Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Hope on July 24, 2016, 04:13:59 PM
-
For many, this is a pretty boring chapter at the end of a highly contentious and therefore interesting epistle. It is argubly the most important epistle of the whole of the New Testament as it includes both doctrine and advice.
Many, Christians and others, probably treat it like one of the genealogies and lists of tribal histories - perhaps even skipping over it in their efforts to get to the exciting stuff.
However, if one looks at it carefully, it is full of a lot of exciting things.
Of the 27 people Paul mentions, at least 9 of them are women. What is more, the first two to be mentioned are women. Phoebe is described as a 'servant (deacon - NIV) of the church at Cenchrea' - where the word 'servant' is used to translate the Greek word "διάκονον" (diakonon). This word is the same root word used twice in Acts 6: 1-7, when the apostles chose the 7 to serve - thus instituting the office of practical leadrship that was the diaconate in the early church: "προσκαλεσάμενοι δὲ οἱ δώδεκα τὸ πλῆθος τῶν μαθητῶν εἶπαν· Οὐκ ἀρεστόν ἐστιν ἡμᾶς καταλείψαντας τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ διακονεῖν τραπέζαις·" (v.2) and "ἡμεῖς δὲ τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ τῇ διακονίᾳ τοῦ λόγου προσκαρτερήσομεν." Clearly, she plays an important role in the church that is mentioned; she's not just a member of the congregation.
Interestingly, the next person mentioned is "Πρίσκαν" - Priscilla (along with her husband Aquila), v.3ff - and their role as leaders of the church that met in their home. Again, someone in a not-insignificant role.
The third woman to be mentioned is "Μαριάμ" - Mary - v6. Apart from her name and the fact that she had worked hard for the church (and was now in some form of 'retirement' from this role), we don't know anything about her.
Verse 7 includes the name "Ἰουνίαν" Junias/Junia. In view of the fact that all the women whose Greek names end in 'a' (a common ending to feminine nouns) end in ' ...-αν' in this passage ( because they are always the objects of the sentence, not the subject) it would make sense to understand this to be a female name associated with a husband - Andronicus. They had both been in prison with Paul, suggesting that they both held leadership roles of some kind - perhaps, like Paul, in a missionary capacity.
In v.12, Paul mentions three women - Tryphaena, Tryphosa and Persis; and then Julia and the sister of Nereus in verse 15. Of the nine, six are described as fellow-workers or as those who have worked very hard in the Lord (v12)
Clearly, the early church was not an organisation which ignored women in its leadership.
I accept that since the middle of the 1st millennium - especially following the Synod of Whitby (664) - the church has been predominantly male-run, but tht isn't a Biblical position.
-
I accept that since the middle of the 1st millennium - especially following the Synod of Whitby (664) - the church has been predominantly male-run, but tht isn't a Biblical position.
I would argue that even some of the later epistles attributed to Paul (but not actually written by him) show evidence that the church had become more patriarchal.
-
I would argue that even some of the later epistles attributed to Paul (but not actually written by him) show evidence that the church had become more patriarchal.
Such as? Remember also that the British church, which effectively kowtowed to the Roman Church in 644, had women in leadership prior to that date.
-
I thought Paul told women to be silent in church?
-
Such as?
Seriously?
Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.
Remember also that the British church, which effectively kowtowed to the Roman Church in 644, had women in leadership prior to that date.
Right, so some women being in leadership positions (who were they btw?) in an outpost of Europe tells us what the whole Christian Church was like. Doesn't sound likely to me.
-
I thought Paul told women to be silent in church?
That was in 1 Corinthians 14 I think.
I wonder what had been going on in church that prompted him to say that, it was quite vehement. Who knows, maybe there had been complaints about women's behaviour, we mustn't forget that the early Christians were nearly all from a Jewish background and, whilst women are and have always been very strong people, there were and are strict differences between how men and women worship. Paul was very careful that his church not cause scandal.
Different times, more relaxation.
Paul had great respect for many women and names Phoebe, Priscilla, Junia and others. Romans 16 is extremely interesting for that alone which is why Hope has posted about it.
-
Yeah, it is kinda interesting that the one who has carried this letter, to a congregation he didn't establish himself, in a place he had never visited at the time was a woman, oor Phoebe, the deacon of the church in Cenchreae, Corinth’s nearby port.
Why did Tertius send a woman to deliver this introduction of Pauls Theology to a Church in Rome?
Did Paul commission this mission in the hope of establishing a base for his foray into the Western World? In particular Spain:
"Paul’s Plan to Visit Rome.
15:23 But now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions, and since I have been longing for many years to visit you, 15:24 I plan to do so when I go to Spain. I hope to see you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there after I have enjoyed your company for a while."
Also to be fair you can't really cite 1 Timothy as evidence that Paul was misogynistic seeing as Paul had nothing to do with 1 Timothy. It is a later book written by someone else pretending to be Paul.
-
Thrud:
Why did Tertius send a woman to deliver this introduction of Pauls Theology to a Church in Rome?
Because woman generally have better inter-personal skills? Just a thought.
-
LOL.. snap!
Could it have something to do with Roman Society??
-
Almost certainly Thrud. They were highly civilised after all.
-
Does Tertius imply that Junia was an Apostle: "7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among [are esteemed by] the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was."?
-
More civilised than the Greeks Brownie?
-
Just a thought... isn't the Spirit able to do in both Christian Men and Women the same work?
Clearly the teaching there is no difference in Christ male or female.
I think that Paul sent letters to milk drinkers and that meat eaters were both men and women and they already in Spirit did not require a teacher.
Hence the difference in the teachings for milk drinkers as opposed to meat eaters sharing what God gave them through the Spirit being equal.
-
Yeah, but why did Tertius send a woman to Rome to visit a church Paul didn't establish Sass.. and wtf has milk and meat got to do with the discussion??
I'm guessing illusions to Tits and Dick... seems to be your level!!
-
Anywho - Thread-killer is back on-line.
See y'all next week/month!!
-
I thought Paul told women to be silent in church?
Look at 1 Corinthians 11:5, Floo; or Titus 2:4. Note also the number of women in church leadership as noted in Romans 16.
I remember taking a group of Year 9 pupils to a Jewish synagogue in Newport some years ago. One of the pupils asked whether women were allowed to speak during services (she was the daughter of a local clergyman) and the rabbi who was conducting the tour pointed out that only men count in the tally of a Jewish synagogue's attendance. This differentiation is excerbated by the fact that women are either not allowed to attend or, if they are, they will be required to sit upstairs in the balcony with the children. It is very common for them to chatter to each other during the service and so Paul's reference to women keeping quiet, in 1 Corinthians 14: 33-35, is within that context. After all, Paul doesn't say that women shouldn't pray or prophesy.
In other words, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 isn't a blanket ban; rather it relates to a specific context.
-
Anywho - Thread-killer is back on-line.
This is an open discussion thread, Thrud; any 1-1 debate thread will be marked as such.
-
Yeah, but why did Tertius send a woman to Rome to visit a church Paul didn't establish Sass.. and wtf has milk and meat got to do with the discussion??
I'm guessing illusions to Tits and Dick... seems to be your level!!
I thought you knew the writings of the NT....
As for the last remark... seems you need your mind hiring to brain level.
We are not all like you. Seems your stuck between the two.
-
Seriously?
So, you're unable to point out the references you alluded to? The rules of evidence apply to all, here.
Right, so some women being in leadership positions (who were they btw?) in an outpost of Europe tells us what the whole Christian Church was like. Doesn't sound likely to me.
OK, starting somewhat before the mid 1st millennium, this wikipedia article highlights the important roles women took in the early church as a whole - note especially the work that Geoffrey Blainey has brought to the debate (his biographical article on wikipedia makes no mention of his being a believer, though he may be).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Church_history#Apostolic_age
Note that it does also point out that the church did become a largely patriarchal body relatively early in its life.
Regarding the 'British Church', this article from the Holy Celtic Church makes an interesting comment:
The modern Holy Celtic Church is a totally independent jurisdiction and a member of the Celtic Synod. It is Apostolic, possessing valid lines of apostolic succession through the Order of Corporate Reunion and other valid eastern and western apostolic lines. The Church has a limited hierarchy and is served by a non-stipend clergy who are not bound by vows of celibacy. They endeavor to restore the simplicity, purity, and the original intent of Christian worship, free of the religious doctrines, dogmas and traditions that have accumulated over the centuries. The Church adopted the Celtic Liturgy, which reminds worshipers of the major points of the Christian faith God wants all followers to remember and practice daily. The Church operates in accordance with ancient Celtic, not Mediterranean, traditions that place women in responsible roles in the church.
http://www.celticsynod.org/celtic.htm
Remember that, until the English 'conquered' what is now Wales (in the time of Edward I), 'Welsh' women had the same rights as men in a large number of social contexts.
-
Yeah, but why did Tertius send a woman to Rome to visit a church Paul didn't establish Sass.. and wtf has milk and meat got to do with the discussion??
I'm guessing illusions to Tits and Dick... seems to be your level!!
Good on ya, Thrud? For someone who claims a knowledge of the Bible, one would expect them to understand the reference to milk and meat. The first refers to what young children are given as food; the latter refers to what more mature people are given as food.
-
Thrud: More civilised than the Greeks Brownie?
No. Both highly civilised in different ways.
Sass: Just a thought... isn't the Spirit able to do in both Christian Men and Women the same work?
Yes.
-
Good on ya, Thrud? For someone who claims a knowledge of the Bible, one would expect them to understand the reference to milk and meat. The first refers to what young children are given as food; the latter refers to what more mature people are given as food.
If you read the replies you would know I made the reference to milk and meat, it was Thrud who did not understand it...
It appears you can make yourself look ridiculous at times without help from the atheists. ::)
-
So, you're unable to point out the references you alluded to? The rules of evidence apply to all, here.
I quoted one directly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Church_history#Apostolic_age
I don't dispute that women had an important role in the church in Paul' time. It's soon afterwards that things started to become more patriarchal.
Regarding the 'British Church', this article from the Holy Celtic Church makes an interesting comment:
http://www.celticsynod.org/celtic.htm
Historical evidence indicates the Church founders were followers of our Lord Jesus Christ, led by Joseph of Arimathea, dating from before the crucifixion and the dispersion of Jesus’ followers after Pentecost. These founders traveled from the Holy Land and ultimately settled in the British Isles by way of Gaul.
You're offering a rehash of the Arthurian legend as a serious historical document? Also, where are the women in it?
-
Just a thought... isn't the Spirit able to do in both Christian Men and Women the same work?
Clearly the teaching there is no difference in Christ male or female.
I think that Paul sent letters to milk drinkers and that meat eaters were both men and women and they already in Spirit did not require a teacher.
Hence the difference in the teachings for milk drinkers as opposed to meat eaters sharing what God gave them through the Spirit being equal.
Which spirit did you have in mind, whisky, gin, vodka, brandy? :D
-
Cor blimey Mrs Floo, you ain't harf original with that question! ;D
-
I thought Paul told women to be silent in church?
The worst text in this regard is at 1Tim2: 11,12. It's been mentioned often enough on this forum that no modern scholar of any repute thinks that this was written by Paul. The authenticity of the reference which Brownie cites (a milder reference than the latter) is also highly suspect, since it stands out as a glaring interpolation in a text which has nothing at all to do with women's status.
Has it never occurred to you that the text which Hope cites is in stark contrast with the above?
-
That was in 1 Corinthians 14 I think.
I wonder what had been going on in church that prompted him to say that, it was quite vehement. Who knows, maybe there had been complaints about women's behaviour, we mustn't forget that the early Christians were nearly all from a Jewish background and, whilst women are and have always been very strong people, there were and are strict differences between how men and women worship. Paul was very careful that his church not cause scandal.
Different times, more relaxation.
Paul had great respect for many women and names Phoebe, Priscilla, Junia and others. Romans 16 is extremely interesting for that alone which is why Hope has posted about it.
As I've said to Floo, the Corinthians reference is not so strong as that in the spurious epistle 1Timothy. Strong enough, but not enough to condemn Paul as an outright misogynist, which the verses at the end of Romans (and other references) completely give the lie to. Another thing about the Corinthians reference is that, though it apparently appeared in some of the early manuscripts, it doesn't always appear in the same place in those. This strongly suggests to me that it might have been placed there by a later misogynistic redactor, or maybe Paul felt he had to kowtow to some of the patriarchal conditions of the time- as an afterthought- just as you suggest. I don't think Paul would have been that nice a chap to have as a travel companion, but he doesn't seem to have been a misogynist. Wonder if Floo will ever revise her views of decades?
-
So, you're unable to point out the references you alluded to? The rules of evidence apply to all, here.
OK, starting somewhat before the mid 1st millennium, this wikipedia article highlights the important roles women took in the early church as a whole - note especially the work that Geoffrey Blainey has brought to the debate (his biographical article on wikipedia makes no mention of his being a believer, though he may be).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Church_history#Apostolic_age
Note that it does also point out that the church did become a largely patriarchal body relatively early in its life.
Well, Jeremy did cite the spurious 2nd century letter 1Timothy, which definitely seems to indicate that misogynistic developments had already set in deeply, along with the developing hierarchy of the Church - which in the decades following Jesus and Paul seemed to have no particular layered structure.
And you agree that the article which you cite also confirms that patriarchy was the order of the day pretty soon after the early days of pretty well-balanced sexual equality ("In Christ there is neither male nor female, neither bond nor free" etc.
-
Regarding the 'British Church', this article from the Holy Celtic Church makes an interesting comment:
http://www.celticsynod.org/celtic.htm
Remember that, until the English 'conquered' what is now Wales (in the time of Edward I), 'Welsh' women had the same rights as men in a large number of social contexts.
From what we know of the historical position of women in Wales, your last comment seems to be justified. As for your article on the ancient Celtic Church, it seems to be peppered with such phrases as "scholarly debate is in disagreement", "nobody knows for certain, since there are no written records" etc. - before going on to state as "historical evidence" ancient legends about Joseph of Arimathea! Give me strength!
-
Dicky,
What's your view on Titus 2:3-5? This seems to support the other texts attributed to Paul that teach Christian women to submit to their husbands.
Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.
-
Dicky,
What's your view on Titus 2:3-5? This seems to support the other texts attributed to Paul that teach Christian women to submit to their husbands.
Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.
