men > women

Now you got vulgar,
and no,
this definition does not fit at all what is written in Scripture, God's Word.

 

[cvanwey]

What's wrong with chauvinism and what is your justification against it?

Intellectually dishonest. It's a fair assumption that you know you do not agree either, and view the verse as chauvinistic, but are playing games (moral argument). Is my statement objective? no. At least I'm being honest though ;-)

 

[cvanwey]

Now you got vulgar,
and no,
this definition does not fit at all what is written in Scripture, God's Word.

I give up, you are not going to answer. Thanks anyway, for nothing.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I give up, you are not going to answer. Thanks anyway, for nothing.

You were and are wrong, you got the same answer several times, given from Scripture,
and you
constantly refuse what Scripture says.
So then, yes, for you, for nothing - no benefit.

 

[cvanwey]

You were and are wrong, you got the same answer several times, given from Scripture,
and you
constantly refuse what Scripture says.
So then, yes, for you, for nothing - no benefit.

We are going in circles. bye..

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

We are going in circles. bye..

Yes, we knew that all the time - as long as you reject Jesus and reject God's Word,
there is no available help nor consensus possible.

 

[cvanwey]

Yes, we knew that all the time - as long as you reject Jesus and reject God's Word,
there is no available help nor consensus possible.

Or even 'better':

'Yes, we knew that all the time - as long as you reject {Muhammad} and reject God's Word, there is no available help nor consensus possible.'

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Intellectually dishonest. It's a fair assumption that you know you do not agree either, and view the verse as chauvinistic, but are playing games (moral argument). Is my statement objective? no. At least I'm being honest though ;-)

What if I did agree with it? Is that a problem?

 

[cvanwey]

What if I did agree with it? Is that a problem?

Answer the question, which you are avoiding, and then I'll answer.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Answer the question, which you are avoiding, and then I'll answer.

In short, the question itself is a flawed non-sequitur. You premise the question with the assumption that either you have to accept the passage at face value with absolute exegetical ignorance lest be condemned as an intellectually dishonest cherry picker. The third option that you clearly ignored is that you have no idea what you are talking about. Do you know who wrote the scripture? Do you know who the scripture was written to? Do you know the situation going on that warranted such a statement? Do you know the cultural norms during the period? These questions are essential to the exegetical analysis for the hermeneutical method. Only after these questions are answered can you then move on to contextualization to determine if and how the passage is relevant to you. This is a process you clearly do not understand and will not find in a Skeptics Annotated Bible.

So to answer your question, I absolutely agree with this scripture. Just not the context that you wrongfully accept. So again, let's say I completely agreed wholeheartedly with YOUR interpretation, why would there be a problem?

 

[cvanwey]

From what I can see...any will be better. Lol Zing!

If all our assessments can be (or) are possibly flawed, by what means did you conclude the Bible presents the absolute moral standard?

Remember, by default, all words written to paper are by humans, with no super natural source. How do you know you are not appealing to someone else's subjective opinion, on paper written thousands of years ago?

So though you might not agree with me, at least I fully admit all moral applications are subjective. What's your excuse? Lol Double Zing!

 

[cvanwey]

In short, the question itself is a flawed non-sequitur. You premise the question with the assumption that either you have to accept the passage at face value with absolute exegetical ignorance lest be condemned as an intellectually dishonest cherry picker. The third option that you clearly ignored is that you have no idea what you are talking about. Do you know who wrote the scripture? Do you know who the scripture was written to? Do you know the situation going on that warranted such a statement? Do you know the cultural norms during the period? These questions are essential to the exegetical analysis for the hermeneutical method. Only after these questions are answered can you then move on to contextualization to determine if and how the passage is relevant to you. This is a process you clearly do not understand and will not find in a Skeptics Annotated Bible.

So to answer your question, I absolutely agree with this scripture. Just not the context that you wrongfully accept. So again, let's say I completely agreed wholeheartedly with YOUR interpretation, why would there be a problem?

Please address my already provided answer, given just above ;-)

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

If all our assessments can be (or) are possibly flawed, by what means did you conclude the Bible presents the absolute moral standard?

Bottom line upfront, the answer is in my opinion, created purpose. There is a long road that we have to travel together before you can possibly understand the answer. But for now, you are asking the wrong question. First, do you believe that truth exists? Can truth be known? Is truth "relative"?

