Genesis and Antis

[Truthseeker]

I wonder if the Pixie knows what "the elect" means.

[The Pixie]

I really don't see the Pixie's argument and it looks like a lot has been said since then so it's best to focus on where we are now.

Since you last responded to me, we have discussed the issues around the girl holding the card, but not much else.

We have not discussed at all your claim that the Bible holds women as the equal of men. Or your clam that the Bible is not anti-sex (which I originally considered a straw-man, but I am now persuaded may well be the case).

In particular, I would love to know where you were going with this:

How the tradition began of a woman changing her name doesn't matter. What matters is that we do it. Does it mean because we do it that we value women less?

And this too:

Then we get a bit about divorce, with a clear command (from God) that the divorced should not remarry. This seems to contradict your own position, AP, where you said, post #7: "I don't have a problem with divorcees marrying and having sex provided there was a valid reason for divorce and it takes place within marriage.

The command would also have included adultery. It's part of the Jesus tradition which we do get in the Gospels.

I have no idea how this relates to what I said.

How do you think Paul knew what the Lord said?

Scripture (i.e., the Old Testament).

We never really got to the bottom of why a wife has to obey her husband if she is his equal.

Or why Paul was encouraging Christians to marry in a supposed time of famine.

And I still do understand how you can think atheists have done the greatest evil ("The greatest evil one can do is to shun that which is the greatest good of all") and yet say: "." Can you do (and live your life according to) "The greatest evil" and not be considered wicked?

However, if you want to abandon all those discussions at this point, that is, of course, up to you.

The main idea is that yes, Christianity says we're fallen, but that's hardly news. We all see flaws in our character we need to work on every day in ourselves. None of us are perfect men or women. The problem with the picture the girl is saying is that while there are some negatives we agree with, as does every person on the planet, it's leaving out all the positives. I could add in that we could get some negatives from science as well.

No one is arguing that this is a new idea. We can see it in some form in the OT too; its roots are older that Christianity. We all agree that none of us are perfect, and yes there are negatives from science. The issue here is where these philosophies see us overall. For Christianity, the message is that while we do have some positives, we are nevertheless fallen, sinful and deserving hell. The philosophy on the other sides say that while we do have some negatives, we are nevertheless all wonderful.

The simple question here, AP, is: Are people so flawed that they all (young children excepted) deserve to go to hell?

If you answer yes - and that is the Christian view - then you are implying that the bad seriously outweighs the good for every adult on this planet. And that is what the card the girl is holding is say.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Since you last responded to me, we have discussed the issues around the girl holding the card, but not much else.

We have not discussed at all your claim that the Bible holds women as the equal of men. Or your clam that the Bible is not anti-sex (which I originally considered a straw-man, but I am now persuaded may well be the case).

In particular, I would love to know where you were going with this:

The idea is we put men in a position of leadership with this as well generally, but it does not mean the woman is valued less. You have this idea it seems that differences in treatment equal differences in value. That's like saying if you own a cat and a dog and you treat them differently, that you value them differently. Or, if you have two kids and you treat them differently, you love one more than the other. That doesn't follow.

And this too:

Paul got his information from the Jesus tradition. Jesus had spoken on divorce. Paul made his own statement but wanted to be clear it wasn't part of the Jesus tradition.

We never really got to the bottom of why a wife has to obey her husband if she is his equal.

Why does an employee have to obey the boss if they're equally human? Why do I have to give respect to a president if they're equally human?

Or why Paul was encouraging Christians to marry in a supposed time of famine.

That one's pretty simple. Sex outside of marriage is a sin for Paul, as it is for me. If you can't control yourself, it's better to marry than to sin and yes, the desire for sex is a just fine reason to get married.

And I still do understand how you can think atheists have done the greatest evil ("The greatest evil one can do is to shun that which is the greatest good of all") and yet say: "Somehow in his environment, he got the impression that atheists must just be wicked people somehow. I don’t know any Christian intellectual who holds to such a position." Can you do (and live your life according to) "The greatest evil" and not be considered wicked?

This relies on a misconception. It's confusing the horizontal level with the vertical. No one denies that atheists can be just fine and excellent people horizontally. No one denies Christians can be terrible horizontally. What is being stated is that if God is kept in the paradigm, and He must for the sake of argument, then if you reject Him and that is the greatest good, then that is in fact the greatest evil. It's in fact a form of idolatry. All the good anyone does horizontally can't make up for that.

No one is arguing that this is a new idea. We can see it in some form in the OT too; its roots are older that Christianity. We all agree that none of us are perfect, and yes there are negatives from science. The issue here is where these philosophies see us overall. For Christianity, the message is that while we do have some positives, we are nevertheless fallen, sinful and deserving hell. The philosophy on the other sides say that while we do have some negatives, we are nevertheless all wonderful.

The philosophy on the other sides all say that?

"Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins--all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built. – Bertrand Russell, A Free Man’s Worship."

Sorry, but I have to categorically disagree with Russell. Man is meant for glory.

The simple question here, AP, is: Are people so flawed that they all (young children excepted) deserve to go to hell?

If you answer yes - and that is the Christian view - then you are implying that the bad seriously outweighs the good for every adult on this planet. And that is what the card the girl is holding is say.

It does not follow. Why do we deserve Hell? Is it because of what we are? No. It is because of what we do. This also leaves out the goodness of redemption. If you're going to treat the Christian worldview consistently, you have to include ALL that the Christian worldview says. That includes ideas like Christ dying for us while we were enemies and that we love because He first loved us.

[jpholding]

Has anyone noticed that the "science" side of that sign the girl holds has bad grammar?

The beginning phrase: "According to science, I am..."

The last description:

"potential for greatness."

So the last full description is: "According to science I am potential for greatness!"

Well, she sure isn't all that if she can't master basic English grammar.

[The Pixie]

The idea is we put men in a position of leadership with this as well generally, but it does not mean the woman is valued less.

It also does not mean she is valued equally. And since that is what you are trying to prove, I still have no idea what the relevance is.

You have this idea it seems that differences in treatment equal differences in value. That's like saying if you own a cat and a dog and you treat them differently, that you value them differently. Or, if you have two kids and you treat them differently, you love one more than the other. That doesn't follow.