Spud, my first thought on reading the above is that if Titus dropped in for a visit here this evening and explained his views to Mrs G he'd be lucky to get out in one piece: so I let her read your post (as I quickly retreated behind the settee) but she just laughed and asked if this was an extract from the 'Big Boy's Book on How to be Patronising to Women', then mumbled something about the merits of castration in some cases - so Titus should stay away!
Why on earth do you think ancient texts like this are relevant in the 21st century - I have two daughters, who are adults now, and would be extremely angry if either of my sons-in-law regarded my girls a la Titus.
-
Thanks for that Gordon, it has cheered me up. Titus was the recipient; I wonder what Mrs Titus thought of the letter?
-
Thanks for that Gordon, it has cheered me up. Titus was the recipient; I wonder what Mrs Titus thought of the letter?
If Mrs T's pinion is anything like Mrs G's opinion then Titus would be well advised to change the subject: for instance, he might offer to do the ironing.
-
As I have said before if my husband expected me to be subservient to him he would be hanging by his dangly bits from the church steeple. Those guys Paul and Titus would be joining him if they were around today! :D
-
Hey,
I don't know who this Titus guy was, but he was the one to whom the letter was written. The fact that the letter was written implies that Titus needed to be schooled in the proper subjugation of women. He may not have been that bad.
Also, the writer of the letter is generally thought not to have been Paul but a later forger. So Paul isn't necessarily one of the bad guys either.
-
If Mrs T's pinion is anything like Mrs G's opinion then Titus would be well advised to change the subject: for instance, he might offer to do the ironing.
Superb. We can call it, Gordon's first letter to Titus.
-
As I have said before if my husband expected me to be subservient to him he would be hanging by his dangly bits from the church steeple. Those guys Paul and Titus would be joining him if they were around today! :D
I wonder what your husband would feel about the multitude of requirements that Paul and his pseudoepigrahical mates place on the met that they were writing to. Overall, the instructions to men as to how to behave toward their women take up about twice as much space in the various epistles - and are no less draconian.
-
I wonder what your husband would feelabout the multitude of requirments that Paul and his pseudoepigrahical mates place on the ment that they were writing to. Overall, the instructions to men as to how to behave toward their women take up about twice as much space in the various epistles - and are no less draconian.
Can you give an example of something more draconian in the Pauline epistles than "do not speak in church"?
-
I wonder what your husband would feelabout the multitude of requirments that Paul and his pseudoepigrahical mates place on the ment that they were writing to. Overall, the instructions to men as to how to behave toward their women take up about twice as much space in the various epistles - and are no less draconian.
Sorry to barge in but have you managed to find one minute to answer your own questions?
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12381.0
-
Can you give an example of something more draconian in the Pauline epistles than "do not speak in church"?
Yes; for a culture which understood women to be less value than men, that required 2 or even 3 women's evidence to count for that of a single man, to be told that they had to accept women speaking in 'congregation' - after all, they were suddenly to be allowed to pray, to prophesy and to take roles of leadership - and that women were equal with men across the whole remit of society, the rather tedious claim that women were not to speak in church (clearly something that wasn't the full reality) was possibly more draconian then that dubious claim.
Remember that - according to Jewish custom - women were relegated to the balcony, and expected to sit through synagogue in silence. They weren't allowed to ask questions during synagogue (which the men probably would have been - according to what I have been told by rabbis) but required to ask their husbands for clarification of points theological once they got home. Whispering to each other - as does occur, apparently - would have been an absolute no-no.
-
Sorry to barge in but have you managed to find one minute to answer your own questions?
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12381.0
I think you will find that you are asking me to answer a question of yours, rather than answering my own, Stephen. If you really believe that you can provide such an answer to that question, perhaps you ought to produce it. Its a question that I've asked, on and off over 30 or 40 years, and whilst a few people have offered to provide an answer, what they have provided only produced more questions.
-
Yes; for a culture which understood women to be less value than men, that required 2 or even 3 women's evidence to count for that of a single man, to be told that they had to accept women speaking in 'congregation' - after all, they were suddenly to be allowed to pray, to prophesy and to take roles of leadership - and that women were equal with men across the whole remit of society, the rather tedious claim that women were not to speak in church (clearly something that wasn't the full reality) was possibly more draconian then that dubious claim.
Remember that - according to Jewish custom - women were relegated to the balcony, and expected to sit through synagogue in silence. They weren't allowed to ask questions during synagogue (which the men probably would have been - according to what I have been told by rabbis) but required to ask their husbands for clarification of points theological once they got home. Whispering to each other - as does occur, apparently - would have been an absolute no-no.
Hi Hope,
The principle of male headship in the church and n the family could still be upheld while allowing some women to teach (other women, for instance) and have a more active role in ministry. I think this is the only way we can reconcile Paul's statements about women in 1 Cor 14:34 etc with the apparent leadership roles had by some of the women in Romans 16.
-
Hi Hope,
The principle of male headship in the church and n the family could still be upheld while allowing some women to teach (other women, for instance) and have a more active role in ministry. I think this is the only way we can reconcile Paul's statements about women in 1 Cor 14:34 etc with the apparent leadership roles had by some of the women in Romans 16.
YE GODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Spud: "...allowing some women to teach (other women, for instance)..."
That's how it is in Saudia Arabia, Spud.
-
Good on ya, Thrud? For someone who claims a knowledge of the Bible, one would expect them to understand the reference to milk and meat. The first refers to what young children are given as food; the latter refers to what more mature people are given as food.
Ok just pointing out that this discussion is about Romans, specifically Romans 16...
If you want to chat about something unrelated start another thread... unless you want to show me in some tortuous, tedious way that Romans 16 can be linked to 1 Corry 3..
-
Oh, it looks like you have the keyboard all to yourself hope.. make good use of it now!!
-
Yes; for a culture which understood women to be less value than men, that required 2 or even 3 women's evidence to count for that of a single man, to be told that they had to accept women speaking in 'congregation' - after all, they were suddenly to be allowed to pray, to prophesy and to take roles of leadership
But 1 Timothy says they can't do all that. We are looking for stuff that's more draconian than not being allowed to speak in church, not less draconian.
-
Timmy was written by someone who had never met Paul, let alone Jesus.. not worth even arguing about, let alone discussing...
-
Timmy was written by someone who had never met Paul, let alone Jesus.. not worth even arguing about, let alone discussing...
Evidence required, Thrud.
-
I think this is the only way we can reconcile Paul's statements about women in 1 Cor 14:34 etc with the apparent leadership roles had by some of the women in Romans 16.
I would disagree, Spud, especially when one uses the Greek originals, rather than the English translations.
-
I would disagree, Spud, especially when one uses the Greek originals, rather than the English translations.
Your message 48 suggests you think the "no women allowed"-type passages are authentic. So how do you reconcile them with the view that Romans 16 shows the opposite of what they teach?
-
Your message 48 suggests you think the "no women allowed"-type passages are authentic. So how do you reconcile them with the view that Romans 16 shows the opposite of what they teach?
OK Spud. If you look at my #48, I am asking for evidence that Timothy (1 & 2) was written "by someone who had never met Paul, let alone Jesus". That is very different from saying that they are or aren't authentic. Secondly, as I've previously pointed out, the context of the passages that say that women shouldn't speak in congregation are contexts of congregational behaviour. I've also pointed out that women's presence wasn't a requirement for a synagogue to be deemed 'quorate'. That was dependent on there being at least 10 MEN present. In fact you can have a synagogue meeting without any women being present. Those women who did attend tend(ed) to be shunted off to one side, or upstairs in the balcony, and Jewish writings talk about the fact that they would sometimes spend their time chattering to each other and not listening to the service. Paul and his pseudoepigraphical mates were trying to discourage this - especially as, according to Jesus' teaching, there was such differentiation in Christianity.
As such, I don't believe that Romans 16 is contradicting anything, as the differenty passages are addressing very dfferent issues.
-
In my opinion, the Bible needs an extra chapter explaining why people need to question very thoroughly stuff that was written in days predating science. It should point out that there is no evidence to support the fanciful scenarios attributed to god and Jesus. Whilst people might want to believe them to be true, they cannot claim them to be factual.
-
In my opinion, the Bible needs an extra chapter explaining why people need to question very thoroughly stuff that was written in days predating science. It should point out that there is no evidence to support the fanciful scenarios attributed to god and Jesus. Whilst people might want to believe them to be true, they cannot claim them to be factual.
Sorry, Floo, the Bible was never written 'in days predating science'. Science has been 'happening' for millennia, and the Bible and other religious material has been written within that context.
As for evidence, it depends on whether one requires all evidence to be purely naturalistic and whether one regards sceince as the sole means of explaining life. I don't do the latter, largely because of the experiences I've had over my lifetime.
-
In my opinion, the Bible needs an extra chapter explaining why people need to question very thoroughly stuff that was written in days predating science. It should point out that there is no evidence to support the fanciful scenarios attributed to god and Jesus. Whilst people might want to believe them to be true, they cannot claim them to be factual.
In my opinion The Atheist Playbook needs an extra chapter explaining how science has moved on from a mechanistic view of the universe and the importance of Karl Popper.
Maybe entitled The New Atheists......Indian summer of the mechanistic dinosaurs?
-
I would disagree, Spud, especially when one uses the Greek originals, rather than the English translations.
You have access to the originals of the Pauline letters? Wow.
-
You have access to the originals of the Pauline letters? Wow.
Sorry, jeremy. That word 'original' was mis-used. My bad. What I was trying to get at is that working from Greek can help see where English isn't always accurate.
-
Sorry, jeremy. That word 'original' was mis-used. My bad. What I was trying to get at is that working from Greek can help see where English isn't always accurate.
The Greek isn't always accurate either. I have heard it said that Romans is a composite of more than one document. If that's the case, there must be some doubt as to what the original massage was.
-
OK Spud. If you look at my #48, I am asking for evidence that Timothy (1 & 2) was written "by someone who had never met Paul, let alone Jesus". That is very different from saying that they are or aren't authentic. Secondly, as I've previously pointed out, the context of the passages that say that women shouldn't speak in congregation are contexts of congregational behaviour.
You may be thinking in your second point, of 1 Corinthians 14:34. Yes, the behaviour of women (in the balcony, for example) may be the context of this verse. But the context is also the rest of the letter. 11:3 implies that, just as every man is under Christ's authority, so 'the head of the woman is man'. This implies that women serving in the church should do so under male authority, which Paul confirms in 1 Timothy 2:12.
This is worth a read:
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/rite-reasons/no-41-the-triune-office-reconsidered/
-
You may be thinking in your second point, of 1 Corinthians 14:34. Yes, the behaviour of women (in the balcony, for example) may be the context of this verse. But the context is also the rest of the letter. 11:3 implies that, just as every man is under Christ's authority, so 'the head of the woman is man'. This implies that women serving in the church should do so under male authority, which Paul confirms in 1 Timothy 2:12.
This is worth a read:
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/rite-reasons/no-41-the-triune-office-reconsidered/
You could of course, Spud, conclude that what was thought about gender equality in the middle-east in antiquity isn't binding in the UK of the 21st century.
-
The Greek isn't always accurate either. I have heard it said that Romans is a composite of more than one document. If that's the case, there must be some doubt as to what the original massage was.
Is that hearsay, jeremy? As we all know, hearsay isn't evidence.
-
You could of course, Spud, conclude that what was thought about gender equality in the middle-east in antiquity isn't binding in the UK of the 21st century.
Or one could conclude that Christian, as opposed to Jewish teaching on gender equality from the 'middle-east in antiquity' was at least as advanced as modern-day thinking.
-
Or one could conclude that Christian, as opposed to Jewish teaching on gender equality from the 'middle-east in antiquity' was at least as advanced as modern-day thinking.
Not really, since it doesn't seem that gender equality has been a guiding principle within Christianity in the intervening centuries: I give you the RCC and the CofE as examples. The day we see a female Pope or AofC will be when you can claim Christianity isn't an example of gender inequality.
-
Not really, since it doesn't seem that gender equality has been a guiding principle within Christianity in the intervening centuries: I give you the RCC and the CofE as examples. The day we see a female Pope or AofC will be when you can claim Christianity isn't an example of gender inequality.
Just because the Church isn't very clever today - 2000 years later - doesn't mean that the early church wasn't, especially when you remember the statements that run through Romans 16 and the explanation that I've outlined about the advice to women not to spend their time chattering in the balcony or wherever.
-
Just because the Church isn't very clever today - 2000 years later - doesn't mean that the early church wasn't, especially when you remember the statements that run through Romans 16 and the explanation that I've outlined about the advice to women not to spend their time chattering in the balcony or wherever.
So what?
Whatever the early Christian church was allegedly like in respect of gender equality is largely irrelevant in terms of the more recent historical and current situations. No doubt those who defend gender inequality in Christianity today will claim scriptural support, and this seems at odds with your portrayal of early Christianity: these so-called 'church fathers ' (but, not and tellingly, 'church mothers').
So either:
a) These early Christians had no gender bias, as you suggest - which implies that Christian authorities in the centuries since have made a mess of this aspect of doctrine.
b) The attitudes of the early church towards women weren't quite as benign as you'd like to think it was, hence the misogyny ever since within organised Christianity.
Perhaps you can clarify any other options.
-
Spud: "...allowing some women to teach (other women, for instance)..."
That's how it is in Saudia Arabia, Spud.
From the link I posted yesterday:
What the Bible teaches is that women are radically different from men. For this reason, men often do not know how to deal with women’s problems. Other, older women are, however, able to do so. Thus, the office of elder woman, as I propose it, is to be filled by older women who advise and counsel other women.
-
We live in the 21st century, and much of the Bible isn't relevant to the way we live today.
-
We live in the 21st century, and much of the Bible isn't relevant to the way we live today.
Floo, in case you hadn't noticved, 21st century human nature is very little changed from 1st Century human nature (be that 1st century AD or BC). As such, the Bible addresses attitudes and behaviours that haven't changed in 2 or 3 millennia. We still have xenophobia, we still have gender injustice, we still have trade injustice, we still have slavery, we still have spousal abuse, we still have bullying, ... ; do you want me to continue the list?
-
Floo, in case you hadn't noticved, 21st century human nature is very little changed from 1st Century human nature (be that 1st century AD or BC). As such, the Bible addresses attitudes and behaviours that haven't changed in 2 or 3 millennia. We still have xenophobia, we still have gender injustice, we still have trade injustice, we still have slavery, we still have spousal abuse, we still have bullying, ... ; do you want me to continue the list?