 

[cvanwey]

Bottom line upfront, the answer is in my opinion, created purpose. There is a long road that we have to travel together before you can possibly understand the answer. But for now, you are asking the wrong question. First, do you believe that truth exists? Can truth be known? Is truth "relative"?

I'm more than happy to engage. And I'm sure you can offer quite a bit of intellect, which would be useful. However, your responses do 'appear' smug and enthnocentric in nature. Maybe you feel I am guilty of the same? Who knows. The fact you feel I'm cherry picking from 'Skeptic annotated Bible', or others, speaks to your presupposition of me. I'm actually the last one to view atheist based sites, because I'm already aware of the bias applied. I already know they take stuff out of context. Hence, I try to avoid them.

My objective in 'this' post is simply intellectual dishonesty. I hope and trust you have read all my responses (though some are quite long, and I would not blame you if you didn't).

In a nutshell, this is what I'm driving at...

- If you don't agree, then how do you reconcile the Bible as truth, in an intellectually honest way?
- If you do agree, this 'may' suggest that you are not a moral agent, but instead an amoral agent, absent of personal assessment and simply following instruction?

I know this screams objective moral argument, and presumes an objective assessment, based upon right or wrong.

But with all due respect, I've had many deep discussions with many intellects in the past, whom believe. After getting through the intellect, the answer often results in the same way, as to why they believe... Anecdotal experiences and gut feeling, which seems to be disconnected from intellect.

Thoughts??

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I'm more than happy to engage. And I'm sure you can offer quite a bit of intellect, which would be useful. However, your responses do 'appear' smug and enthnocentric in nature. Maybe you feel I am guilty of the same? Who knows. The fact you feel I'm cherry picking from 'Skeptic annotated Bible', or others, speaks to your presupposition of me. I'm actually the last one to view atheist based sites, because I'm already aware of the bias applied. I already know they take stuff out of context. Hence, I try to avoid them.

My objective in 'this' post is simply intellectual dishonesty. I hope and trust you have read all my responses (though some are quite long, and I would not blame you if you didn't).

In a nutshell, this is what I'm driving at...

- If you don't agree, then how do you reconcile the Bible as truth, in an intellectually honest way?
- If you do agree, this 'may' suggest that you are not a moral agent, but instead an amoral agent, absent of personal assessment and simply following instruction?

I know this screams objective moral argument, and presumes an objective assessment, based upon right or wrong.

But with all due respect, I've had many deep discussions with many intellects in the past, whom believe. After getting through the intellect, the answer often results in the same way, as to why they believe... Anecdotal experiences and gut feeling, which seems to be disconnected from intellect.

Thoughts??

I will respond in a few. Getting ready for a meeting. However, I just wanted to let you know that the smugness is in jest. I tend to have a sarcastic sense of humor that is hard to see in a text sometimes. I try to alleviate the confusion with emojis but it is not always successful. I have spent over 4 years on The Thinking Atheist and have a fairly positive report. I will say that I have absolutely no intention of changing your mind or proselytize. We will definitely not agree with everything, and that's ok. I applaud your honest skepticism and prefer it over "blind faith". Just know that my only expectation is that our various points of view can be communicated with justification. I don't claim to know everything. If I don't know something I will tell you. However, I will try to find an answer. I may from time to time copy/paste from multiple sources. I will provide the reference if I do. The intent is not to plagerize. Rather, to show you what I have discovered in my research that my be useful to the conversation. Also, an attack on a post is not an attack on the poster. I will not take any criticism on my positions personally and I assume you will do the same. I would imagine us having a heated debate and finishing it off with a round of beer.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I'm more than happy to engage. And I'm sure you can offer quite a bit of intellect, which would be useful. However, your responses do 'appear' smug and enthnocentric in nature. Maybe you feel I am guilty of the same? Who knows. The fact you feel I'm cherry picking from 'Skeptic annotated Bible', or others, speaks to your presupposition of me. I'm actually the last one to view atheist based sites, because I'm already aware of the bias applied. I already know they take stuff out of context. Hence, I try to avoid them.

I would first like to apologize for the inaccurate presuppositions I may have had towards you. I have very rarely seen anyone claiming to be a "skeptic" or "seeker" who wasn't actually a atheist activist with a personal agenda. I have usually found that they are convinced that religion is the direcr cause of a great majority of the problems in this world so they feel like it is their moral obligation to help rid the world from it one post at a time. Others have a personal beef with Christians because of a negative experience and they come to a Christian forum to take their frustrations out. Very rarely do we ever find a true skeptic or seeker who genuinely wants to understand Christian theology or find answers to their questions. For now, I am going to assume that this is not the case with you.