Conversely, you seem to be saying that if you treat two individuals differently, then they must necessarily be equal. That also does not follow either. A better analogy here would be if you have two children, and you tell one that he has to obey the other his entire life. Now can you assure the one who has to obey that both are treated equally?

The point here is not just that they are treated differently, it is the nature of the difference. It is that wives are required to obey their husbands, and which ever way you cut it, that makes the husband superior.

Paul got his information from the Jesus tradition. Jesus had spoken on divorce. Paul made his own statement but wanted to be clear it wasn't part of the Jesus tradition.

Okay, I am happy to accept that. However, I originally said:

"Then we get a bit about divorce, with a clear command (from God) that the divorced should not remarry. This seems to contradict your own position, AP, where you said, post #7: "I don't have a problem with divorcees marrying and having sex provided there was a valid reason for divorce and it takes place within marriage.

I still have no idea if you agree with that or not, let alone what you might be objecting to or why.

Why does an employee have to obey the boss if they're equally human?

When you take a job, you are agreeing that you will do what your superior tells you to. If you do not, you risk getting fired.

So what? No one is saying women are not equally human. The point is the Bible says the wife has to obey her superior, the husband.

Why do I have to give respect to a president if they're equally human?

I will let you answer that one. As I am not from the US, I am not obliged to do so.

Or why Paul was encouraging Christians to marry in a supposed time of famine.

That one's pretty simple. Sex outside of marriage is a sin for Paul, as it is for me. If you can't control yourself, it's better to marry than to sin and yes, the desire for sex is a just fine reason to get married.

Interesting. Last week you were claiming Paul was advising them not to get married in a time of famine, now you are saying actually he advised them they should get married in a time of famine.

Remember this:

"The church wrote to Paul about many issues and one of them was quite likely what to do about marriage in a famine. How could a man provide for his wife? Is it wise to take on a wife then?
Also, no to the last part. If you are married, you have to give of yourself. If you are not, you might want to hold off in marriage at this time because it will be hard."

"Paul is saying in a time of famine, taking on a wife will bring about extra responsibilities that could be difficult for the present situation."

Which is it, AP?

This relies on a misconception. It's confusing the horizontal level with the vertical. No one denies that atheists can be just fine and excellent people horizontally. No one denies Christians can be terrible horizontally. What is being stated is that if God is kept in the paradigm, and He must for the sake of argument, then if you reject Him and that is the greatest good, then that is in fact the greatest evil. It's in fact a form of idolatry. All the good anyone does horizontally can't make up for that.

So are people who do that wicked or not? They do, as you say, the greatest evil, and no amount of good can make up for it. Are atheists vertically wicked, but horizontally good?

More importantly, when you say:

"."

Is that not a little disingenuous? Here you are on record saying that atheists are all guilt of the worst evil, and yet you claim to be mystified as to how an atheist got this impression. I can tell you that it is very easy to get this impression (whether it is accurate or not) when Christians say all atheists are guilty of the greatest evil.

Perhaps the problem here is that atheists are not practiced in the mental gymnastics that Christians apparently are, and so assume if Christians think atheists are guilty of the greatest evil then that means they think atheists are wicked.

Speaking for myself, I think rape is evil and therefore rapists are wicked. I think murder is evil, and therefore murderers are wicked. A cannot do the mental contortions that allow for some people to do great evil, but actually be "just fine and excellent people".
So what is your point? The left hand side of the card is wrong too?

Yes, science offers no purpose or meaning. Nor does it claim to. We have already established that the right side of the card would be better labelled as a philosophy that embraces science rather than science.

It does not follow. Why do we deserve Hell? Is it because of what we are? No. It is because of what we do.

And what we think. Do not forget that. Jesus was quite clear that looking lustily at a woman will get you to hell, never mind doing anything. You have been quite clear that the greatest evil we can do is to reject God, a thought process outweighing the actions of rape and murder.

We deserve hell because of what we think.

And we deserve it right from the moment we can tell right from wrong.

And we deserve it because all the bad things far outweigh all the good.

For each and every one of us.

This also leaves out the goodness of redemption. If you're going to treat the Christian worldview consistently, you have to include ALL that the Christian worldview says. That includes ideas like Christ dying for us while we were enemies and that we love because He first loved us.

But this again reinforces the idea that we are mere scum. As Rushing Jaws said:

"In short: God's grace. Which expresses the Goodness of God, & is not based on anything in man. God saves us, because we are not worth saving - God's action, which is creative, does not find us gracious, but makes us gracious."

People are not merely all deserving hell, but none of us are even worth saving! Oh isn't God wonderful that he wants to save us, when we are all such pathetic losers.

[Apologiaphoenix]

It also does not mean she is valued equally. And since that is what you are trying to prove, I still have no idea what the relevance is.

The point is you've been saying that because someone is treated differently or even in a position of serving, then they are valued less. That point is defeated. Does that mean they are valued equally? No. You have to look elsewhere for that. In Christianity, I'd look to both of us being in God's image and passages like Gal. 3:28 that says in Christ there is no difference.

Conversely, you seem to be saying that if you treat two individuals differently, then they must necessarily be equal. That also does not follow either. A better analogy here would be if you have two children, and you tell one that he has to obey the other his entire life. Now can you assure the one who has to obey that both are treated equally?

Yeah. This is part of your problem. You seem to have this idea that if two things serve different roles or have differences one must be superior to the other. Differences does not mean one is superior to the other. It just means they are different. You can also treat two individuals differently and have them still be equal. They aren't necessarily equal, but they can be equal.

The point here is not just that they are treated differently, it is the nature of the difference. It is that wives are required to obey their husbands, and which ever way you cut it, that makes the husband superior.

The point here is not just that they are treated differently, it is the nature of the difference. It is that employees are required to obey their employers, and which ever way you cut it, that makes the employer superior.

Okay, I am happy to accept that. However, I originally said:

"Then we get a bit about divorce, with a clear command (from God) that the divorced should not remarry. This seems to contradict your own position, AP, where you said, post #7: "I don't have a problem with divorcees marrying and having sex provided there was a valid reason for divorce and it takes place within marriage.

I still have no idea if you agree with that or not, let alone what you might be objecting to or why.