That is funny! :D The Biblical god and its sychophants were the lowest of the low when it came to any sort of decent behaviour, if the deeds attributed to them had any credence!
-
That is funny! :D The Biblical god and its sychophants were the lowest of the low when it came to any sort of decent behaviour, if the deeds attributed to them had any credence!
You clearly have a very warped mind if you think this, Floo. I don't deny that, as with any philosophy or worldview, human adherents can twist and abuse the system - think of Marxism and Communism; think of capitalism and democracy; think of some Roman Catholic thinking; ... .
However, I can think of many events of the 20th and 21st centuries (let alone earlier ones) where said events are far worse than pretty well anything carried out in the name of Christ - bar perhaps the Crusades and the treatment of the Jews.
As for 'any sort of decent behaviour', I'd include education, healthcare, scientific research and invention as pretty good behaviour. I get the impression that you want to use the Jewish understanding of God (often expressed in a very different tye of literature to that which I suspect you're used to - such as pictorial, exaggeration (though you seem pretty good at this ;), theological treatise, etc.), as the real-life norm.
-
You clearly have a very warped mind if you think this, Floo. I don't deny that, as with any philosophy or worldview, human adherents can twist and abuse the system - think of Marxism and Communism; think of capitalism and democracy; think of some Roman Catholic thinking; ... .
However, I can think of many events of the 20th and 21st centuries (let alone earlier ones) where said events are far worse than pretty well anything carried out in the name of Christ - bar perhaps the Crusades and the treatment of the Jews.
As for 'any sort of decent behaviour', I'd include education, healthcare, scientific research and invention as pretty good behaviour. I get the impression that you want to use the Jewish understanding of God (often expressed in a very different tye of literature to that which I suspect you're used to - such as pictorial, exaggeration (though you seem pretty good at this ;), theological treatise, etc.), as the real-life norm.
What did god do that was good? I have asked that question many times and never had an answer!
-
What did god do that was good? I have asked that question many times and never had an answer!
In fact, you've had the answer on a number of occasions from a number of people, both here and elsewhere, and you have promptly shut up shop, gone silent for a month or two, then opened a new thread asking the same question.
-
Is that hearsay, jeremy? As we all know, hearsay isn't evidence.
It was in Richard Carrier's book "On the Historicity of Christ". He presents some evidence that Romans is a composite.
-
In fact, you've had the answer on a number of occasions from a number of people, both here and elsewhere, and you have promptly shut up shop, gone silent for a month or two, then opened a new thread asking the same question.
I think that is your MO
-
In fact, you've had the answer on a number of occasions from a number of people, both here and elsewhere, and you have promptly shut up shop, gone silent for a month or two, then opened a new thread asking the same question.
There has never been an answer to my question, you have never put one forward.
-
It was in Richard Carrier's book "On the Historicity of Christ".
Is that the one with the marvellous recipe for Hoi sin sauce?
-
What did god do that was good? I have asked that question many times and never had an answer!
I fear that whatever examples are given you will reject them, floo, but here is something that always 'speaks' to me:
1 Kings 19:4-8New International Version (NIV)
4 while he himself went a day’s journey into the wilderness. He came to a broom bush, sat down under it and prayed that he might die. “I have had enough, Lord,” he said. “Take my life; I am no better than my ancestors.” 5 Then he lay down under the bush and fell asleep.
All at once an angel touched him and said, “Get up and eat.” 6 He looked around, and there by his head was some bread baked over hot coals, and a jar of water. He ate and drank and then lay down again.
7 The angel of the Lord came back a second time and touched him and said, “Get up and eat, for the journey is too much for you.” 8 So he got up and ate and drank. Strengthened by that food, he traveled forty days and forty nights until he reached Horeb, the mountain of God.
-
Hope,
In fact, you've had the answer on a number of occasions from a number of people, both here and elsewhere, and you have promptly shut up shop, gone silent for a month or two, then opened a new thread asking the same question.
Whoa there Sparky. WHOA THERE!
Are you seriously accusing someone else of this behaviour? Someone else?
Seriously?
Seriously seriously?
Seriously seriously seriously?
Wow.
Just wow.
(Did I mention "wow" there?)
Never has by flabber been so gasted...
...I need a lie down. Nurse! The screens please!
-
Hope,
Whoa there Sparky. WHOA THERE!
Are you seriously accusing someone else of this behaviour? Someone else?
Seriously?
Seriously seriously?
Seriously seriously seriously?
Bzzzzzzzzzzz. Repetition of the word ''seriously''.
-
Vlad,
Bzzzzzzzzzzz. Repetition of the word ''seriously''.
Given the jaw-dropping, buttock-clenching, goggle-eyed with incredulity hypocrisy of Hope's post Nicholas Parsons said I could have a special exemption just this once.
-
I know what I mean by "hypocrisy" but as words often have more than one, and sometimes obscure, meanings, I looked it up.
Dictionary: hypocrisy
hɪˈpɒkrɪsi/Submit
noun
the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
"his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life"
synonyms: sanctimoniousness, sanctimony, pietism, piousness, affected piety, affected superiority, false virtue, cant, humbug, pretence, posturing, speciousness, empty talk;
Wiki: Hypocrisy is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character or inclinations, especially with respect to religious and moral beliefs; hence in general sense, dissimulation, pretense, sham. It is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another. In moral psychology, it is the failure to follow one’s own expressed moral rules and principles.
------
I cannot, and do not mean "will not", see Hope as a hypocrite. He strikes me as being quite sincere.
-
Brownie,
I cannot, and do not mean "will not", see Hope as a hypocrite. He strikes me as being quite sincere.
They're not contradictory - it's quite possible to be sincerely hypocritical, but hypocritical nonetheless.
-
I know what I mean by "hypocrisy" but as words often have more than one, and sometimes obscure, meanings, I looked it up.
Dictionary: hypocrisy
hɪˈpɒkrɪsi/Submit
noun
the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
"his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life"
synonyms: sanctimoniousness, sanctimony, pietism, piousness, affected piety, affected superiority, false virtue, cant, humbug, pretence, posturing, speciousness, empty talk;
Wiki: Hypocrisy is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character or inclinations, especially with respect to religious and moral beliefs; hence in general sense, dissimulation, pretense, sham. It is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another. In moral psychology, it is the failure to follow one’s own expressed moral rules and principles.
------
I cannot, and do not mean "will not", see Hope as a hypocrite. He strikes me as being quite sincere.
"It is the practice of engaging in the same behaviour or activity for which one criticizes another"
Which is exactly what he has just done.
Hence the charge.
-
Vlad,
Given the jaw-dropping, buttock-clenching, goggle-eyed with incredulity hypocrisy of Hope's post Nicholas Parsons said I could have a special exemption just this once.
Ok then you have thirty seconds remaining on the subject of Antitheist showboating on the Religionethics forum.
-
Vlad,
Ok then you have thirty seconds remaining on the subject of Antitheist showboating on the Religionethics forum.
Will you buzz me for talking about atheism rather than anti-theism though seeing as how you consistently confuse the two?
-
Vlad,
Will you buzz me for talking about atheism rather than anti-theism though seeing as how you consistently confuse the two?
Sorry. Hesistation.
That gives me twenty five seconds on antitheist showboating.........
''Richard Dawkins,Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Steven Laws, Jerry Coyne................''
-
I am asking for evidence that Timothy (1 & 2) was written: "by someone who had never met Paul, let alone Jesus".
Welllllll..
How familiar with Paul and his style of writing?
Do you agree that there is only 7 letters that are universally agreed as being written by Paul?
All the rest are forgeries claiming to be by Pauls' hand. The Tims being classed as forgeries.
I mean to be fair - 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are certainly speaking about certain situations, and they contain many specifics.
Unfortunately for "apologetics", the problem is that some of the details do not match up well with what we know of Paul from his universal accepted authentic letters.
What has been noticed about these texts is they do seem to match the context of Christian communities that existed sixty-plus years after Paul’s death.
For example, the writer of the Pastorals presupposes the existence of church offices, such as bishop, elder, and deacon, in which lay authority to rule over the community.
This sort of structural authority appears in the writings of proto-orthodox figures of the second century, such as Ignatius of Antioch.
In 1 Timothy and Titus, the author writes to a person who has been ordained (i.e., Timothy or Titus) and to whom the authority to appoint others to church offices has been given.
Paul wrote to communities at large when he wanted to instruct people on how to resolve their conflicts, not to specially designated persons.
While writings that come from the second century also reflect the existence of ecclesiastical offices, Paul’s letters indicate that he had no interest in establishing the institutionalised authority of this sort. Instead, Paul stressed that people had different gifts and talents, and thus he recognised that people could be assigned different roles and responsibilities in the church.
Paul did not, however, establish a hierarchy nor did he ordain people to preestablished offices; rather he allowed people to evolve organically into certain roles.
Which makes it dubious that Paul wrote the Tims and was more likely constructed decades after his death.
-
Interesting Thrud. I thought, or at least I was taught and read, that Tertius 'ghost wrote' what Paul dictated, at the end of which Paul added a few words of greeting or encouragement. I'm quite happy to be wrong about that.
-
Welllllll..
How familiar with Paul and his style of writing?
Do you agree that there is only 7 letters that are universally agreed as being written by Paul?
I'm aware of all that
All the rest are forgeries claiming to be by Pauls' hand. The Tims being classed as forgeries
Wrong. None of the others are forgeries. It was quite a common practice for material of the 1st Century (and not merely religoious writers) to be ascribed, either by the author or by 3rd parties, to someone well-known. It was so common that there is even a term for it - pseudoepigraphia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigrapha
They are officially deemed distinct from forgeries since the latter is always based on the author's own ascription, whilst the former may be ascription by 3rd parties.
What has been noticed about these texts is they do seem to match the context of Christian communities that existed sixty-plus years after Paul’s death.
For example, the writer of the Pastorals presupposes the existence of church offices, such as bishop, elder, and deacon, in which lay authority to rule over the community.
What has also been noticed by scholars is that the various 'office' terminology existed at the same time as Jesus was alive, so are by no means indicative of late Early church practice. They are Greek words with distinct secular meanings that were taken on by early Christians.
This sort of structural authority appears in the writings of proto-orthodox figures of the second century, such as Ignatius of Antioch.
In 1 Timothy and Titus, the author writes to a person who has been ordained (i.e., Timothy or Titus) and to whom the authority to appoint others to church offices has been given.
Oddly enough, this same perogative had been practised as early as Acts, when the apostles called the 7, one of whom was Stephen
Paul wrote to communities at large when he wanted to instruct people on how to resolve their conflicts, not to specially designated persons.
Not debating that, though its interesting that Hebrews - an epistle of just this sort - is also not regarded as one of his, suggesting that the easy delineation you outline isn't necessarily that simple.
While writings that come from the second century also reflect the existence of ecclesiastical offices, Paul’s letters indicate that he had no interest in establishing the institutionalised authority of this sort. Instead, Paul stressed that people had different gifts and talents, and thus he recognised that people could be assigned different roles and responsibilities in the church.
Unfortunately for this particular argument, bishops and other such 'posts' likely existed long before the second century, just having a different meaning to what we understand by them. Even your 2nd century references refer to posts and roles that are very different to what we currently understand them to be.
Paul did not, however, establish a hierarchy nor did he ordain people to preestablished offices; rather he allowed people to evolve organically into certain roles.
Do you have any evidence that Ignatius or any of those early Church Fathers were ordained, in the sense we mean? Remember that ordination was a very common rite within Roman society and had been for many years before the Christians appeared on the scene http://www.memorymeaningfaith.org/blog/2013/04/history-ordination-part-i.html
Which makes it dubious that Paul wrote the Tims and was more likely constructed decades after his death.
Not sure that your initial comment is questioned by many people; on the other hand, the relevant language of the Tims, etc. would have been common even during Jesus' and Paul's lifetimes.
-
Interesting Thrud. I thought, or at least I was taught and read, that Tertius 'ghost wrote' what Paul dictated, at the end of which Paul added a few words of greeting or encouragement. I'm quite happy to be wrong about that.
Whilst I was taught that Luke may well have acted as scribe for Paul. Perhaps they were one and the same ;)
-
Hope,
I see that you've accused someone else of avoiding questions, going quiet for a bit and then popping up with the same mistakes. As it seems to have slipped your mind can i remind you that over on the "Answers to Prayers?" thread I took the time to rebut your various mistakes (Replies 36 - 39 from memory) only for you to ignore those rebuttals. Later on you complained that you couldn't be expected to trawl through looking for them, so I took the time to post again to tell you where they are.
I see that you ignored that post too. Can we now look forward therefore you going quiet for a bit and then popping up only to repeat the same mistakes as before?
Again?
Ta.
-
Whilst I was taught that Luke may well have acted as scribe for Paul. Perhaps they were one and the same ;)
Well, we don't know Hope, it is church tradition that Tertius of Iconium wrote s(,, Luke the Evangelist wrote Acts. It doesn't matter that much, at least I don't think so. What is said is more important than who put pen to paper (or, more precisely, papyrus). You are probably more up to date than I with current Biblical scholarship.
(Blue, sorry to interrupt your conversation with Hope, I just wanted to respond to this particular post.)
-
Wrong. None of the others are forgeries.
They were clearly intended to be passed off as the work of Paul. Therefore they are forgeries.
It was quite a common practice for material of the 1st Century (and not merely religoious writers) to be ascribed, either by the author or by 3rd parties, to someone well-known.
It may have been common but it was not considered OK to do it.
-
I understand it was acceptable, sometimes normal practice, for religious writers to employ scribes.
-
Hope,
I see that you've accused someone else of avoiding questions, going quiet for a bit and then popping up with the same mistakes. As it seems to have slipped your mind can i remind you that over on the "Answers to Prayers?" thread I took the time to rebut your various mistakes (Replies 36 - 39 from memory) only for you to ignore those rebuttals. Later on you complained that you couldn't be expected to trawl through looking for them, so I took the time to post again to tell you where they are.
I see that you ignored that post too. Can we now look forward therefore you going quiet for a bit and then popping up only to repeat the same mistakes as before?
Again?
Ta.
Bzzzzzzzzz Deviation............................Derail.............................Bulverism.
