Bravo! Excellent reply, InTheFlame!
Hrmmm... in a fictional book, yes? I have read That Hideous Strength, but I can't remember the line (I looked it up on Google). Obviously not everything that a Lewis character says was actually Lewis' opinion - was this obviously his actual opinion?
The reference comes from Elliot. I'll look up which Lewis work it came from; however, despite the origin, the argument is a good one, even if he wasn't asserting it as his own personal opinion.
That really depends on the culture and religion(s) you're talking about. The ancient Egyptians had a god called Geb, who they regarded as representing the earth. The 'mother earth' concept really comes from Greek mythology - Gaia - which is quite understandable... much of our modern western thought, ideas and concepts are still based on ancient Greek modes of thought.
Mmm, true, but Egypt didn't believe in God, did they? This is an example of Satan and man twisting the true vision of creation and its Creator into a false religion.
You're right. But again, not according to all people/religions. Certainly in Greek (and Egyptian too in this case) mythology, the god of the sun was male. But in Korea, for example, mythology pointed to a sun goddess.
These are in the minority, to be sure. The argument is much more compelling for a masculine sun and a feminine earth, but individual cultures interpret them differently, especially when they do not profess faith in God. It's a distortion of their inherent knowledge of God and his creation.
Nah... God does. The sun sustains life, I'd agree.
God is the origin of life, yes. Without him, there would be no Sun; however, God created the universe in such a way that the Sun birthed life into the planet. It's much too detailed to get into here, but the precise shaping of the Solar System with the earth situated where it is in relation to the sun gave rise to life on earth. Without the sun, the earth would not be able to sustain itself, but even more, without the sun, life would have never came to be on earth. God created this system in this exact manner--that the sun should initiate life on earth.
God is surely the origin of life, though.
The analogy is kinda starting to break down here. We could as easily comment that without water, or air, or earth, there are no plants.
I suppose it is. That's the problem with illustrations, they all break down at some point...
See, I don't think the preceding comments actually prove that in any way. About all they really say is, 'according to the culture I grew up in, masculinity is heavily linked to initiation.
I would assert that according to God's creation and his revelation thereof, masculinity is linked to initiation.
Hmmm... good point. However, Hebrew tended toward masculine pronouns.
Hence a God with some female and some male characteristics would be referred to as 'He' in Hebrew texts.
Don't all men have some female characteristics, yet they are still regarded as men? What says that masculinity is the
absence of femininity?
[font=arial,]It should also be noted that masculine plural is used for a mixed gender group. Even if there are ninety-nine women and only one man in the group, the masculine plural is used. The feminine plural is used only when the group is exclusively female.[/font]
[font=arial,]
[/font]
God is a singular being (with three distinct
personages or
personalities). The Hebrews certainly recognized him as one God. The plural pronoun explanation does not apply.
Only if you regard certain character qualities and actions as being masculine. Otherwise this sentence is meaningless.
True again. However, I don't see how that proves that initiation is a male characteristic. God is love, too. That's not regarded as a male-only characteristic. But I'm going to have a look at the names given God in the bible, and see what we can draw from them...
Is it erroneous to regard certain qualities as masculine or feminine? I'll get into this a little more after we take a look at God's names:
True again. However, I don't see how that proves that initiation is a male characteristic. God is love, too. That's not regarded as a male-only characteristic. But I'm going to have a look at the names given God in the bible, and see what we can draw from them...
<names snipped>
Thanks very much for the clarification of God's names; however, as previously stated, masculinity is not the absence of femininity. Men have feminine moments as well. Child-rearing is something that has been appropriately endowed to women. Men, generally speaking, are less well equipped to care for children than women, yet does this men that men are incapable of raising children? No, it means that men have to work harder at it because child-rearing is not as strong of a personality component for them as it is in women.
Is the man any less masculine because of this application of femininity? Not at all. Such is the case with God.
Let's take the stance that God is gender-neutral, though. We'll say that he is neither male nor female (which is true in our understanding of the sexes). Nevertheless, he has created us in his image. To the man he has bestowed masculinity, to the woman he has bestowed femininity. God has shown in his revelation in Scripture that masculine qualities are qualities of action--of initiation--whereas feminine qualities are those of reaction--of response. Being then created in God's image, we should delight in this division of responsibilities, instead of seeking to avoid it.
Now... were these metaphors/similes used, in these contexts, to specify what marriages should be like, or to explain the concepts of God's relationship to his people in words that the audience addressed would understand?
It could certainly be interpreted that way; however, I think that interpretation does injustice to the Scriptures. I believe that God's Word is sufficient. If these illustrations were intended only for the audience that were originally granted them, then that would make the Scripture
insufficient. For example, in a matriarchical society, these verses would be completely meaningless and non-applicable,
unless seen as instruction for the correct way to conduct the home, i.e. with the man at the head, just as Christ is Head of the church.
It does violence to God's Word to say that a passage like this is not applicable today because it speaks only metaphorically to its original audience. If that is true, then it contradicts 2 Tim. 3:14-17 and 2 Peter 1:20, 21, for it relies on the interpretation of man, instead of the revelation of God.
Um, because... I said so? Ha.
I'm just kidding. This isn't the best example--I kinda winged this one. I'll try and form a better illustration when I get home.
OK. Now I agree the context is absolutely right. So... what entails being head of a household? From Christ's example only please, not our culture. For example, Jesus calling his apostles comes to mind. However, did Jesus approach each of his apostles first, or did some of them approach him?
Ick. I should know this, but I don't, and I don't have a Bible (I'm at work). I'll have to respond to this one later... unless it was a rhetorical question? (That is, you already know the answer is no.)
Interestingly, in modern Hebrew the word for husband is, apparently, 'Baal'.
Ha! That is very interesting.
Errrr... 'men are designed to thrust, women to be thrusted'?
This is simply, again, a cultural thing. I could just as easily claim that a woman's physiology is a perfect reflection of the fact that a woman should enclose and surround a man. I've heard this logic before, and it strikes me as nonsensical unless viewed in a particular cultural context - the traditional western one!
You mean they don't have sex in other cultures? Man, I'm glad I live in this one, then!
I don't understand how this logical strikes you as nonsensical. Is it perhaps because you have no valid argument in response to it? I'm talking about an irrefutable physical phenomenon ordained by God. He equipped the sexes for his specific purpose. Men are endowed to initiate sex. Unless the man is aroused, sex (in the traditional connotation of intercourse) does not happen. Man can't
receive sex unless he is aroused, and thereby implied "willing." Women are equipped to receive it, regardless of the circumstances. A woman cannot force sex upon an unwilling man--he has to initiate it.
Do you have any backup for this statement? Scientific studies? Anthropology? Psychology - eg. reports of male children suffering damage when discouraged from initiating things?
This is an interesting position to take considering you've been blasting my own appeals to culture and tradition. Do you not consider anthropology and psychology to be cultural? They most certainly are. They are based only upon the understanding of the times. Science consistently disproves science. The only constant is God's Word, which provides solid support for the initiative qualities of masculinity.
I thought you response was very good! I appreciate you taking the time to actually think it through. It seems like you spent some time on it, and I'm honored by that.