And yet there was an exception made for adultery. What was being prevented in Jesus's day was a revolving door idea. Heck. A husband could divorce his wife if she burnt his toast in the morning.

When you take a job, you are agreeing that you will do what your superior tells you to. If you do not, you risk getting fired.

So what? No one is saying women are not equally human. The point is the Bible says the wife has to obey her superior, the husband.

So then we have it that men and women are equally and both fully human?

I will let you answer that one. As I am not from the US, I am not obliged to do so.

Then go with the ruler of your own country.

Interesting. Last week you were claiming Paul was advising them not to get married in a time of famine, now you are saying actually he advised them they should get married in a time of famine.

Remember this:

"The church wrote to Paul about many issues and one of them was quite likely what to do about marriage in a famine. How could a man provide for his wife? Is it wise to take on a wife then?
Also, no to the last part. If you are married, you have to give of yourself. If you are not, you might want to hold off in marriage at this time because it will be hard."

"Paul is saying in a time of famine, taking on a wife will bring about extra responsibilities that could be difficult for the present situation."

Which is it, AP?

Good grief. THis is pretty simple. Paul's advice is the same. He would prefer they not during a famine, but if you're going to burn in such a way that you cannot focus on the Kingdom, then get married. It is better to marry than to burn with passion.

So are people who do that wicked or not? They do, as you say, the greatest evil, and no amount of good can make up for it. Are atheists vertically wicked, but horizontally good?

Potentially horizontally good. I would not say Stalin and others were horizontally good.

More importantly, when you say:

"Somehow in his environment, he got the impression that atheists must just be wicked people somehow. I don’t know any Christian intellectual who holds to such a position."

Is that not a little disingenuous? Here you are on record saying that atheists are all guilt of the worst evil, and yet you claim to be mystified as to how an atheist got this impression. I can tell you that it is very easy to get this impression (whether it is accurate or not) when Christians say all atheists are guilty of the greatest evil.

No. It's not. When we speak of people being wicked today, we normally refer to on the horizontal level. That is all I am referring to.

Perhaps the problem here is that atheists are not practiced in the mental gymnastics that Christians apparently are, and so assume if Christians think atheists are guilty of the greatest evil then that means they think atheists are wicked.

Or perhaps atheists are too black and white and don't know how to recognize distinctions.

Speaking for myself, I think rape is evil and therefore rapists are wicked. I think murder is evil, and therefore murderers are wicked. A cannot do the mental contortions that allow for some people to do great evil, but actually be "just fine and excellent people".

Horizontally and vertically again, but I could ask why do you think rape is evil? Why is murder evil?

So what is your point? The left hand side of the card is wrong too?

Yes, science offers no purpose or meaning. Nor does it claim to. We have already established that the right side of the card would be better labelled as a philosophy that embraces science rather than science.

Both sides are wrong, but note that Russell was offering a philosophy that embraces science.

Let's go with someone else who embraces science also from a philosophical perspective.

Alex Rosenberg

On page 13 (Nook version), he writes a list of short answers to hard questions. I quote:

Begin quote:

Is there a God? No.

What is the nature of reality? What physics says it is.

What is the purpose of the universe? There is none.

What is the meaning of life? Ditto.

Why am I here? Just dumb luck.

Does prayer work? Of course not.

Is there a soul? Is it immortal? -- Are you kidding?

Is there free will? Not a chance!

What happens when we die? Everything pretty much goes on as before, except us.

What is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad? There is no difference between them.

Why should I be moral? Because it makes you feel better than being immoral.

Is abortion, euthanasia, suicide, paying taxes, foreign aid, or anything else you don't like forbidden, permissible, or sometimes obligatory? Anything goes.

And what we think. Do not forget that. Jesus was quite clear that looking lustily at a woman will get you to hell, never mind doing anything. You have been quite clear that the greatest evil we can do is to reject God, a thought process outweighing the actions of rape and murder.

We deserve hell because of what we think.

And we deserve it right from the moment we can tell right from wrong.

And we deserve it because all the bad things far outweigh all the good.

For each and every one of us.

This is accurate aside from the line about the bad things outweighing the good. It's not a quantitative thing. Still, all this boils down to is "I don't like the judgment, therefore it's wrong."

Seems like a terrible way to examine the claim. Why not see if perhaps the one who made the claim could back it, such as looking at the reasons for knowing He exists and for the resurrection?

I don't mind the claims of Allah in the Koran. If Islam is true, I know I fully deserve the judgment I get. Doesn't bother me just because I'm convinced it's not true at all.

But this again reinforces the idea that we are mere scum. As Rushing Jaws said:

"In short: God's grace. Which expresses the Goodness of God, & is not based on anything in man. God saves us, because we are not worth saving - God's action, which is creative, does not find us gracious, but makes us gracious."

People are not merely all deserving hell, but none of us are even worth saving! Oh isn't God wonderful that he wants to save us, when we are all such pathetic losers.

Why yes. Yes it is wonderful. We are not loved based on what we do at all. We are loved even when we are fallen. Nothing can change that.

Yes. It is wonderful.

[Truthseeker]

Equal in what way?

Anyway, from God's perspective, the differences between any one and any another one are trivial--negligible.

[The Pixie]

Hi AP, I will not be able to post again for a few days (doing my Valentines a week late!). Enjoy the weekend.

The point is you've been saying that because someone is treated differently or even in a position of serving, then they are valued less. That point is defeated. Does that mean they are valued equally? No. You have to look elsewhere for that.

Great.

No idea who said otherwise, but... yeah, great.

In Christianity, I'd look to both of us being in God's image and passages like Gal. 3:28 that says in Christ there is no difference.

And I would look at Genesis 3:16, where God - rather than Paul - says women are cursed to be ruled over.

Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said,

"I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for[f] your husband,
and he shall rule over you."

I should have asked this before, but do you think a wife should obey her husband?

Yeah. This is part of your problem. You seem to have this idea that if two things serve different roles or have differences one must be superior to the other. Differences does not mean one is superior to the other. It just means they are different. You can also treat two individuals differently and have them still be equal. They aren't necessarily equal, but they can be equal.