-
I fear that whatever examples are given you will reject them, floo, but here is something that always 'speaks' to me:
1 Kings 19:4-8New International Version (NIV)
4 while he himself went a day’s journey into the wilderness. He came to a broom bush, sat down under it and prayed that he might die. “I have had enough, Lord,” he said. “Take my life; I am no better than my ancestors.” 5 Then he lay down under the bush and fell asleep.
All at once an angel touched him and said, “Get up and eat.” 6 He looked around, and there by his head was some bread baked over hot coals, and a jar of water. He ate and drank and then lay down again.
7 The angel of the Lord came back a second time and touched him and said, “Get up and eat, for the journey is too much for you.” 8 So he got up and ate and drank. Strengthened by that food, he traveled forty days and forty nights until he reached Horeb, the mountain of God.
If the sky fairy could do that for one person, how come there are so many people starving in this world?
-
If the sky fairy could do that for one person, how come there are so many people starving in this world?
Deliberate human planning.
-
Deliberate human planning.
Ehhhhhhhhh?
-
Ehhhhhhhhh?
People starve because people let them or as deliberate policy.......or do you really believe it's God?
-
People starve because people let them or as deliberate policy.......or do you really believe it's God.
Your only utility to antitheism is your nuisance value.
I don't think the Biblical god exists. However, if it did and could help people in need, but does nothing, or only when in the mood, there would be nothing good about it!
-
I don't think the Biblical god exists. However, if it did and could help people in need, but does nothing, or only when in the mood, there would be nothing good about it!
God has created a universe where evil and death is a possibility but evil and death are not ends for God but are for us.
The responsibility for 'keeping our brother'' is ours in the universe God has created. God Blaming is an abrogation of human responsibility. God promised a permanent home for humanity.
When humanity plots or let's people die they often do so believing death is the end. What does that tell you?
-
I don't think the Biblical god exists. However, if it did and could help people in need, but does nothing, or only when in the mood, there would be nothing good about it!
Wel, you're the one who says it doesn't do anything. Evidence, please. I'm afraid that giving examples of when said god allows humans to suffer as a result of their own stupidity, or as a result of natural disasters which will necessarily occur in a dynamic context won't wash. Nor will examples that generalise from the specific. After all, 2 people with the same condition may cope with it differently from a temperamental pov, and may have different support systems available, meaning that the condition is but one of a number of issues that need to be addressed.
-
Ehhhhhhhhh?
There are people in, for instance, Africa (Southern Sudan was a good example till a few years ago) who were having their food supplies hijacked or even stopped because they disagreed with the government in Khartoum. Are you suggesting that God was to blame for this?
-
God has created a universe where evil and death is a possibility but evil and death are not ends for God but are for us.
The responsibility for 'keeping our brother'' is ours in the universe God has created. God Blaming is an abrogation of human responsibility. God promised a permanent home for humanity.
When humanity plots or let's people die they often do so believing death is the end. What does that tell you?
Excuses, excuses, excuses, always excuses for the less than good Biblical god. A human who had it in their power to help people in desperate circumstances, but did nothing, would be condemned, so why should god not be condemned too, if it exists?
-
There are people in, for instance, Africa (Southern Sudan was a good example till a few years ago) who were having their food supplies hijacked or even stopped because they disagreed with the government in Khartoum. Are you suggesting that God was to blame for this?
Of course god is to blame for everything that is wrong in this world, if it exists and created human nature. It is supposed to be omnipotent so therefore it would have known exactly what suffering its creation would cause. But maybe that is how it gets its kicks!
-
I understand it was acceptable, sometimes normal practice, for religious writers to employ scribes.
Paul used to do it in his genuine letters. There's a difference in having a scribe write down your words and somebody else making something up and pretending that it was yours.
-
There are people in, for instance, Africa (Southern Sudan was a good example till a few years ago) who were having their food supplies hijacked or even stopped because they disagreed with the government in Khartoum. Are you suggesting that God was to blame for this?
Why would an atheist blame an action on a being that doesn't exist?
The problem here is that you claim there is a god and you claim it is the god of love, so it is for you to explain why it stands around letting things like the above happen. My explanation (and Floo's) is simple: God doesn't exist.
-
Why would an atheist blame an action on a being that doesn't exist?
The problem here is that you claim there is a god and you claim it is the god of love, so it is for you to explain why it stands around letting things like the above happen. My explanation (and Floo's) is simple: God doesn't exist.
Now we await the excuses for god's inaction.
-
Excuses, excuses, excuses, always excuses for the less than good Biblical god. A human who had it in their power to help people in desperate circumstances, but did nothing, would be condemned, so why should god not be condemned too, if it exists?
We will all die, whether by natural or other causes.
It would be nice if God prevented us from dying in the first place, but he says that we have to, because it is the penalty for our rebellion against him. Please note that we rebelled first, so there is no use saying that he is evil and so we should rebel.
Preventing unnecessary suffering in this life is our responsibility, but he has taken steps to enable us to live after death, which meant he had to experience death himself, even though he wasn't under the death penalty. He does help people in this life, but only once did someone not see death (Enoch). Every time he helps someone it is to the end that they and others can come to faith, which is all that is needed to live after death. Maybe if you understand this then you won't hate him so much, whether or not you believe it.
Also, your use of the small 'g' is wrong. It should be used to distinguish physical objects of worship, such as the sun and the moon, or other people, or things that we idolize, from the creator of the physical world, who has a capital 'G'.
-
Spud: Every time he helps someone it is to the end that they and others can come to faith, which is all that is needed to live after death.
I know that historically that has been the Christian position - and has often been grossly misused when you think how Christians barged into other countries with the agenda to convert at all costs and influence established cultures for which there was little respect. However that was a long time ago.
The problem I have with what you say, Spud, is that not everyone has the gift of evangelism. In fact, I would say very few have. Zeal is not enough.
The other issue is that many people will not come to faith as we know it, evangelism or not, they just won't. Not because of 'hardening of hearts', just that they cannot believe even if they want to. I find it difficult to accept that God will abandon someone whom He has created just because they do not have faith. Neither do I think that someone of a different faith is beyond the pale.
-
We will all die, whether by natural or other causes.
It would be nice if God prevented us from dying in the first place, but he says that we have to, because it is the penalty for our rebellion against him. Please note that we rebelled first, so there is no use saying that he is evil and so we should rebel.
Preventing unnecessary suffering in this life is our responsibility, but he has taken steps to enable us to live after death, which meant he had to experience death himself, even though he wasn't under the death penalty. He does help people in this life, but only once did someone not see death (Enoch). Every time he helps someone it is to the end that they and others can come to faith, which is all that is needed to live after death. Maybe if you understand this then you won't hate him so much, whether or not you believe it.
Also, your use of the small 'g' is wrong. It should be used to distinguish physical objects of worship, such as the sun and the moon, or other people, or things that we idolize, from the creator of the physical world, who has a capital 'G'.
EXCUSES, EXCUSES EXCUSES! The Biblical deity, for which there is no evidence of its existence, only deserves a very small 'g' as it is so unpleasant.
-
We will all die, whether by natural or other causes.
It would be nice if God prevented us from dying in the first place, but he says that we have to, because it is the penalty for our rebellion against him. Please note that we rebelled first, so there is no use saying that he is evil and so we should rebel.
Preventing unnecessary suffering in this life is our responsibility, but he has taken steps to enable us to live after death, which meant he had to experience death himself, even though he wasn't under the death penalty. He does help people in this life, but only once did someone not see death (Enoch). Every time he helps someone it is to the end that they and others can come to faith, which is all that is needed to live after death. Maybe if you understand this then you won't hate him so much, whether or not you believe it.
Also, your use of the small 'g' is wrong. It should be used to distinguish physical objects of worship, such as the sun and the moon, or other people, or things that we idolize, from the creator of the physical world, who has a capital 'G'.
What possible reason would God have for wanting people to believe in him, Spud? An all knowing all powerful, creator of universes wouldn't give a fig whether a mere mortal believed in him!
Who do we know who ask people to believe them without showing any evidence for their claims ... dodgy politicians and conmen!
The early Church Fathers were clever "Unless you believe what we tell you, you'll die and spend all eternity in hell!"
God had no reason ... but the early Church had a very good reason.
-
Vlad,
People starve because people let them or as deliberate policy.......or do you really believe it's God?
Ooh, we haven't had a false dichotomy fallacy here for a while. Good effort.
It's neither - unless that is you seriously think that causes like plant disease, insect infestation, tsunamis and any manner of other reasons for food shortages are actually "deliberate policy"?
The closest you could get to that I guess is the reckless dogma of the religious faiths that insist that uncontrolled birth rates are desirable, with the attendant pressure that puts on resources but that's another matter.
-
Vlad,
God has created a universe where evil and death is a possibility but evil and death are not ends for God but are for us.
The responsibility for 'keeping our brother'' is ours in the universe God has created. God Blaming is an abrogation of human responsibility. God promised a permanent home for humanity.
Wow - it's a vanishingly rare as rocking horse doo-doos for you to tell us what you do think rather than just lie about he arguments that undo you, so well done for that.
Sadly the Janet & John ontology you map out wouldn't have looked out of place in a mediaeval children's primer but hey - it's a start I guess.
All you have to do now is finally to demonstrate that supposed "God", to show that he created anything and to tell us what he had in mind for us when He did. Good luck with it though.
When humanity plots or let's people die they often do so believing death is the end. What does that tell you?
That some people at least are more rational than others in the face of the total absence of evidence for the fantastical stories you assert here.
-
Sadly the Janet & John ontology you map out wouldn't have looked out of place in a mediaeval children's primer but hey - it's a start I guess.
Sorry, bhs - and I'm sure that Vlad will be able and will want to speak for himself - but the patronising and contemptuous nature of this post simply hides the fact that you have nothing to bring to the table other than something equally improbable.
All you have to do now is finally to demonstrate that supposed "God", to show that he created anything and to tell us what he had in mind for us when He did. Good luck with it though.
I think the last bit of that suggestion - the bit about 'what he had in mind for us' has been answered on a number of occasions on this board alone. At least the answer - which is all about purpose and relationship - is more in line with the reality that each of us find ourselves in - living a purposeful life - whether that purpose is imposed or self-discovered. Your alternative is devoid of purpose and any rational reason for our existence.
-
It's neither - unless that is you seriously think that causes like plant disease, insect infestation, tsunamis and any manner of other reasons for food shortages are actually "deliberate policy"?
bhs, as I pointed out in a previous post, the 'deliberate policy' occurs when a government or tribal grouping intentionally deny parts of their 'citizenry' access to everyday necessities, such as food, employment, education, etc. simply because they disagree with the attitudes and beliefs of those in power.
-
I think the last bit of that suggestion - the bit about 'what he had in mind for us' has been answered on a number of occasions on this board alone.
No it hasn't: it has been asserted.
At least the answer - which is all about purpose and relationship - is more in line with the reality that each of us find ourselves in - living a purposeful life - whether that purpose is imposed or self-discovered.
What 'answer': this is just more assertion.
Your alternative is devoid of purpose and any rational reason for our existence.
Depends on what you mean by 'purpose' or 'rational reason', but given your penchant for fallacies I suspect your critique is devoid of the latter.
-
bhs, as I pointed out in a previous post, the 'deliberate policy' occurs when a government or tribal grouping intentionally deny parts of their 'citizenry' access to everyday necessities, such as food, employment, education, etc. simply because they disagree with the attitudes and beliefs of those in power.
Then why doesn't your God ' send someone along' to ' guide ' them to the correct path?
-
Spud: Every time he helps someone it is to the end that they and others can come to faith, which is all that is needed to live after death.
I know that historically that has been the Christian position - and has often been grossly misused when you think how Christians barged into other countries with the agenda to convert at all costs and influence established cultures for which there was little respect. However that was a long time ago.
The problem I have with what you say, Spud, is that not everyone has the gift of evangelism. In fact, I would say very few have. Zeal is not enough.
The other issue is that many people will not come to faith as we know it, evangelism or not, they just won't. Not because of 'hardening of hearts', just that they cannot believe even if they want to. I find it difficult to accept that God will abandon someone whom He has created just because they do not have faith. Neither do I think that someone of a different faith is beyond the pale.
I'm not one of the few, that's for sure. But if we believe something, then it can't be impossible to find a way of expressing it so that it makes a bit of sense. And as Rico Tice says, who does have that gift- if we really care about people then we should talk to them, whether we do it eloquently or not. Having gone through a bit of an 'evangelical' phase a long time back, I'm now more of a 'wait until asked' person, because I think people take as much notice of what we do as of what we say.
People who can't believe: well if it's all been explained properly and they still don't, I guess they will rely on good deeds. Trouble is, it's like a drop of ink in a bottle of pure water, making it undrinkable. One little sin pollutes the whole person and prevents us from entering heaven. I tend to go with the thought that everyone is capable of repentance, whether they hear the gospel or not. We just don't know whether someone may do so at some point in their life.
-
Hope,
Sorry, bhs - and I'm sure that Vlad will be able and will want to speak for himself - but the patronising and contemptuous nature of this post simply hides the fact that you have nothing to bring to the table other than something equally improbable.
What do you think I've brought to the table that's "equally improbable" just by pointing out that there's no evidence whatever for Vlad's fantastical conjectures gussied up as facts?
I think the last bit of that suggestion - the bit about 'what he had in mind for us' has been answered on a number of occasions on this board alone.
An assertion is not an answer, at least not unless you also think that, say, "dragons fighting" is the answer to what causes the aurora borealis.
At least the answer - which is all about purpose and relationship - is more in line with the reality that each of us find ourselves in - living a purposeful life - whether that purpose is imposed or self-discovered.
I assume that this meant something in your head when you typed it, but insofar as I can unscramble it it's entirely possible to have a sense of purpose without invoking universe-creating deities to do so.
Your alternative is devoid of purpose and any rational reason for our existence.
A classic Hope straw man and an argumetum ad consequentiam to boot. Good effort. That you personally may happen to feel your life to be purposeless unless you conjure up a celestial panjandrum so as to feel it to be purposeful says nothing whatever to whether or not that panjandrum is real.
-
Hope,
bhs, as I pointed out in a previous post, the 'deliberate policy' occurs when a government or tribal grouping intentionally deny parts of their 'citizenry' access to everyday necessities, such as food, employment, education, etc. simply because they disagree with the attitudes and beliefs of those in power.
And as I pointed out in a previous post, while of course there can be examples of famines that are man-made, there are also examples of famines that are not. Whence then Vlad's frankly bizarre claim that starvation happens because of human wrongdoing or some such?