I am one of the few individuals here on this forum that actually respect honest skepticism and despise blind, unjustifiable "faith". One of my favorite scripture passages is 1 Peter 3:15:

But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,
1 Peter 3:15 NIV

See. Even the Bible commands Christians to have a reason for their beliefs. But most importantly, explain with gentleness and respect.

My objective in 'this' post is simply intellectual dishonesty. I hope and trust you have read all my responses (though some are quite long, and I would not blame you if you didn't).

Honestly, I have not been able to go through the entire 140+ posts so forgive me if some of this stuff is redundant. But I think we are both on the same page regarding intellectual honesty. Which is why I asked if you had a problem if someone agreed with the scripture. At least they would be intellectually honest.

In a nutshell, this is what I'm driving at...

- If you don't agree, then how do you reconcile the Bible as truth, in an intellectually honest way?
- If you do agree, this 'may' suggest that you are not a moral agent, but instead an amoral agent, absent of personal assessment and simply following instruction?

Here is the kicker that most Christians will not readily admit or are ignorantly confused with and I am sure I will catch some flack from some here on the forum. The inerrancy of the Word of God does not mean that the Bible is without error. It means that the word of God, as given to the author, is perfect and without error. However, as soon as an errant human being put pen to paper, it became fallable. Scribes make mistakes. Things have literally been lost in translation. To say that the Bible is "inerrant" means that the Bible never affirms something that is false to be true. This is an inconvenient truth that many biblical scholars and theologians are currently working to resolve. In the end, Christians have to trust that if God exists, His omnipotent sovereignty will have ensured that no essential doctrinal truths are lost during the translating /copying process.

I know this screams objective moral argument, and presumes an objective assessment, based upon right or wrong.

But with all due respect, I've had many deep discussions with many intellects in the past, whom believe. After getting through the intellect, the answer often results in the same way, as to why they believe... Anecdotal experiences and gut feeling, which seems to be disconnected from intellect.

Thoughts??

In regards an intellectually honest answer to objective morality, there are only two possibilities. Both of which are respectable in my opinion. Either:

1. Objective Morality does not exist and there is no objective standard. All morality is subjective to the individual's taste and nobody's moral standards are superior to another's. Our standard of morality is merely the subjective opinion of the majority and this majority imposes its moral standard onto the minority. The standard shifts with time and varies with cultural. It isn't perfect, but it's the best we have and it has worked fine for thousands of years.

2. Objective Morality exists. There are things that are objectively good and bad because there is an objective moral law that humanity is subject to. This moral law exists because an objective moral law giver established said law. Christians call this objective moral lawgiver "God". However, the moral argument doesn't prove nor is intended to prove that the God of Abraham or any other God is that objective moral standard.

Through years of thought and research, I have found that the only objective standard to measure a thing's "goodness" is its created purpose. For the sake of brevity, I will not explain it now. But if you are interested I would be happy to explain it in another thread specifically dedicated to the topic. That way we could avoid distractions.

 

[cvanwey]

I would first like to apologize for the inaccurate presuppositions I may have had towards you. I have very rarely seen anyone claiming to be a "skeptic" or "seeker" who wasn't actually a atheist activist with a personal agenda. I have usually found that they are convinced that religion is the direcr cause of a great majority of the problems in this world so they feel like it is their moral obligation to help rid the world from it one post at a time. Others have a personal beef with Christians because of a negative experience and they come to a Christian forum to take their frustrations out. Very rarely do we ever find a true skeptic or seeker who genuinely wants to understand Christian theology or find answers to their questions. For now, I am going to assume that this is not the case with you.

Though I do admit the initial question was slightly baited, it's only because this is my own subjective personal view, which is one of the many many reasons I reject claimed 'objectivity' of the Bible, or any other claimed asserted objective text. (I know such a statement also raises a deep chasm of claimed 'absolute truth'; but that too, is for another topic. I gladly accept your apology. However, it is not necessary We are on a 'Debate' forum and it is to be expected. I'll try not to take future posts personally.