You seem to be arguing:

Bible says a woman must obey her husband
Therefore there is a difference in the roles of husband and wife
Therefore Pixie's argument is founded on the fact that there is a difference in the roles of husband and wife
That argument is flawed because a difference in the roles between two people does not necessarily imply they are unequal

In fact my argument is:

Bible says a woman must obey her husband
Therefore the Bible implies that the husband is superior to the wife

Thus you are making a big deal about there being a difference in the roles, and quietly ignoring where it says women have to obey their husbands. Might be interesting if you address my argument next time.

The point here is not just that they are treated differently, it is the nature of the difference. It is that employees are required to obey their employers, and which ever way you cut it, that makes the employer superior.

I had to go back and check if you had messed up the formatting and this was what I had said originally. Apparently not.

You seem to have hit the nail on the head here. In the workplace, the boss, the guy you have to obey, is the superior (will be held in higher regard, will have more responsibility, have higher pay). In a marriage, the husband, the one the wife has to obey, is the superior.

And yet there was an exception made for adultery. What was being prevented in Jesus's day was a revolving door idea. Heck. A husband could divorce his wife if she burnt his toast in the morning.

So? We are discussing what Paul said:

1 Cor 10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

Please explain how what you have said relates to Paul's comment. Then explain how it impacts on my argument at all. I will give you a hand here, and quote what I originally said about 1 Cor 11:

"Then we get a bit about divorce, with a clear command (from God) that the divorced should not remarry. This seems to contradict your own position, AP, where you said, post #7: "I don't have a problem with divorcees marrying and having sex provided there was a valid reason for divorce and it takes place within marriage."

So then we have it that men and women are equally and both fully human?

Are you saying that "equally human" is the same as "equal"? I think not. We are discussing a book that has rules for slaves, to say nothing of a chosen people. Do you think the Bible considers Abraham, the Hebrew people, the Canaanites, Hebrew slaves and gentile slaves all to be equal? Are they all equally human?

Then go with the ruler of your own country.

I give respect to people who earn it, not just because of who they are. I give no special respect to the ruler of my country.

Good grief. THis is pretty simple. Paul's advice is the same. He would prefer they not during a famine, but if you're going to burn in such a way that you cannot focus on the Kingdom, then get married. It is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Okay, so looking at the first two verses:

1 Cor 7:1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

Why is it good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman?

Potentially horizontally good. I would not say Stalin and others were horizontally good.

No. It's not. When we speak of people being wicked today, we normally refer to on the horizontal level. That is all I am referring to.

Ah. So when you expressed surprise that atheists have the impression Christians think they are all wicked, you meant horizontally wicked?

Or perhaps atheists are too black and white and don't know how to recognize distinctions.

You got me there. I have no idea how to recognise the distinction.

However, hopefully you do now realise where atheists get the impression that Christians think all atheists are wicked. It is a combination of Christians believing every atheist has done the greatest evil and atheists not understanding how you can do the greatest evil, but still be "fine and excellent people".

Horizontally and vertically again, but I could ask why do you think rape is evil? Why is murder evil?

Right, because the only reason you think they are wrong is because the Bible says they are.

Non-Christians, who I have to suppose have a rather better developed sense of morality, are capable of working out that rape and murder are morally wrong for themselves.

Both sides are wrong, but note that Russell was offering a philosophy that embraces science.

Clearly he offered a different one to that on the right of the card.

Let's go with someone else who embraces science also from a philosophical perspective.

Why? Does it represent the philosophy on the right of card?

If not, then it is not the philosophy on the card, and is just another straw man.

This is accurate aside from the line about the bad things outweighing the good. It's not a quantitative thing. Still, all this boils down to is "I don't like the judgment, therefore it's wrong."

Have you not been following this argument at all AP?

I will remind you. You wrote a blog page with a photo of a girl holding a card, which indicated that Christianity tells people they are bad. On your blog you objected to that. Ring any bells? Do you need a link to the blog post may be?

My argument is that the card was a fair representation of what Christianity says. That argument in no way rests on "I don't like the judgment, therefore it's wrong." It is a sorry reflection on how poor your argument is that you are obliged to dredge up this tired old retort to give a semblance of a response.

The sad truth is that Christianity does tell us we are all miserable sinners, and comments by Christians on this thread have served to reinforce that plain and obvious fact.

Seems like a terrible way to examine the claim. Why not see if perhaps the one who made the claim could back it, such as looking at the reasons for knowing He exists and for the resurrection?

Then I have to wonder why you chose to examine the claim that way.

I think you should reread that blog post. You will find a link in the OP.

Why yes. Yes it is wonderful. We are not loved based on what we do at all. We are loved even when we are fallen. Nothing can change that.

Yes. It is wonderful.

Which is a very different claim to saying that WE are wonderful. Christianity says we are sinful, fallen and deserve to go to hell. We are not even worth saving. A long, long way from saying we are wonderful.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Hi AP, I will not be able to post again for a few days (doing my Valentines a week late!). Enjoy the weekend.

Definitely take your time.

Great.

No idea who said otherwise, but... yeah, great.

This eliminates much of the problem. If we can realize people can have different roles, functions, even status positions, and still be equally human, then much of the problem evaporates.

And I would look at Genesis 3:16, where God - rather than Paul - says women are cursed to be ruled over.

Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said,

"I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for[f] your husband,
and he shall rule over you."

I should have asked this before, but do you think a wife should obey her husband?

My answer to that is, yes. A man has the position of leadership. When two people get together, someone has to lead. That does not mean the woman is less female. However, you speak of the woman being cursed. Her curse is greater pain in childbirth and then her husband will rule over her, mainly because she decided to overrule his judgment in the sin she committed. Let's see. What about the man?

17 And to Adam he said,

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.”

Yeah. The man gets a lot more. His sin? He had been entirely passive. It's what men would actually prefer more. Most of us would rather be just enjoying the game or playing a game or something like that. Now we have to toil and work extra hard because we failed to work then. Death is blamed on us as is a curse on the ground.

You seem to be arguing:

Bible says a woman must obey her husband
Therefore there is a difference in the roles of husband and wife
Therefore Pixie's argument is founded on the fact that there is a difference in the roles of husband and wife
That argument is flawed because a difference in the roles between two people does not necessarily imply they are unequal

In fact my argument is:

Bible says a woman must obey her husband
Therefore the Bible implies that the husband is superior to the wife

Superiority in rank does not equal superiority in nature. Men and women are equally human and a wife is not to be treated as an object but a person in her own right. Note also a wife is not to obey her husband if he tells her to do something unbiblical and a husband is not to force his wife to do something she does not want to do.