Where is his god when the victims have done nothing whatever to cause the famine, but natural phenomena have?
-
Hope,
And as I pointed out in a previous post, while of course there can be examples of famines that are man-made, there are also examples of famines that are not. Whence then Vlad's frankly bizarre claim that starvation happens because of human wrongdoing or some such?
Sadly, even in these more 'natural' famines, there is often a human agent at work in the background. For instance there are parts of the world where, whilst there is no war at present, the practice of kidnapping young men to serve as child soldiers (think of the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda and Sudan in the 1990s) has left communities without the men to look after the land. In some cases the young women were also taken to be used as 'recreational playthings'. I don't think that Vlad is suggesting that all famines have a similar human cause, but many have this kind of hidden one. Thinking of Africa, the current size of the Sahara Desert has a certain amount of hna influence to blame over the last few millennia. Deforestation has occurred over a long period and this has allowed the soil to be lost and the sand to take over.
Where is his god when the victims have done nothing whatever to cause the famine, but natural phenomena have?
The earth is a dynamic entity and things like failure of monsoons, the eruption of volcanoes, earthquakes, etc, are all part of its natural cycle. If you look at where the worst natural events occur, they are often on low-lying land (floods), poorly conditioned and husbanded land (famines), destruction of usable land - sometimes short-term (volcanic eruptions), etc. 'Ironically', all of these will happen, regardless of whether the earth is an accidental conglomeration of chemicals and space dust, or the creation of a loving God.
-
(((((or the creation of a loving God))))) By that you mean a god that just loves human suffering!
-
The earth is a dynamic entity and things like failure of monsoons, the eruption of volcanoes, earthquakes, etc, are all part of its natural cycle. If you look at where the worst natural events occur, they are often on low-lying land (floods), poorly conditioned and husbanded land (famines), destruction of usable land - sometimes short-term (volcanic eruptions), etc. 'Ironically', all of these will happen, regardless of whether the earth is an accidental conglomeration of chemicals and space dust, or the creation of a loving God.
The logic problem inherent in that is the notion of a loving God in heaven where there is no suffering who manufactures a place of suffering to put people into rather than heaven. Such a policy is not consistent with 'loving'.
-
The earth is a dynamic entity and things like failure of monsoons, the eruption of volcanoes, earthquakes, etc, are all part of its natural cycle. If you look at where the worst natural events occur, they are often on low-lying land (floods), poorly conditioned and husbanded land (famines), destruction of usable land - sometimes short-term (volcanic eruptions), etc.
What about tsunamis caused by undersea earthquakes? Surely these are circumstances (tectonic plate movements) where humanity isn't complicit.
'Ironically', all of these will happen, regardless of whether the earth is an accidental conglomeration of chemicals and space dust, or the creation of a loving God.
Then 'God' becomes a redundant explanation.
-
What about tsunamis caused by undersea earthquakes? Surely these are circumstances (tectonic plate movements) where humanity isn't complicit.
Well done, Gordon - simply another example of what I'd already said.
Then 'God' becomes a redundant explanation.
No; if he created the earth (and the universe) as it is, as I believe he did, he is very much a relevant explanation.
-
The logic problem inherent in that is the notion of a loving God in heaven where there is no suffering who manufactures a place of suffering to put people into rather than heaven. Such a policy is not consistent with 'loving'.
torri, the logic problem inherent in your post is whether there is a separate physical entity called 'heaven'. Remember that Jesus taught that the 'kingdom of heaven' is here and now - not sometime in the future and somewhere out there.
-
Well done, Gordon - simply another example of what I'd already said.
No; if he created the earth (and the universe) as it is, as I believe he did, he is very much a relevant explanation.
Then you'll be able to justify the 'if' by providing a 'relevant explanation' that isn't a restatement of your personal beliefs, in order for you to avoid committing the relativist fallacy.
-
torri, the logic problem inherent in your post is whether there is a separate physical entity called 'heaven'.
It's only a logic problem if three is certainty one way or the other. So which is it?
-
torri, the logic problem inherent in your post is whether there is a separate physical entity called 'heaven'. Remember that Jesus taught that the 'kingdom of heaven' is here and now - not sometime in the future and somewhere out there.
And what did he mean by that comment?
-
And what did he mean by that comment?
Hemet there is no heaven, the "here and now" thing is just word salad. When you analyse it, it either means we are already in the Kingdom of Heaven or it's just platitudes.
-
Hope,
Sadly, even in these more 'natural' famines, there is often a human agent at work in the background. For instance there are parts of the world where, whilst there is no war at present, the practice of kidnapping young men to serve as child soldiers (think of the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda and Sudan in the 1990s) has left communities without the men to look after the land. In some cases the young women were also taken to be used as 'recreational playthings'. I don't think that Vlad is suggesting that all famines have a similar human cause, but many have this kind of hidden one. Thinking of Africa, the current size of the Sahara Desert has a certain amount of hna influence to blame over the last few millennia. Deforestation has occurred over a long period and this has allowed the soil to be lost and the sand to take over.
Well this is getting weird. Here's what Vlad actually claimed:
"People starve because people let them or as deliberate policy..."
No sign of a "sometimes' or an "on occasion" or similar there. Nope sirree - according to him, people starve because people let them or as deliberate policy and that's the beginning and end of it.
I then explained how bonkers this is as clearly starvation often happens when neither of these causes are in play.
Somewhat oddly to you then replied with some examples of famine being caused by human agency.
I replied to the effect that no-one denies that, but there are plenty of examples too in which there is no human agency.
Even more oddly, you then reply with another example of human causation.
As I say, weird. Leaving aside the man-made examples we agree anyway happen, would you care now to turn your attention to the examples when the victims have done nothing wrong at all - both in respect of Vlad's daftness and in the context of a supposedly loving god?
The earth is a dynamic entity and things like failure of monsoons, the eruption of volcanoes, earthquakes, etc, are all part of its natural cycle. If you look at where the worst natural events occur, they are often on low-lying land (floods), poorly conditioned and husbanded land (famines), destruction of usable land - sometimes short-term (volcanic eruptions), etc. 'Ironically', all of these will happen, regardless of whether the earth is an accidental conglomeration of chemicals and space dust, or the creation of a loving God.
Seriously? Why on earth would this supposedly loving god create a home for his special creation in the first place so riven with these phenomena, only a small part of which is habitable at all?
Or, to put it another way, why would a god create a world that looks exactly as you'd expect it to look if there was no god?
-
Hope,
Remember that Jesus taught that the 'kingdom of heaven' is here and now - not sometime in the future and somewhere out there.
Another example of your fondness for the reification fallacy. There may or may not have been a "Jesus" and he may or may not have claimed that "the kingdom of heaven is here and now", but you'd have all of your work ahead of you still if you wanted to demonstrate this to be the case, however much you claim that it was "taught" rather than merely asserted.
-
Hope,
Another example of your fondness for the reification fallacy. There may or may not have been a "Jesus" and he may or may not have claimed that "the kingdom of heaven is here and now", but you'd have all of your work ahead of you still if you wanted to demonstrate this to be the case, however much you claim that it was "taught" rather than merely asserted.
Sorry, bh, the 'reification fallacy', as you call it, is simply another way in which you avoid the issue. I have increasingly noticed how you, and others here, rely on the 'fallacy' argument when you either can't or don't want to answer questions posed - a sure sign that this board is going the same way that several others I've had dealings with have gone.
If you want people to believe that the naturalistic approach to life that you seem to favour is the only one around, it is for you to provide the evidence. I'd remind you that over the years that thois board has been in existence, several folk, some no longer members, have shown the weaknesses of the arguments that the likes of you have offered.
-
Hope,
Sorry, bh, the 'reification fallacy', as you call it, is simply another way in which you avoid the issue.
No, the reification fallacy involves taking a speculation or a conjecture, treating it as if it were a demonstrated fact and then using that (non) fact as your premise on which to establish an argument. Pointing that out isn't avoiding the issue, it is the issue. When your premise collapses, so does your argument. We can't just pretend that the premise is sound and then consider the argument on that basis.
I have increasingly noticed how you, and others here, rely on the 'fallacy' argument when you either can't or don't want to answer questions posed - a sure sign that this board is going the same way that several others I've had dealings with have gone.
It's hard to imagine a statement more wrong than this. Fallacious arguments are always wrong arguments - that's what "fallacious argument" means. I'm quite willing to answer any question you like (unlike you incidentally who consistently avoids them), but when the question rests on one or several of the various fallacies you blithely commit then the question is nullified a priori. It's a bit like me saying for example, "I didn't walk on the cracks in the pavement for a week, Granny's chilblains got better, so how do explain my pavement crack cure then Mr Rationalist?". Your proper response would be just to point out that the premise was false - walking as I did had nothing to do with it - and not to bother with the rest.
Only when you finally understand how your fallacious reasoning undermines you will you be able to grasp this point.
If you want people to believe that the naturalistic approach to life that you seem to favour is the only one around, it is for you to provide the evidence.
The evidence is simple enough: there's overwhelming shedloads of it for natural phenomena. and none whatsoever for supernatural alternatives. What more would you expect there to be if there are no supernatural phenomena?
I'd remind you that over the years that thois board has been in existence, several folk, some no longer members, have shown the weaknesses of the arguments that the likes of you have offered.
You can't "remind" someone of something that isn't true. Rather than your usual tactic of claiming something to have been demonstrated but never to be able to provide an example, why not at least attempt finally to support your claim by showing us where it's happened?
-
Sorry, bh, the 'reification fallacy', as you call it, is simply another way in which you avoid the issue. I have increasingly noticed how you, and others here, rely on the 'fallacy' argument when you either can't or don't want to answer questions posed - a sure sign that this board is going the same way that several others I've had dealings with have gone.
Nope - it is a sure sign that you continue to deploy fallacies, whereby your arguments fail because they are hopeless arguments that are bereft of merit.
If you want people to believe that the naturalistic approach to life that you seem to favour is the only one around, it is for you to provide the evidence.
Not really: the only evidence currently available is naturalistic and is identified via methods appropriate to the phenomena being investigated. Since you claim non-naturalism the burden is on you to present the evidence and the method(s) used to obtain said evidence.
I'd remind you that over the years that thois board has been in existence, several folk, some no longer members, have shown the weaknesses of the arguments that the likes of you have offered.
Then you should be able to identify them and summarise their positions, since you clearly remember them - my money is on them being some of your fellow fallacy-merchants.
-
I have increasingly noticed how you, and others here, rely on the 'fallacy' argument when you either can't or don't want to answer questions posed
No that is you, that is.
Take the 1-1 thread. I made a claim, I supported it with an example that has clear evidence to support it. You were challenged to show a similar example of non naturalistic forces in action and how you knew them to be so. You made lots of assertions about love but your post was full of fallacious reasoning. Why should we accept your claims when the "logic" that they are based on can so clearly be shown to be erroneous?
Then when challenged you ignore the points raised and bring up a different example.
You are the only one avoiding answering
If you want people to believe that the naturalistic approach to life that you seem to favour is the only one around, it is for you to provide the evidence.
Strawman. We both agree, I assume, that naturalistic phenomena operate and we have methods for understanding them? We don't agree that there are non naturalistic ones around because they have never been demonstrated. That view will of course change should you, or someone else, demonstrate them to exist. Your claim, your burden of proof.
-
No that is you, that is.
That's rich, coming from you, Stephen.
Take the 1-1 thread. I made a claim, I supported it with an example that has clear evidence to support it. You were challenged to show a similar example of non naturalistic forces in action and how you knew them to be so. You made lots of assertions about love but your post was full of fallacious reasoning. Why should we accept your claims when the "logic" that they are based on can so clearly be shown to be erroneous?
You certainly did support it with an example, but a single example doesn't prove anything. All I did was point out at least two situations where naturalistic thinking doesn't provide satisfactory evidence.
Then when challenged you ignore the points raised and bring up a different example.
I 'ignored' your points as I'd previously addressed them anyway.
Strawman. We both agree, I assume, that naturalistic phenomena operate and we have methods for understanding them? We don't agree that there are non naturalistic ones around because they have never been demonstrated. That view will of course change should you, or someone else, demonstrate them to exist. Your claim, your burden of proof.
We may both agree that naturalistic phenomena operate, but that isn't the underlying issue. That is how, perhaps even why do they operate. OK, I may have been getting a tad confused with threads - I have made a number of posts on the 'What's it all about ... Alfie' thread. I often have more than one thread open at a time - in different tabs.
Just because the naturalistic process fits with interpretations and understandings that we, as humans, have, it doesn't mean that they are the correct interpretations. Nor that they are necessarily the only interpretations.
-
We may both agree that naturalistic phenomena operate, but that isn't the underlying issue. That is how, perhaps even why do they operate.
'How' is a reasonable question, where to answer it requires a naturalistic method that is appropriate to the phenomena. 'Why', however, is much more problematic in terms of being a valid question in the first place since it presumes an answer, and this may be begging the question if those asking it do so on the assumption that their divine purpose conclusion is the answer they prefer.
For instance if I ask 'how are rainbows formed' the naturalistic 'how' can be explained to me but if I ask 'why are there rainbows' this seems like a invalid question: replace 'rainbows' with 'love' or 'jellyfish and 'why' still makes no sense whatsoever.
Just because the naturalistic process fits with interpretations and understandings that we, as humans, have, it doesn't mean that they are the correct interpretations.
Science is provisional even though some established 'interpretations and understandings' have copious supporting evidence, thus the current science around the design of aeroplanes seems sufficiently 'correct' to be going on with for now but may well be changed by new discoveries (such as when I patent my anti-gravity emulsion: matt only, but in a choice of colours).
Nor that they are necessarily the only interpretations.
Perhaps not, but any alternative interpretations will require supporting method/evidence on the same basis that some 'heavier than air things can fly' does: and when your alternative proposal involves non-naturalistic assumptions this is where your reasoning is fallacious, since it seems you don't have anything resembling a method on which to base your claims.
-
Hope,
That's rich, coming from you, Stephen.
Stop it now. You're embarrassing yourself.
You certainly did support it with an example, but a single example doesn't prove anything.
Quite. Why then quote single examples of man-made famines in an attempt to demonstrate that there aren't plenty of examples of causes that are nothing to do with humankind?
All I did was point out at least two situations where naturalistic thinking doesn't provide satisfactory evidence.