Here is the kicker that most Christians will not readily admit or are ignorantly confused with and I am sure I will catch some flack from some here on the forum. The inerrancy of the Word of God does not mean that the Bible is without error. It means that the word of God, as given to the author, is perfect and without error. However, as soon as an errant human being put pen to pepper, it became fallable. Scribes make mistakes. Things have literally been lost in translation. To say that the Bible is "inerrant" means that the Bible never affirms something that is false to be true. This is an inconvenient truth that many biblical scholars and theologians are currently working to resolve. In the end, Christians have to trust that if God exists, His omnipotent sovereignty will have ensured that no essential doctrinal truths are lost during the translating /copying process.

I greatly appreciate the response. It eliminates a lot of back and forth... However, I must ask. By what standard were you able to conclude the Bible was God given? Second question, if the word of God is God's chosen mechanism, or vessel for truth, and the translation is flawed by human touch, why does God's correction appear absent? In a nutshell, all we have are long-ago written text, asserting divinity (with error in many 'possibly' observed 'objective' forms). This, of course, is presupposing that Yahweh exists.

In regards an intellectually honest answer to objective morality, there are only two possibilities. Both of which are respectable in my opinion. Either:

1. Objective Morality does not exist and there is no objective standard. All morality is subjective to the individual's taste and nobody's moral standards are superior to another's. Our standard of morality is merely the subjective opinion of the majority and this majority imposes its moral standard onto the minority. The standard shifts with time and varies with cultural. It isn't perfect, but it's the best we have and it has worked fine for thousands of years.

2. Objective Morality exists. There are things that are objectively good and bad because there is an objective moral law that humanity is subject to. This moral law exists because an objective moral law giver established said law. Christians call this objective moral lawgiver "God". However, the moral argument doesn't prove nor is intended to prove that the God of Abraham or any other God is that objective moral standard.

Through years of thought and research, I have found that the only objective standard to measure a thing's "goodness" is its created purpose. For the sake of brevity, I will not explain it now. But if you are interested I would be happy to explain it in another thread specifically dedicated to the topic. That way we could avoid distractions.

Option 1. is the only one 'possibly' demonstrated. Even, in part, when reading the Bible.

If many facets appear not to align in (shared reality), I have no choice but to reject the claim of perfection and God inspired, assuming we are using the 'same' definition of 'God'.

For all intensive purposes, theists will point out that we are flawed in our logic. And yet, want to create a special circumstance, in somehow 'knowing' that the Bible is God inspired. I'm not saying you do this, but just an observation...

 

[Rivga]

Through years of thought and research, I have found that the only objective standard to measure a thing's "goodness" is its created purpose.

I have a question, but it is hard to explain so I'll use some examples.

So I go off and make a hammer, and use that hammer for the intended purpose of nailing a floor board down. Now I could state that it was a good hammer, but I could not state that this hammer is a moral.
- I am not stating that you are saying the hammer can be called moral I am just trying to give some anchor to definitions (and we have issues with a direct comparison as humans have awareness - but it keeps things simple).

What are the implications for your morality if God had no care about how you live your life, treat others or any other type of morality, your sole purpose is an experiment - and to clarify he is a true scientist and does not care about the outcome of the experiment, he simply wants to observe and record the results.

So your purpose is removed from morality - like the hammer above, and you can not disappoint God in the same way the Ecoli growing in the labs cannot disappoint the scientist - their existence achieves their purpose.

So essentially your existence achieves your creators goal for you, and that was never within your control to start with. Does this then mean that your morality is meaningless? how would you begin afresh with that knowledge? do you even bother trying to come up with a moral code?
Classic existential crisis stuff here.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I have a question, but it is hard to explain so I'll use some examples.

So I go off and make a hammer, and use that hammer for the intended purpose of nailing a floor board down. Now I could state that it was a good hammer, but I could not state that this hammer is a moral.
- I am not stating that you are saying the hammer can be called moral I am just trying to give some anchor to definitions (and we have issues with a direct comparison as humans have awareness - but it keeps things simple).

What are the implications for your morality if God had no care about how you live your life, treat others or any other type of morality, your sole purpose is an experiment - and to clarify he is a true scientist and does not care about the outcome of the experiment, he simply wants to observe and record the results.

So your purpose is removed from morality - like the hammer above, and you can not disappoint God in the same way the Ecoli growing in the labs cannot disappoint the scientist - their existence achieves their purpose.

So essentially your existence achieves your creators goal for you, and that was never within your control to start with. Does this then mean that your morality is meaningless? how would you begin afresh with that knowledge? do you even bother trying to come up with a moral code?
Classic existential crisis stuff here.

I will start a new thread shortly so that we can go through this in more detail and without distractions.