Thus you are making a big deal about there being a difference in the roles, and quietly ignoring where it says women have to obey their husbands. Might be interesting if you address my argument next time.

Note there are differences here. I hold a different viewpoint than someone like JPH who says that both parties submit, and in a sense that even happens over here.

I had to go back and check if you had messed up the formatting and this was what I had said originally. Apparently not.

You seem to have hit the nail on the head here. In the workplace, the boss, the guy you have to obey, is the superior (will be held in higher regard, will have more responsibility, have higher pay). In a marriage, the husband, the one the wife has to obey, is the superior.

Superior in what?

So? We are discussing what Paul said:

1 Cor 10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

Please explain how what you have said relates to Paul's comment. Then explain how it impacts on my argument at all. I will give you a hand here, and quote what I originally said about 1 Cor 11:

"Then we get a bit about divorce, with a clear command (from God) that the divorced should not remarry. This seems to contradict your own position, AP, where you said, post #7: "I don't have a problem with divorcees marrying and having sex provided there was a valid reason for divorce and it takes place within marriage."

Yes. Jesus had said that a wife should not initiate divorce for her husband, although the Jesus tradition also established divorce on the grounds of adultery. This is also the case here. Paul is saying to stick with the person that you have and do not remarry or else it creates the revolving door idea. The next tradition is a separate part with something that Jesus never addressed, so Paul is giving his own take on it.

Are you saying that "equally human" is the same as "equal"? I think not. We are discussing a book that has rules for slaves, to say nothing of a chosen people. Do you think the Bible considers Abraham, the Hebrew people, the Canaanites, Hebrew slaves and gentile slaves all to be equal? Are they all equally human?

Yep. They are all equally human.

I give respect to people who earn it, not just because of who they are. I give no special respect to the ruler of my country.

Honestly, I can understand this. Mine gets no respect, and that is a shame because I think the office generally should at least have respect, but it has been tarnished.

Okay, so looking at the first two verses:

1 Cor 7:1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

Why is it good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman?

For the matters they wrote about. 1 Cor. is Paul responding to questions from the church. Many suspect the situation is again, the famine going on and Paul saying "For the time being, it might be best to not marry due to this famine."

Ah. So when you expressed surprise that atheists have the impression Christians think they are all wicked, you meant horizontally wicked?

Yes. Vertically I could say we're all quite wicked in fact. That's not just atheists. Christians fail regularly in their walk.

You got me there. I have no idea how to recognise the distinction.

However, hopefully you do now realise where atheists get the impression that Christians think all atheists are wicked. It is a combination of Christians believing every atheist has done the greatest evil and atheists not understanding how you can do the greatest evil, but still be "fine and excellent people".

No. I don't think that's it at all. I think too many Christians think that if you're an atheist, you automatically have no morals. That does not follow. Scripture itself I think argues against that.

Right, because the only reason you think they are wrong is because the Bible says they are.

No. Try again. In fact, I have said many times elsewhere that you do not need the Bible to know any moral truth.

Non-Christians, who I have to suppose have a rather better developed sense of morality, are capable of working out that rape and murder are morally wrong for themselves.

Of course, as Scripture also says. It's like working with a math book in school. You can work out the problems for yourself, but the book also has some of the answers in the back. You can work out morality for yourself, but the Bible in calling out a holy people also gives some of the rules of morality.

Clearly he offered a different one to that on the right of the card.

Okay. Then give a philosophy and give its metaphysical grounding that embraces science and rejects theism that can hold to the right side of the card.

Why? Does it represent the philosophy on the right of card?

If not, then it is not the philosophy on the card, and is just another straw man.

The position I gave is one of a more scientism position. You're adding to the right side saying "This is not what science says but a philosophy that embraces science." Okay. If you want to play that game, I'll make sure the left side says all the good things Christianity offers since the right side lists only good things and the left only bad.

Have you not been following this argument at all AP?

I will remind you. You wrote a blog page with a photo of a girl holding a card, which indicated that Christianity tells people they are bad. On your blog you objected to that. Ring any bells? Do you need a link to the blog post may be?

My argument is that the card was a fair representation of what Christianity says. That argument in no way rests on "I don't like the judgment, therefore it's wrong." It is a sorry reflection on how poor your argument is that you are obliged to dredge up this tired old retort to give a semblance of a response.

The sad truth is that Christianity does tell us we are all miserable sinners, and comments by Christians on this thread have served to reinforce that plain and obvious fact.

Which is only one side of the equation. Science tells us we're all going to die one day, but at the same time, it gives us the means to prolong our existence and live much more healthy lives. What if I only offered the side that science says "You are going to die."? That would not be a complete picture.

Then I have to wonder why you chose to examine the claim that way.

I think you should reread that blog post. You will find a link in the OP.

Because Genesis is not about those claims. That's what I was wanting to emphasize. Claims found in Genesis.

Which is a very different claim to saying that WE are wonderful. Christianity says we are sinful, fallen and deserve to go to hell. We are not even worth saving. A long, long way from saying we are wonderful.

It says we are simply made in the image of God and we are made good but fallen. My claim is our status of being loved is not based on what we do but who we are. We are also loved regardless of what we do.

[The Pixie]

Of course both were cursed. Was the man's curse worse? I think that that is arguable, if only because the man's curse applies to the woman as well. I see nothing there that is exclusive to men; the curse for Eve, in stark contrast, applies only to women.

You may disagree, but even then, I think your argument is weak. God curses Adam, and though him the entire human race, and indeed the very ground too because of what Adam has done. The idea of original sin is often describes as starting with Adam (eg here), despite the fact that Eve did it first (as you say, "He had been entirely passive"). It is what Adam did that was important to God, not so much Eve. What you have done here is to highlight the fact that the Bible considers the man to be more important.

Even after all that, you are focusing on the word "curse". What is important is what the curse was; God decreed that the husband would rule over the wife.

Superiority in rank does not equal superiority in nature. Men and women are equally human and a wife is not to be treated as an object but a person in her own right. Note also a wife is not to obey her husband if he tells her to do something unbiblical and a husband is not to force his wife to do something she does not want to do.