No you didn't. Why bother lying when your lies are so easily checked?
I 'ignored' your points as I'd previously addressed them anyway.
To my knowledge you've never addressed any of the points that undo you. If you genuinely think otherwise, why not show just for once us where you did that?
We may both agree that naturalistic phenomena operate, but that isn't the underlying issue. That is how, perhaps even why do they operate. OK, I may have been getting a tad confused with threads - I have made a number of posts on the 'What's it all about ... Alfie' thread. I often have more than one thread open at a time - in different tabs.
"Why" is a meaningless question until and unless you can finally demonstrate a causal agency to care about and to determine what that "why" might be. You're begging the question - another fallacy.
Just because the naturalistic process fits with interpretations and understandings that we, as humans, have, it doesn't mean that they are the correct interpretations. Nor that they are necessarily the only interpretations.
No it doesn't. What it does mean though it that they're the only interpretations for which there's a method of any kind to suggest that they offer working truths. You can speculate about other interpretations - your god, leprechauns, whatever - as much as you wish, but speculations they must remain until and unless you finally propose a method to elevate them beyond that.
Have you any sense at all of how out of your depth you are here?
Anything?
-
That's rich, coming from you, Stephen.
Ok then link to a post where I have run away or not responded to your post.
You certainly did support it with an example, but a single example doesn't prove anything.
It demonstrated my claim to be justified. That was all it was meant to do.
All I did was point out at least two situations where naturalistic thinking doesn't provide satisfactory evidence.
Well some data was presented that suggested that your way of thinking i.e. that chemicals in the brain are a symptom of a phenomena rather than its cause, is the wrong way around.
You didn't provide any evidence of a non naturalistic phenomena at work though, hence the questions as to why you conflate no current scientific explanation with positive evidence for non naturalistic phenomena.
I 'ignored' your points as I'd previously addressed them anyway.
You have not. As is clear to anyone who reads the thread.
Just because the naturalistic process fits with interpretations and understandings that we, as humans, have, it doesn't mean that they are the correct interpretations. Nor that they are necessarily the only interpretations.
Well go ahead and demonstrate these alternatives then.
-
For many, this is a pretty boring chapter at the end of a highly contentious and therefore interesting epistle. It is arguably the most important epistle of the whole of the New Testament as it includes both doctrine and advice.........
Of the 27 people Paul mentions, at least 9 of them are women. What is more, the first two to be mentioned are women.
Phoebe
Priscilla
Mary
Junias/Junia.
Tryphaena, Tryphosa and Persis.
Julia and the sister of Nereu
Clearly, the early church was not an organisation which ignored women in its leadership.
I accept that since the middle of the 1st millennium - especially following the Synod of Whitby (664) - the church has been predominantly male-run.
So remind us.
What was the crux of your OP?
-
So remind us.
What was the crux of your OP?
If you'd read the OP properly, TtB, you'd have seen this one-line paragraph towards the end:
Clearly, the early church was not an organisation which ignored women in its leadership.
By not reading the OP properly, you hae shown yourself to be the barbarian you would like us to believe you to be. ;)
-
Nonsense Nae Hope.
You are correct in yer assumption that Women were an important inclusion in the church Saul created.
Why did Catholicism suppress that ideal?
-
You are correct in yer assumption that Women were an important inclusion in the church Saul created.
Which church was that, Thrud?
Why did Catholicism suppress that ideal?
Having never been a Catholic, I'm afraid I can't answer that.
-
So what was the point of Saul writing to the Romans to expect his arrival.. and why put the greetings at the end of his letter instead of the beginning?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nucs7hAi02k
-
So what was the point of Saul writing to the Romans to expect his arrival.. and why put the greetings at the end of his letter instead of the beginning?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nucs7hAi02k
Ricky, as I am sure you are aware, it was normal to place an introductory greeting at the beginning of a letter - it still is, even today - see Romans 1:7. It was also, and remains, common-practice to sum up a letter with greetings to people that the writer knows but hasn't been able to - or needed to - refer to directly during the letter.
As for "what was the point of Saul writing to the Romans to expect his arrival", if you look at the beginning of the letter 1: 8-15, he is explaining why he hasn't already arrived. I assume that you appreciate that if someone was/is unable to attend an event, or hoped to visit someone but was/is prevented by some other circumstance, that writing a letter - be that physically or electronically - was/is normal good manners.
-
Quote from: Thrud the Barbarian on August 13, 2016, 08:26:59 AM
You are correct in yer assumption that Women were an important inclusion in the church Saul created.
Which church was that, Thrud?
Bumped for Thrud's attention.
-
Which church was that, Thrud?
Bumped for Thrud's attention.
Quote from: Thrud the Barbarian on August 13, 2016, 08:26:59 AM
You are correct in your assumption that Women were an important inclusion in the church Saul created.
Which church was that, Thrud?
Bumped for Thrud's attention.
Is there some sort of importance to this post of yours Hope?
ippy
-
Is there some sort of importance to this post of yours Hope?
ippy
Yes, ippy. I was wondering what church Thrud believes that Saul created. Is he talking about the various congregations that Saul (aka Paul) was involved in establishing around the Mediterranean, or is he talking about a church that Saul (aka Paul) created - a theory that has been doing the rounds for a century or two, but for which there is limited evidence.
-
The thing that seems to escape you is the church Saul created is as far away from the church "Jesus" followed as you are from me..
The Torah observant "Jesus" was, from the scant evidence we have before us, preaching about returning to the Laws/Commandments of his God/Abba/Father for the kingdom of his god was already there on the earth and if you continue to sin against his God/Abba/Father you will be excluded...[this is where it all gets a bit complicated, paschal sacrifice and all that], but history is still related to his story about following his God/Abba/Father, you know the one goid and all that. The Goid of the Jews... exclusively the Jews.
There was a "Noahide law" cobbled together hundreds of years after Sauls death to give heathens, sorry "Gentiles" a shoe in to support the Jewish God, but that discussion is for later..
Now that greasy little Turk was the shoe-in.. well at least he created the shoe-in. It would take a couple of more centuries of refinement to create the religion we have today, he was canny about it though. Don't you agree?
**[ETA]**
I've come to the conclusion that the Torah created sin and the NT tries to absolve it.. whatcha think?
-
The thing that seems to escape you is the church Saul created is as far away from the church "Jesus" followed as you are from me..
Ricky, can you provide us with any idea of what the 'church "Jesus" followed' existed of, taking into account that it certainly wouldn't have been the Jewish faith. Furthermore, can you give us any idea what the 'church Saul created' looked like - and perhaps even where it existed.
The Torah observant "Jesus" was, from the scant evidence we have before us, preaching about returning to the Laws/Commandments of his God/Abba/Father for the kingdom of his god was already there on the earth and if you continue to sin against his God/Abba/Father you will be excluded...[this is where it all gets a bit complicated, paschal sacrifice and all that], but history is still related to his story about following his God/Abba/Father, you know the one goid and all that. The Goid of the Jews... exclusively the Jews.
Except that he WASN'T preaching about "returning to the Laws/Commandments" since he preached that he had come to fulfill the law, and that therefore the law was now effectively obsolete.
There was a "Noahide law" cobbled together hundreds of years after Sauls death to give heathens, sorry "Gentiles" a shoe in to support the Jewish God, but that discussion is for later..
So how do you explain the growth of Christianity amongst the Gentiles and the Jews in the first 3 or 400 years AD that history tells us occurred, long before your 'Noahide law' came into existence.
Now that greasy little Turk was the shoe-in.. well at least he created the shoe-in. It would take a couple of more centuries of refinement to create the religion we have today, he was canny about it though. Don't you agree?
For one thing, Saul/Paul wasn't a 'greasy little Turk', but a highly religious Jew who experienced something that changed his aim from destroying the fledgling Chritian church to building it up and extending its influenece around the Mediterranean.
I've come to the conclusion that the Torah created sin and the NT tries to absolve it.. whatcha think?
Not quite sure that the Torah invented anything. I accept that without 'Law' there can't be the concept of wrongdoing, but that doesn't mean that the Torah created anything; instead, it organised existing means of punishment. It also spends a lot of time/space dealing with the means of absolution. As such, the New Testament simply extends the latter.
-
You've answered your own questions there hopeless... read it again:
-
Yes, ippy. I was wondering what church Thrud believes that Saul created. Is he talking about the various congregations that Saul (aka Paul) was involved in establishing around the Mediterranean, or is he talking about a church that Saul (aka Paul) created - a theory that has been doing the rounds for a century or two, but for which there is limited evidence.
You know for certain this Saul bloke existed?
ippy
-
You know for certain this Saul bloke existed?
ippy
According to historians, yes.
-
You've answered your own questions there hopeless... read it again:
to be honest, the answers were given as early as the OP, but then Thrud (and sometimes ippy) likes to question them in order to sound clever.
-
Moderator A number of posts have been removed from the thread as they were personal insults.
-
According to historians, yes.
How accurately have they presented Saul's words and if you say they have how would you know? I suggest you nor anyone else can know for certain.
ippy
-
How accurately have they presented Saul's words and if you say they have how would you know? I suggest you nor anyone else can know for certain.
ippy
A good question.
-
How accurately have they presented Saul's words and if you say they have how would you know? I suggest you nor anyone else can know for certain.
ippy
Who would your 'they' (italicised) be, ippy? Regarding how one knows the accuracy, I'm quite happy to accept scholars' views on this issue, even when they aren't Christians or even religious.
-
According to historians, yes.
They do indeed.
Of course any historian worth their salt wouldn't get get their history of Israel from the Bible. After all, that would be like getting ancient Greek history from Homer.
-
Quite entertaining though:
http://vincetomasso.com/Rebooting_the_Past/Entries/2015/2/15_Post_18__Homer_Simpsons_Odyssey.html
-
Who would your 'they' (italicised) be, ippy? Regarding how one knows the accuracy, I'm quite happy to accept scholars' views on this issue, even when they aren't Christians or even religious.
Because there's no element of certainty about your historical documents as to whether, they actually convey accurate facts or not, I assume your reference to 'they', couldn't possibly be construed as a wriggle of discomfort?
ippy
-
You know for certain this Saul bloke existed?
and
How accurately have they presented Saul's words and if you say they have how would you know? I suggest you nor anyone else can know for certain.
ippy
This applies to a very great deal of historical material. We can't be certain that Boudicca existed, even though Tacitus wrote of her as if she did. We can't be certain that any of Julius Caesar's memoirs are accurate reportage - or even if they proceeded directly from the hand of the emperor in question (the only manuscripts we have date from years after his death). We do possess quite a few early documents which purport to be accurate transcriptions of what St Paul actually wrote. It is true that many scholars, Christian and non-Christian(indeed downright atheist) dispute that a number of these are authentic. But most of these scholars accept that quite a number of the original letters were indeed written by a very real Saul/Paul of Tarsus.
All this is quite different from the argument as to whether there was an actual historical Jesus, since there are no accounts written by Jesus himself, only very contradictory accounts written about him and what he is supposed to have done and said.
However, given that we have a number of documents purportedly written by one historical individual (St Paul), and that these refer to his own doings and experiences, I'm wondering just what your criteria are for doubting his existence - indeed, I'm wondering just how much you doubt about history in general, or reality in general. Do you adopt - in your general approach to life - a completely Cartesian standpoint? "We must begin by doubting everything" (and this would include your own existence - or certainly that of other people). Or do you just like to doubt the existence of people who make religious claims? If so, this would certainly apply to Julius Caesar, who, I'm sure, believed in the gods Jupiter and Mercury.
-
Because there's no element of certainty about your historical documents as to whether, they actually convey accurate facts or not, I assume your reference to 'they', couldn't possibly be construed as a wriggle of discomfort?
ippy
ippy, all I asked was who the 'they', that you referred to in the post that started this particular mini-thread, are. Or do I espy a certain amount of 'wriggle' on your behalf?
-
and
This applies to a very great deal of historical material. We can't be certain that Boudicca existed, even though Tacitus wrote of her as if she did. We can't be certain that any of Julius Caesar's memoirs are accurate reportage - or even if they proceeded directly from the hand of the emperor in question (the only manuscripts we have date from years after his death). We do possess quite a few early documents which purport to be accurate transcriptions of what St Paul actually wrote. It is true that many scholars, Christian and non-Christian(indeed downright atheist) dispute that a number of these are authentic. But most of these scholars accept that quite a number of the original letters were indeed written by a very real Saul/Paul of Tarsus.
All this is quite different from the argument as to whether there was an actual historical Jesus, since there are no accounts written by Jesus himself, only very contradictory accounts written about him and what he is supposed to have done and said.
However, given that we have a number of documents purportedly written by one historical individual (St Paul), and that these refer to his own doings and experiences, I'm wondering just what your criteria are for doubting his existence - indeed, I'm wondering just how much you doubt about history in general, or reality in general. Do you adopt - in your general approach to life - a completely Cartesian standpoint? "We must begin by doubting everything" (and this would include your own existence - or certainly that of other people). Or do you just like to doubt the existence of people who
make religious claims? If so, this would certainly apply to Julius Caesar, who, I'm sure, believed in the gods Jupiter and Mercury.
We know even less about how accurately the words they are supposed to have conveyed have been represented in the various writings available, so until they can be verified what's the point it's hardly a labour of love.
ippy
-
They do indeed.
Of course any historian worth their salt wouldn't get get their history of Israel from the Bible. After all, that would be like getting ancient Greek history from Homer.
And that is where you would be wrong, Khatru. There are a number of things recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures that are distinctly history; then, as is the case with a lot of comparable sources, there is theological, poetical and revelationary material. If you ask me how we know which is which, it is usually down to the style and form of language used, which is where we need literary critics to guide us.
-
We know even less about how accurately the words they are supposed to have conveyed have been represented in the various writings available, so until they can be verified what's the point it's hardly a labour of love.
ippy
Its rather important for a whole raft of reasons, often having no religious connotations at all.
-
Its rather important for a whole raft of reasons, often having no religious connotations at all.
I accept there must be some philosophical elements probably worth a read, like like some of Hemingway's, or other novelists of merit would be, but no more than that.
ippy
-
ippy, all I asked was who the 'they', that you referred to in the post that started this particular mini-thread, are. Or do I espy a certain amount of 'wriggle' on your behalf?