Then let us agree that men are considered superior in rank to women. I am claiming no more than that.

Superior in what?

Superior in rank, despite being equally human.

So? We are discussing what Paul said:

1 Cor 10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

Please explain how what you have said relates to Paul's comment. Then explain how it impacts on my argument at all. I will give you a hand here, and quote what I originally said about 1 Cor 11:

"Then we get a bit about divorce, with a clear command (from God) that the divorced should not remarry. This seems to contradict your own position, AP, where you said, post #7: "I don't have a problem with divorcees marrying and having sex provided there was a valid reason for divorce and it takes place within marriage."

Yes. Jesus had said that a wife should not initiate divorce for her husband, although the Jesus tradition also established divorce on the grounds of adultery. This is also the case here. Paul is saying to stick with the person that you have and do not remarry or else it creates the revolving door idea. The next tradition is a separate part with something that Jesus never addressed, so Paul is giving his own take on it.

I am not sure that that is right. Look at the next verse too:

1 Cor 7:10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.

It reads to me as though Paul believes verses 10 and 11 to be the command of God (whether a tradition from Jesus or scripture), and it is verse 12 that is his own opinion here. You say "The next tradition is a separate part with something that Jesus never addressed". You know this how? Do you think the gospels contain everything Jesus addressed? This seems unlikely, given how long his ministry was.
[quote]

Are you saying that "equally human" is the same as "equal"? I think not. We are discussing a book that has rules for slaves, to say nothing of a chosen people. Do you think the Bible considers Abraham, the Hebrew people, the Canaanites, Hebrew slaves and gentile slaves all to be equal? Are they all equally human?
Yep. They are all equally human.

Are they all socially equal?

For the matters they wrote about. 1 Cor. is Paul responding to questions from the church. Many suspect the situation is again, the famine going on and Paul saying "For the time being, it might be best to not marry due to this famine."

I am not entirely convinced, but having thought about, this is quite possible, so I will concede the point.

No. I don't think that's it at all. I think too many Christians think that if you're an atheist, you automatically have no morals. That does not follow. Scripture itself I think argues against that.

Ah, right. This suddenly makes sense.

Okay. Then give a philosophy and give its metaphysical grounding that embraces science and rejects theism that can hold to the right side of the card.

I will suggest humanism.

The position I gave is one of a more scientism position. You're adding to the right side saying "This is not what science says but a philosophy that embraces science." Okay. If you want to play that game, I'll make sure the left side says all the good things Christianity offers since the right side lists only good things and the left only bad.

My position in this thread is to counter your claim on your blog that the left side is not fair reflection of Christianity. Since then, I have agree with you that science does not inform us that we are wonderful, but that does not make the left side any less accurate. I am not trying to defend the right side, if only because I am not sure what philosophy it represents, though I do agree with the sentiment expressed on this one aspect.

If you want to say Christianity has some good aspects, then fine. However, when it comes to the individual, Christianity tell as us we are fallen, sinful, deserving of hell and not even worth saving. The card the girl is holding gets that right.

Which is only one side of the equation. Science tells us we're all going to die one day, but at the same time, it gives us the means to prolong our existence and live much more healthy lives. What if I only offered the side that science says "You are going to die."? That would not be a complete picture.

Fair comment.

Maybe you should edit your blog page to say that, rather than claiming that Christianity does not tell us we are worthless, when it pretty clearly does.

Because Genesis is not about those claims. That's what I was wanting to emphasize. Claims found in Genesis.

The card made certain claims, and now you are admitting those claims were not relevant to your argument? So why bring up?

It says we are simply made in the image of God and we are made good but fallen. My claim is our status of being loved is not based on what we do but who we are. We are also loved regardless of what we do.

The message of Christianity is that we are loved despite being worthless. The implication, then, is we are worthless.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Of course both were cursed. Was the man's curse worse? I think that that is arguable, if only because the man's curse applies to the woman as well. I see nothing there that is exclusive to men; the curse for Eve, in stark contrast, applies only to women.

You may disagree, but even then, I think your argument is weak. God curses Adam, and though him the entire human race, and indeed the very ground too because of what Adam has done. The idea of original sin is often describes as starting with Adam (eg here), despite the fact that Eve did it first (as you say, "He had been entirely passive"). It is what Adam did that was important to God, not so much Eve. What you have done here is to highlight the fact that the Bible considers the man to be more important.

And if more important, that's because he bears the brunt of the responsibility. He was the one who knew what God had said. He was the one who should have stood up when the serpent came after Eve. He did nothing. Therefore, he suffers for that one.

Even after all that, you are focusing on the word "curse". What is important is what the curse was; God decreed that the husband would rule over the wife.

I think he already was. He was already in the place of leadership. Again, having one person in the marriage be the leader is not a bad thing. It does not mean men and women are not equal ontologically.

Then let us agree that men are considered superior in rank to women. I am claiming no more than that.

Superior in rank, despite being equally human.

Yes, just like an employer and an employee.

I am not sure that that is right. Look at the next verse too:

1 Cor 7:10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.

It reads to me as though Paul believes verses 10 and 11 to be the command of God (whether a tradition from Jesus or scripture), and it is verse 12 that is his own opinion here. You say "The next tradition is a separate part with something that Jesus never addressed". You know this how? Do you think the gospels contain everything Jesus addressed? This seems unlikely, given how long his ministry was.

There are several things Jesus never addressed because he was not often in Gentile territory. Eating food offered to idols was not a hot debate in Israel. What about marrying unbelievers? That also was not a hot debate, so Paul then says "Jesus never spoke on this situation, but here's what I have to say about it."

Are they all socially equal?

Meaning what?

I will suggest humanism.

This depends on what humanism is. Erasmus was a humanist and a devout Christian. If you mean a naturalistic humanism, then you would have to show how naturalism has a metaphysical basis for this.

My position in this thread is to counter your claim on your blog that the left side is not fair reflection of Christianity. Since then, I have agree with you that science does not inform us that we are wonderful, but that does not make the left side any less accurate. I am not trying to defend the right side, if only because I am not sure what philosophy it represents, though I do agree with the sentiment expressed on this one aspect.