Not really I thought that was more in your domain, you know your regular use of N P F and all of that, most people understand rather innocuous colloquialisms such as 'they', you're supposed to be the English language expert, why not enjoy your moment and explain to me why you have chosen to not understand my use of 'they' in this particular instance; I can hardly wait.
ippy
-
You know for certain this Saul bloke existed?
ippy
Nothing is certain in historical research but it is fair to say that Paul very probably existed.
-
Nothing is certain in historical research but it is fair to say that Paul very probably existed.
I'll go with this but even so, I would think the accuracy of the recording of the things he is supposed to have conveyed is more than a little questionable.
ippy
-
I'll go with this but even so, I would think the accuracy of the recording of the things he is supposed to have conveyed is more than a little questionable.
ippy
And why do you say that, ippy? After all, the legit. documents date from the correct period, and are signed off by himself, suggesting that he agreed with what was written, even if he used a scribe for much of it (Luke, by most accounts, who was also a doctor - so well educated). Do you have access to alternative versions?
-
And why do you say that, ippy? After all, the legit. documents date from the correct period, and are signed off by himself, suggesting that he agreed with what was written, even if he used a scribe for much of it (Luke, by most accounts, who was also a doctor - so well educated). Do you have access to alternative versions?
Lot of stuff needs to authentication, there like who might have done any of the signing things off etc, even those like yourself that like to think superstitions can be verified can only make conjecture about these things such as who wrote these things and who signed them off.
No matter how much you want to believe in the myth, magic and superstitions built around and by these ancient people, good old Tommy Paine still sums it up in a far better term of phrase than I can as below:
"If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it; and we see an account given of such a miracle by a person who said he saw it, it raises a question in the mind very easily decided, which is: Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that man should tell a lie?"
It's obviously very important to you to find anything you can that might support these beliefs of yours it doesn't surprise me how desperate you must be to believe every written word about these ancient figures is 100% kosher, even when you must know it isn't and can't be.
ippy
-
Basically if something isn't credible, it didn't happen as reported, or there is an explanation, which has nothing to do with a god or the supernatural..
-
Even if Jesus did rise from the dead, and the accounts are perfectly true, anyone who believes them is still WRONG to do so.
-
And that is where you would be wrong, Khatru. There are a number of things recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures that are distinctly history; then, as is the case with a lot of comparable sources, there is theological, poetical and revelationary material. If you ask me how we know which is which, it is usually down to the style and form of language used, which is where we need literary critics to guide us.
We also get a lot from archaeology, which, as it turns out, is no friend of the Bible.
There may be some history regarding names and reigns but for the activities of the heroes of the scriptures, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, etc, there is very little that can be relied on.
-
Even if Jesus did rise from the dead, and the accounts are perfectly true, anyone who believes them is still WRONG to do so.
Eh?
-
Eh?
Because an anecdotal written account is never sufficient evidence to assume a suspension of the known laws of physics.
Simple
-
Basically if something isn't credible, it didn't happen as reported, or there is an explanation, which has nothing to do with a god or the supernatural..
This is an argument by incredulity. There may be insufficent evidnce for something but you can only take an agnostic position, not a gnostic position as you do here
-
This is an argument by incredulity. There may be insufficent evidnce for something but you can only take an agnostic position, not a gnostic position as you do here
Splitting hairs on on a reasonable comment made by Floo this time; we all know that Floo's point wasn't quite or exactly right in it's use of incredulity but I think we here on this forum are adult enough to not want a 25 page thesis about every detail of our comments, we leave that job to you N S.
I didn't have any difficulty with understanding Floo's post even if Floo wasn't exactly hairsplittingly precise with the way she worded her post.
ippy
-
Splitting hairs on on a reasonable comment made by Floo this time; we altl know that Floo's point wasn't quite or exactly right in it's use of incredulity but I think we here on this forum are adult enough to not want a 25 page thesis about every detail of our comments, we leave that job to you N S.
I didn't have any difficulty with understanding Floo's post even if Floo wasn't exactly hairsplittingly precise with the way she worded her post.
ippy
It's exactly the sort of comment you might applaud Hope being picked up on, but then you apply double standards
-
It's exactly the sort of comment you might applaud Hope being picked up on, but then you apply double standards
You're so predictable unless I had written three or four pages with all of the minutest details; even then you wouldn't be happy with that.
People differ so much that some like to live in a dream world and some don't, who do you think lives in the former and who do you think was the other person I was alluding to, there that wasn't too difficult for you was it N S, or do you want an explanation with as many words and pages as "War and Peace"?
ippy
-
You're so predictable unless I had written three or four pages with all of the minutest details; even then you wouldn't be happy with that.
People differ so much that some like to live in a dream world and some don't, who do you think lives in the former and who do you think was the other person I was alluding to, there that wasn't too difficult for you was it N S, or do you want an explanation with as many words and pages as "War and Peace"?
ippy
Well, I can tell you that I and most other religious people don't live in a dream world, ippy. Does that answer your question? Many religious (and, no doubt, many non-religious) people live in a world that is unjust, marginalising, disenfranchising and - in same ways - seriously wicked. Perhaps you don't live in that world.
-
Even if Jesus did rise from the dead, and the accounts are perfectly true, anyone who believes them is still WRONG to do so.
And what is the logic behind that statement, BR?
-
Because an anecdotal written account is never sufficient evidence to assume a suspension of the known laws of physics.
Simple
Yet the known laws of physics (in fact the known laws of all 'science') don't fully explain every aspect of the natural world and - especially for humanity - human life. As a result, the term 'suspension' is a misnomer in the context. As a Christian, I'm quite happt to accept the laws of biology, chemistry and physics in the areas of life that they impinge on. What I am not willing to accept is their spurious application to aspects of life that they don't (and in my view can't and therefore won't) impinge on.
-
You're so predictable unless I had written three or four pages with all of the minutest details; even then you wouldn't be happy with that.
People differ so much that some like to live in a dream world and some don't, who do you think lives in the former and who do you think was the other person I was alluding to, there that wasn't too difficult for you was it N S, or do you want an explanation with as many words and pages as "War and Peace"?
ippy
That's a long winded avoidance of your double standards
-
Yet the known laws of physics (in fact the known laws of all 'science') don't fully explain every aspect of the natural world and - especially for humanity - human life. As a result, the term 'suspension' is a misnomer in the context. As a Christian, I'm quite happt to accept the laws of biology, chemistry and physics in the areas of life that they impinge on. What I am not willing to accept is their spurious application to aspects of life that they don't (and in my view can't and therefore won't) impinge on.
And physical claims are impinged on them as BR is correct to point out.
-
That's a long winded avoidance of your double standards
I'd say it was a long-winded explanation of his double-standards, NS ;)
-
Yet the known laws of physics (in fact the known laws of all 'science') don't fully explain every aspect of the natural world and - especially for humanity - human life. As a result, the term 'suspension' is a misnomer in the context. As a Christian, I'm quite happt to accept the laws of biology, chemistry and physics in the areas of life that they impinge on. What I am not willing to accept is their spurious application to aspects of life that they don't (and in my view can't and therefore won't) impinge on.
Science hasn't yet discovered all there is to know about how everything came into being, it is a work in progress. In the days when the documents making up the Bible were written science wasn't a concept. It was therefore reasonable that the authors should speculate about how it all came about, hence the creation story. In the 21st century, when we have discovered so much about the universe and our planet, it seems odd that some should think it was a god wot dun it!
-
Science hasn't yet discovered all there is to know about how everything came into being, it is a work in progress. In the days when the documents making up the Bible were written science wasn't a concept. It was therefore reasonable that the authors should speculate about how it all came about, hence the creation story. In the 21st century, when we have discovered so much about the universe and our planet, it seems odd that some should think it was a god wot dun it!
Actually, Floo, science was a concept. Somewhat different to and probably more broadly-based than modern science - and oddly enough, we have often simply re-discovered stuff that the ancients already knew (for instance the Greeks and Romans to it for granted that the world was round). At the same time, we are constantly being reminded that science doesn't deal in right and wrong - not doesn't deal at the moment - which are important concepts in any society.
-
That's a long winded avoidance of your double standards
Anything sumed up in less than several million words would be classified as avoidance by your standards.
Most people can grasp every day speech without having to go into the most minute details to enable them to understand, we're not writing legal documents here, even then if we were there will alway be some nurd windbag or another that would like to show how exacting he or she is with their standard of the written word; yes it does impress people but maybe not in the way they think.
Please be my guest and now, nit pick this lot to your hearts content and yes I do avoid long, pointlessly long winded posts.
ippy
-
Actually, Floo, science was a concept. Somewhat different to and probably more broadly-based than modern science - and oddly enough, we have often simply re-discovered stuff that the ancients already knew (for instance the Greeks and Romans to it for granted that the world was round). At the same time, we are constantly being reminded that science doesn't deal in right and wrong - not doesn't deal at the moment - which are important concepts in any society.
Science as we know it today certainly wasn't a concept then. How do you know the Greeks and Romans took it for granted the world was round?
As for right and wrong, there is much that is very wrong in the Bible, which is attributed to god and its acolytes.
-
Anything sumed up in less than several million words would be classified as avoidance by your standards.
Most people can grasp every day speech without having to go into the most minute details to enable them to understand, we're not writing legal documents here, even then if we were there will alway be some nurd windbag or another that would like to show how exacting he or she is with their standard of the written word; yes it does impress people but maybe not in the way they think.
Please be my guest and now, nit pick this lot to your hearts content and yes I do avoid long, pointlessly long winded posts.
ippy
More words, more hypocrisy.
-
Well, I can tell you that I and most other religious people don't live in a dream world, ippy. Does that answer your question? Many religious (and, no doubt, many non-religious) people live in a world that is unjust, marginalising, disenfranchising and - in same ways - seriously wicked. Perhaps you don't live in that world.
So you're not living in a dream world Hope, don't worry about it too much, you'll be ok in the end I'm sure.
ippy
-
More words, more hypocrisy.
I'll bet that Post was difficult for you N S; it must be of considerable concern for you that less than a couple of thousand words on any given subject and it might be misunderstood.
I call that progress.
ippy
-
I'll bet that Post was difficult for you N S; it must be of considerable concern for you that less than a couple of thousand words on any given subject and it might be misunderstood.
I call that progress.
ippy
Hypocrite
-
We also get a lot from archaeology, which, as it turns out, is no friend of the Bible.
There may be some history regarding names and reigns but for the activities of the heroes of the scriptures, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, etc, there is very little that can be relied on.
The entire archaeological evidence for any of those people amounts to a single stele (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele) with the phrase "House of David" written on it.
-
What I am not willing to accept is their spurious application to aspects of life that they don't (and in my view can't and therefore won't) impinge on.
What areas are those and how do you know that science can't "impinge" on them?
-
Actually, Floo, science was a concept. Somewhat different to and probably more broadly-based than modern science - and oddly enough, we have often simply re-discovered stuff that the ancients already knew (for instance the Greeks and Romans to it for granted that the world was round).
You could hardly say that was rediscovered. We didn't forget that the World was round after the Greeks and Romans went away.
-
Yet the known laws of physics (in fact the known laws of all 'science') don't fully explain every aspect of the natural world and - especially for humanity - human life. As a result, the term 'suspension' is a misnomer in the context. As a Christian, I'm quite happt to accept the laws of biology, chemistry and physics in the areas of life that they impinge on. What I am not willing to accept is their spurious application to aspects of life that they don't (and in my view can't and therefore won't) impinge on.
So that explains how Attis, Osiris, Dionysus, Tammuz, Mithras, Adonis and numerous others were able to return to life after they died.
-
So that explains how Attis, Osiris, Dionysus, Tammuz, Mithras, Adonis and numerous others were able to return to life after they died.
Quite.
ippy
-
So that explains how Attis, Osiris, Dionysus, Tammuz, Mithras, Adonis and numerous others were able to return to life after they died.
If they ever did, Khat.
-
If they ever did, Khat.
whoosh went the point
-
If they ever did, Khat.
They definitely did. I've read about it in the books.
You musn't doubt what is written, it comes from eye-witness accounts you know.
-
They definitely did. I've read about it in the books.
You musn't doubt what is written, it comes from eye-witness accounts you know.
Eye witness accounts aren't always accurate, especially when related many years after the event! :D
-
They definitely did. I've read about it in the books.
You musn't doubt what is written, it comes from eye-witness accounts you know.
Eye-witness accounts??? Where are their witnesses for these gods?
Christ was the son of God he was not a god.
I can see God raising his son but I see no gods dying and raising themselves. Has such a thing been done where the witness can confirm the god died and whilst dead raised himself. Now that would be a feat where is the eye -witness accounts.
There were a lot for Christ but so far none I know for the others.
Paul actually taught:-
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
Where are we going with such notions that these other resurrections were the same as Christs?
I know one thing the others if they raised to life seems to be nowhere to be found. No miracles or worshippers really.
But YHWH has his people curing the sick and many miracles happening. In fact the faith in his through Christ has gone all over the world as it did with Abrahams covenant. Surely we are not making comparison of something like Christ rising from the dead to something that died because it was the myths they were?
-
There is no evidence Jesus was anymore than the biological son of Joseph or another man.
-
You could hardly say that was rediscovered. We didn't forget that the World was round after the Greeks and Romans went away.
Exactly, the idea that there was a period when everyone thought the earth was flat is not correct - scholars through history have considered the Earth to be a sphere.
-
Exactly, the idea that there was a period when everyone thought the earth was flat is not correct - scholars through history have considered the Earth to be a sphere.
But a lot of the early aspects of modern 'Western' science are deemed to be 'rediscoveries' of older, Eastern science ideas.
-
There is no evidence Jesus was anymore than the biological son of Joseph or another man.
Unfortunately, since there don't appear to be any physical remains of this 'Jesus' , it is hard if not impossible, to do any DNA work to show that your assertion is correct, Floo.
-
But a lot of the early aspects of modern 'Western' science are deemed to be 'rediscoveries' of older, Eastern science ideas.
Maybe - was just commenting on that example.
-
Maybe - was just commenting on that example.
Except that was largely what early Western 'science' was all about - rediscovery.
-
Except that was largely what early Western 'science' was all about - rediscovery.
what are you referring to as 'early western science'?
-
NS, I refer to the likes of Boyle, Hookes, Copernicus, Vesalius, Harvey, ... Almost all they came up with had already been discovered and charted by Eastern scientists - many Chinese.