If you want to say Christianity has some good aspects, then fine. However, when it comes to the individual, Christianity tell as us we are fallen, sinful, deserving of hell and not even worth saving. The card the girl is holding gets that right.

Christianity also says we have the image of God, it says we are meant to rule creation, it says that we love God because He first loved us and He loved us while we were in this state. It tells us that we were made to spend eternity in the presence of God. It gives us the harsh realities of the situation and says it doesn't have to be like that.

Science doesn't tell you the stuff on the right side. It's more metaphysical.

Fair comment.

Maybe you should edit your blog page to say that, rather than claiming that Christianity does not tell us we are worthless, when it pretty clearly does.

Except it doesn't. Our vocation given in the Garden hasn't changed. Our ability to follow through has.

The card made certain claims, and now you are admitting those claims were not relevant to your argument? So why bring up?

No. You asked why I didn't go with metaphysics or the resurrection. I answered I was sticking with just Genesis itself. You don't find the resurrection in Genesis.

The message of Christianity is that we are loved despite being worthless. The implication, then, is we are worthless.

No. We are loved despite being enemies. Again, our vocation hasn't changed.

[The Pixie]

And if more important, that's because he bears the brunt of the responsibility. He was the one who knew what God had said. He was the one who should have stood up when the serpent came after Eve. He did nothing. Therefore, he suffers for that one.

That is exactly my point. Adam was the more important. Eve was less important.

I think he already was. He was already in the place of leadership. Again, having one person in the marriage be the leader is not a bad thing. It does not mean men and women are not equal ontologically.

And...

Yes, just like an employer and an employee.

I am going to go back to what I said in my first post:

"However, there are plenty of verses that indicate woman is to have a lesser role, and historically the Christian church has been run by men. Even today many Christian's see a woman's place as in the home. That is not equality."

What you are saying seems to support what I originally said. Adam "bears the brunt of the responsibility" because Eve has the lesser role. Adam "was already in the place of leadership" while Eve had the lesser role. Are you suggesting that the employee and employer are equals in the workplace?

So? We are discussing what Paul said:

1 Cor 10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

Please explain how what you have said relates to Paul's comment. Then explain how it impacts on my argument at all. I will give you a hand here, and quote what I originally said about 1 Cor 11:

"Then we get a bit about divorce, with a clear command (from God) that the divorced should not remarry. This seems to contradict your own position, AP, where you said, post #7: "I don't have a problem with divorcees marrying and having sex provided there was a valid reason for divorce and it takes place within marriage."

Yes. Jesus had said that a wife should not initiate divorce for her husband, although the Jesus tradition also established divorce on the grounds of adultery. This is also the case here. Paul is saying to stick with the person that you have and do not remarry or else it creates the revolving door idea. The next tradition is a separate part with something that Jesus never addressed, so Paul is giving his own take on it.

I am not sure that that is right. Look at the next verse too:

1 Cor 7:10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.

It reads to me as though Paul believes verses 10 and 11 to be the command of God (whether a tradition from Jesus or scripture), and it is verse 12 that is his own opinion here. You say "The next tradition is a separate part with something that Jesus never addressed". You know this how? Do you think the gospels contain everything Jesus addressed? This seems unlikely, given how long his ministry was.

There are several things Jesus never addressed because he was not often in Gentile territory. Eating food offered to idols was not a hot debate in Israel. What about marrying unbelievers? That also was not a hot debate, so Paul then says "Jesus never spoke on this situation, but here's what I have to say about it."

I am not following your point here (and wonder if that is because you are not following mine).

I think Paul said that men and women should ideally not divorce, but if they do then the woman (and possibly the man too by implication) should not remarry, and further, he was explicit that this was God's instruction and not merely his own take. In contrast, verse 12 is not God's command, but instead is Paul's take (interpretation) on the situation. The importance of verse 12 to our discussion is that Paul is careful to point out that this is his take; what it actually says is not relevant.

What you seemed to be doing was saying verse 11 was merely Paul's opinion. Have I understood that right?

My point here is that Paul believes the command that divorcees should not remarry comes from God (whether Jesus' tradition or scripture).

Meaning what?

Equal in rank. Considered equal within society of the time. Treated with equal respect.

This depends on what humanism is. Erasmus was a humanist and a devout Christian. If you mean a naturalistic humanism, then you would have to show how naturalism has a metaphysical basis for this.

I guess so.

Christianity also says we have the image of God, it says we are meant to rule creation, it says that we love God because He first loved us and He loved us while we were in this state. It tells us that we were made to spend eternity in the presence of God. It gives us the harsh realities of the situation and says it doesn't have to be like that.

I agree it is not entirely negative. However, the implication from the basic message is that we need to be saved. If Christianity dwelt more on the claim that we were made in God's image, and less on the claim that we are all in desperate need of salvation I would concede the point.

Science doesn't tell you the stuff on the right side. It's more metaphysical.

Agreed.

Except it doesn't. Our vocation given in the Garden hasn't changed. Our ability to follow through has.

Perhaps we need to get down to the basics:

Is everyone* sinful?

Is everyone* fallen?

Is everyone* deserving of hell?

* I.e., everyone able to tell right from wrong.

No. You asked why I didn't go with metaphysics or the resurrection. I answered I was sticking with just Genesis itself. You don't find the resurrection in Genesis.

Right. So if you ignore the entire NT, i.e., that part of the Bible that Christianity is based on, that differentiates it from Judaism, then you can argue that the card the girl is holding has got Christianity wrong.

Maybe whoever wrote the card was thinking about Christianity with the resurrection.

If one of your opponents started to discuss Christianity, and it turned out that he was just ignoring all the basic tenets of the religion to make his argument work, what would you think of that, AP?

No. We are loved despite being enemies. Again, our vocation hasn't changed.

Enemies of God. Good one. So now we have:

Fallen
Sinful
Deserving hell
Do not even deserve to be saved
Enemies of God

Shall I add "worthless scum"?

[Apologiaphoenix]

That is exactly my point. Adam was the more important. Eve was less important.

And...

Not really. Eve is described as a helpmate, yes. That same word is often used to describe YHWH. Eve is described as an ontological equal to Adam.