-
NS, I refer to the likes of Boyle, Hookes, Copernicus, Vesalius, Harvey, ... Almost all they came up with had already been discovered and charted by Eastern scientists - many Chinese.
Harvey? Didn't he correctly identify the heart as the pump that promotes the circulation of the blood? The Chinese certainly had no correct conception of this - as can be seen from the peculiar anatomical references that underlie their theories of acupuncture.
-
NS, I refer to the likes of Boyle, Hookes, Copernicus, Vesalius, Harvey, ...
then I would suggest you are in the most part wrong. There is a certain amount that you might argue for rediscovery, though most of that is substantially earlier. Vesalius to take an example, effectively replaces earlier works completely. Harvey is not mirrored in the earlier times. Indeed even the very concept of science changed hugely, removing the debt to the philosophy of Aristotle, both in the work of Copernicus as mentioned and by Bacon in Novum Organum. Indeed just as there is an argument to be made that in some sense the Reformation gives rise to modern atheism, it also can be argued that it gives rise to science, though my suspicions are that it lean more on corelation rather than causation.
Part of the issue was the almost sanctification of Aristotle in the church following Aquinas so that much of what The Philosopher had written became almost holy writ. That meant that some hypothesis from earlier times did not get the attention they deserved but there is little that is wholesale 'rediscovered' from these.
-
then I would suggest you are in the most part wrong. There is a certain amount that you might argue for rediscovery, though most of that is substantially earlier. Vesalius to take an example, effectively replaces earlier works completely. Harvey is not mirrored in the earlier times. Indeed even the very concept of science changed hugely, removing the debt to the philosophy of Aristotle, both in the work of Copernicus as mentioned and by Bacon in Novum Organum. Indeed just as there is an argument to be made that in some sense the Reformation gives rise to modern atheism, it also can be argued that it gives rise to science, though my suspicions are that it lean more on corelation rather than causation.
Part of the issue was the almost sanctification of Aristotle in the church following Aquinas so that much of what The Philosopher had written became almost holy writ. That meant that some hypothesis from earlier times did not get the attention they deserved but there is little that is wholesale 'rediscovered' from these.
But your references to Aristotle, something that so often occurs when talking about 'ancient' science ignore the fact that he was no less 'Western' than many of the others we've referred to. There were Eastern scientists who were streets ahead of him and other early Western philosophers and philosophical naturalists (I think that is the term they are often given nowadays) even before he and the others arrived on the scene.
-
I note you've added in Chinese science here, I think we have to be very careful when we look at China in these terns, much of what might be 'rediscovered' has to be taken carefully in that the Chinese made in general gphuge technological advances rather than necessarily scientific ones. The idea that to say that Copernicus rediscovered anything would be a mistake since the Chinese were assiduous but not systematical astronomers. Indeed the great thing about Copernicus is that the calculations were essentially the same as everyone else's, he just realised that the constant introduction of epicycles made little sense.
There is a superficial appeal to the idea of ancient wisdom being rediscovered but little in the scientific advances of the 1500 to 1700 period that backs this up. Indeed as Dicky Underpants has highlighted the Chinese approach in many ways had lead to a stagnation of development for them as it became hidebound in a version of authority simular to that of the role of Aristotle in the west. That there are differing levels of advancement at different times is undoubtedly true but you need to do much more work to justify your idea that this was to any great extent rediscovery of ancient knowledge.
-
But your references to Aristotle, something that so often occurs when talking about 'ancient' science ignore the fact that he was no less 'Western' than many of the others we've referred to. There were Eastern scientists who were streets ahead of him and other early Western philosophers and philosophical naturalists (I think that is the term they are often given nowadays) even before he and the others arrived on the scene.
referring to the as philosophical naturalists is wrong, you are understandably getting it confused with natural philosophers. And I've coveted the China bit elsewhere. Note I covered Aristotle because that's the direct influence on Western thought and I was trying to put it into an historical context. You also need to be careful about using a term such as rediscovery and then just referring to Eastern scientists since much of what cane out of the East in terns of medicine and mathematics, and let's avoid the thorny question of whether they are sciences,were simple transfers of knowledge on which advances were built.
ETA: just to note picking up someone for mentioning Aristotle is a trifle odd given your first post on the idea of rediscovery specifically cites Greek and Roman ideas as being 'rediscovered'
-
I am also somewhat bemused by these ancient philosophers who were 'streets ahead' of Aristotle. Let's be careful here, most of Aristotle's output is lost, there are many errors in the work in terns of science, indeed as Hope has already noted the very idea of what science was is different. But the old Greek bugger is a monumentally important thinker whose work is crucial to what science now is, and many other disciplines. His writing that we at least know of was hugely diverse and influential and remains so.
I still see articles on a regular basis that effectively argue that we are only ever Platonists or Aristoteleans, and while I think that tends to be somewhat simplistic it does have some explanatory power. My knowledge of anciebnt Eastern thought is patchier than that of Greek philosophy but I've done what are sold as the highlights and I am not sure I would regard anyone as his equal, never mind 'streets ahead'. There is a tremendous amount to be taken from Eastern philosophy, and undoubtedly bits I have missed but we are talking about a specific thing on scientific 'rediscovery' here. The point I was making about Aristotle was not about what was being rediscovered but that the attitude to him in the Church actively held up progress in some ways
-
Christ was the son of God he was not a god.
What would 'son' even mean incthat context ? Does its mean that Jesus was not a clone of God, rather he had a regular mashup of characteristics, half from his mother and half from God, half of his chromosomes were from Mary, and the other half were divine, perfect, in some way ?
-
What would 'son' even meaninthat context ? Does its mean that Jesus was not a clone of God, rather he had a regular mashup of characteristics, half from his mother and half from God, half of his chromosomes were from Mary, and the other half were divine, perfect, in some way ?
'Son of', like 'daughter of', 'father of', 'mother of' are Hebrew idioms. Son of man probably means 'human' and 'son of God' probably means 'divine', rather than anything to do with parentage.
-
'Son of', like 'daughter of', 'father of', 'mother of' are Hebrew idioms. Son of man probably means 'human' and 'son of God' probably means 'divine', rather than anything to do with parentage.
Problem with that with Sassy is that she isn't a trinitarian so I think torridon's question has import based on that.
-
'Son of', like 'daughter of', 'father of', 'mother of' are Hebrew idioms. Son of man probably means 'human' and 'son of God' probably means 'divine', rather than anything to do with parentage.
That sounds just about right to me ekim...The son of man is a lesser title than the Son of God and Jesus, knowing that he was the highest intelligent force on all the Earth was happy to think of himself as the son of man but humbly rejected the title of Son of God until his work was completed. He then stood on the same, identical ground as Almighty God, himself...of equal status, but he rejected this truth, humbly remaining the Son of God to whom he owed his entire eternal existence to...not just by divine intervention...but by the righteous science his father had taught him.
-
That sounds just about right to me ekim...The son of man is a lesser title than the Son of God and Jesus, knowing that he was the highest intelligent force on all the Earth was happy to think of himself as the son of man but humbly rejected the title of Son of God until his work was completed. He then stood on the same, identical ground as Almighty God, himself...of equal status, but he rejected this truth, humbly remaining the Son of God to whom he owed his entire eternal existence to...not just by divine intervention...but by the righteous science his father had taught him.
I would think that the two expressions are to distinguish between the physical/mental aspects of being human and what is thought of as the divine aspect within mankind, what is referred to as neshama (the soul). As far as I recall, the symbolism used is 'air'. 'Ruach' (spirit) meant 'air' and 'neshama meant 'breath' i.e. the air within man. The humility probably comes from realising that one cannot claim possession of it.
-
What would 'son' even mean incthat context ? Does its mean that Jesus was not a clone of God, rather he had a regular mashup of characteristics, half from his mother and half from God, half of his chromosomes were from Mary, and the other half were divine, perfect, in some way ?
What does that mean?
Christ made it clear that to be a descendant of Abraham, you have to do as he did.
The Father God, made it clear that Jesus is to be CALLED THE 'SON OF GOD' would it require
God to tell us these things if he himself was to be made flesh?
All living things are created by God he is Father of all. So why waste time with silly questions?
Christ made God known to us. What he never did and would not do is claim to be God or equal to God.
-
Problem with that with Sassy is that she isn't a trinitarian so I think torridon's question has import based on that.
Trinitarian...that has something to do with Christ?
Show me where in Christ's teachings he claimed to God or that he was God.
-
I would think that the two expressions are to distinguish between the physical/mental aspects of being human and what is thought of as the divine aspect within mankind, what is referred to as neshama (the soul). As far as I recall, the symbolism used is 'air'. 'Ruach' (spirit) meant 'air' and 'neshama meant 'breath' i.e. the air within man. The humility probably comes from realising that one cannot claim possession of it.
How come those claiming to be in the know cannot work out what it means to be the Son of God and the Son of Man?
Son of God, because Christ was not born of the sinful flesh but like the first Adam he was born by the power of Gods words. He was divine in nature and without sin as the first Adam.
He was the Son of Man because like Adam he was created flesh by the power and word of God and he was fully human physically. So the descendant of Adam with the nature of God.
He had to fully flesh to die on the cross for mankind. His nature was divine because like God he did not sin.
-
What does that mean?
Christ made it clear that to be a descendant of Abraham, you have to do as he did.
The Father God, made it clear that Jesus is to be CALLED THE 'SON OF GOD' would it require
God to tell us these things if he himself was to be made flesh?
All living things are created by God he is Father of all. So why waste time with silly questions?
Christ made God known to us. What he never did and would not do is claim to be God or equal to God.
I think that avoided, rather than answered, my question. A son inherits half his characteristics from his mother's line and half from his father's line. Did he inherit from Joseph, or was he a clone of Mary, where did he get his Y chromosomes from if he wasn't Joseph's real son ?
-
His nature was divine because like God he did not sin.
.. and yet in Mk10 18 Jesus is alleged to have said to a follower : Why do you call me good? There is only one Good and that is God.
-
But a lot of the early aspects of modern 'Western' science are deemed to be 'rediscoveries' of older, Eastern science ideas.
But that isn't true of the example you came up with. You could have tried heliocentricity as something more plausible, or at a stretch, the atomic theory of matter.
-
Eye-witness accounts??? Where are their witnesses for these gods?
<SNIP - irrelevant.>
There were a lot for Christ but so far none I know for the others.
SNIP - Irrelevant.>
There are just as many attested writings, if not more, that Attis, Osiris, Dionysus, Tammuz, Mithras, Adonis and numerous others did exist, where is your proof that they didn't?
-
I think that avoided, rather than answered, my question. A son inherits half his characteristics from his mother's line and half from his father's line. Did he inherit from Joseph, or was he a clone of Mary, where did he get his Y chromosomes from if he wasn't Joseph's real son ?
Torridon,
Where did Adam get his Y from?
The concept of the first man should really explain that.
With God NOTHING is impossible.
-
.. and yet in Mk10 18 Jesus is alleged to have said to a follower : Why do you call me good? There is only one Good and that is God.
Like they couldn't make the connection?
-
There are just as many attested writings, if not more, that Attis, Osiris, Dionysus, Tammuz, Mithras, Adonis and numerous others did exist, where is your proof that they didn't?
They don't exist now and neither did they ever show they did when it comes to deities etc
-
There are just as many attested writings, if not more, that Attis, Osiris, Dionysus, Tammuz, Mithras, Adonis and numerous others did exist, where is your proof that they didn't?
And they are extant where, Ricky?
-
Torridon,
Where did Adam get his Y from?
The concept of the first man should really explain that.
With God NOTHING is impossible.
You are using one crackpot idea as if it somehow lends authority to another crackpot idea. If Jesus didn't have an earthly father then he would lack Y chromosomes in which case he probably wouldn't have survived to term and even if he did he would have been a woman not a man. And if god created Adam from scratch and all our genetic inheritance derives from him you have to wonder why god would choose to splice in all the legacy DNA from our prehuman ancestors to make us look as if we had descended through lines of mammalian ancestry and you'd have to wonder why he also decided to splice in all the ancient viral insertions into his DNA and why he chose splice in several thousand heritable disorders into the Adam DNA to create unnecessary suffering for his descendants.
-
They don't exist now and neither did they ever show they did when it comes to deities etc
No god exists they are all human productions, imo.
-
Like they couldn't make the connection?
Did they make the connectipn, that he is god?
-
You are using one crackpot idea as if it somehow lends authority to another crackpot idea.
It was you who asked...
I think that avoided, rather than answered, my question. A son inherits half his characteristics from his mother's line and half from his father's line. Did he inherit from Joseph, or was he a clone of Mary, where did he get his Y chromosomes from if he wasn't Joseph's real son ?
I told you...
Torridon,wrote:
Where did Adam get his Y from?
The concept of the first man should really explain that.
With God NOTHING is impossible.
We were discussing Jesus and Adam, were we not both biblical in the bible? If Adam was created with a Y chromosome bu God
then where would Jesus have got his from? God the Father of all mankind. So why make an unreasoned statement when God obviously created all chromosomes?
If Jesus didn't have an earthly father then he would lack Y chromosomes in which case he probably wouldn't have survived to term and even if he did he would have been a woman not a man.
Adam and Christ, didn't have a human Father but both had a Y chromosome... What does that tell you about the first Adam/man made by God without man and the second Adam who was Jesus Christ made by God without a man?
Do you really require having to have it spelled out? Should you be discussing things which are obvious in the bible?
And if god created Adam from scratch and all our genetic inheritance derives from him you have to wonder why god would choose to splice in all the legacy DNA from our prehuman ancestors to make us look as if we had descended through lines of mammalian ancestry and you'd have to wonder why he also decided to splice in all the ancient viral insertions into his DNA and why he chose splice in several thousand heritable disorders into the Adam DNA to create unnecessary suffering for his descendants.
You haven't a clue have you. You have pain and suffering because Adam fell and could not eat from the tree of life.
Adam handed human kind over to Satan. He caused the suffering and decay. Now perhaps you can read the bible then you won't have to ask the questions it already answers.
-
Did they make the connectipn, that he is god?
How would that be? Well you asked the question you can now explain how such a question would have arose.
Yeah right... you cannot even give us a reason using the bible for such a question. Should read the bible.
-
How would that be? Well you asked the question you can now explain how such a question would have arose.
Yeah right... you cannot even give us a reason using the bible for such a question. Should read the bible.
You should read a dictionary - 'soon'!