I am going to go back to what I said in my first post:

"However, there are plenty of verses that indicate woman is to have a lesser role, and historically the Christian church has been run by men. Even today many Christian's see a woman's place as in the home. That is not equality."

What you are saying seems to support what I originally said. Adam "bears the brunt of the responsibility" because Eve has the lesser role. Adam "was already in the place of leadership" while Eve had the lesser role. Are you suggesting that the employee and employer are equals in the workplace?

And why is it that Adam bears the brunt of the responsibility that you interpret as a lesser role? Adam was the one who heard directly from God in the story and should have told his wife accurately and also should have stood up when the serpent was tempting her. Adam is guilty of the greater sin in that regard. As for the role of a woman, the role does not determine her worth. If a woman wants to stay at home, fine. If she wants to work, that's also fine.

I am not following your point here (and wonder if that is because you are not following mine).

Employers and employees have different roles. Does that make them less human?

I think Paul said that men and women should ideally not divorce, but if they do then the woman (and possibly the man too by implication) should not remarry, and further, he was explicit that this was God's instruction and not merely his own take. In contrast, verse 12 is not God's command, but instead is Paul's take (interpretation) on the situation. The importance of verse 12 to our discussion is that Paul is careful to point out that this is his take; what it actually says is not relevant.

What you seemed to be doing was saying verse 11 was merely Paul's opinion. Have I understood that right?

No. 10-11 are Jesus tradition. 12 is Paul's opinion.

My point here is that Paul believes the command that divorcees should not remarry comes from God (whether Jesus' tradition or scripture).

Yes.

Equal in rank. Considered equal within society of the time. Treated with equal respect.

In this case, then not exactly. The Hebrews were the ones given the Laws of God and such, but for that, they also bore greater responsibility including greater punishments when the time came. Consider Amos 3. "You have I chosen out of all the nations of the Earth, therefore I will punish you for your sins."

I guess so.

Well feel free to.

I agree it is not entirely negative. However, the implication from the basic message is that we need to be saved. If Christianity dwelt more on the claim that we were made in God's image, and less on the claim that we are all in desperate need of salvation I would concede the point.

That's modern Christianity for the most part I think that has emphasized salvation and lost sight of the Kingdom. Salvation is part of the message. What we're being told is that we were made to rule and live and serve in the Garden. The message of the Kingdom is we have that chance again. Our vocation as Adam has not changed.

Agreed.

Okay. Then we can ditch the ride side as having anything to do with science.

Perhaps we need to get down to the basics:

Is everyone* sinful?

Is everyone* fallen?

Is everyone* deserving of hell?

* I.e., everyone able to tell right from wrong.

Aside from Jesus, yes.

Right. So if you ignore the entire NT, i.e., that part of the Bible that Christianity is based on, that differentiates it from Judaism, then you can argue that the card the girl is holding has got Christianity wrong.

Maybe whoever wrote the card was thinking about Christianity with the resurrection.

If one of your opponents started to discuss Christianity, and it turned out that he was just ignoring all the basic tenets of the religion to make his argument work, what would you think of that, AP?

Yeah. Let's try to explain this again.

I was focusing on just Genesis for the sake of argument and where we are at the start of the story and what our origins are. I said nothing about saying we should ignore the NT at all. I just said for the sake of argument I was wanting to just stick to Genesis. That would be like saying because I go to metaphysics for arguments on morality, that I think what the Bible says about morality is useless.

Enemies of God. Good one. So now we have:

Fallen
Sinful
Deserving hell
Do not even deserve to be saved
Enemies of God

Shall I add "worthless scum"?

For someone who says I ignored the NT, why this constant ignorance of all the good things Christianity says about us and only listing the problem?

[The Pixie]

Not really. Eve is described as a helpmate, yes. That same word is often used to describe YHWH. Eve is described as an ontological equal to Adam.

The issue here is that God said man will rule woman. If you can find a verse that says man will rule over YHWH I will accept your point.

And why is it that Adam bears the brunt of the responsibility that you interpret as a lesser role? Adam was the one who heard directly from God in the story and should have told his wife accurately and also should have stood up when the serpent was tempting her. Adam is guilty of the greater sin in that regard.

Right. God told Adam and not Eve. Because Adam, being the man, is in charge. Eve was merely a woman; why would God talk to her?

Adam is the leader, the one in charge, the one with the responsibility. Eve is the one who obeys the leaders.

As for the role of a woman, the role does not determine her worth. If a woman wants to stay at home, fine. If she wants to work, that's also fine.

So?

Employers and employees have different roles. Does that make them less human?

No one is arguing women are less human.

I am arguing that the Bible says they are of lesser rank. Like the employees in a company are of lesser rank than the employer. The employer is in charge, the employees obey him. The employer is the one who bears the brunt of the responsibility if something goes badly wrong.

No. 10-11 are Jesus tradition. 12 is Paul's opinion.

Great. I think that was just a misunderstanding then, as we both agree here.

1 cor 7:10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

So Paul is saying that Jesus said a divorced woman (and therefore perhaps man) should not remarry.

In this case, then not exactly. The Hebrews were the ones given the Laws of God and such, but for that, they also bore greater responsibility including greater punishments when the time came. Consider Amos 3. "You have I chosen out of all the nations of the Earth, therefore I will punish you for your sins."

Great. The point here is that the Hebrews were of a different rank to the Canaanites and the slaves were of a different rank again.

That's modern Christianity for the most part I think that has emphasized salvation and lost sight of the Kingdom. Salvation is part of the message. What we're being told is that we were made to rule and live and serve in the Garden. The message of the Kingdom is we have that chance again. Our vocation as Adam has not changed.

Well I would assume the card was referring to modern Christianity.

Okay. Then we can ditch the ride side as having anything to do with science.

I think that is fair comment. Here in the UK virtually all Christians embrace science, so that is another reason why it is wrong to label the right as "science".

If you objected to the card because it pits Christianity against science (and I see you have blogged on that issue recently), you would have had a good point.

Is everyone* sinful?
Is everyone* fallen?
Is everyone* deserving of hell?
* I.e., everyone able to tell right from wrong.

Aside from Jesus, yes.

Good point, I should have added him to the exclusions.

Well, that is it then. My argument is that the card accurately portrays Christianity when it says we are all fallen, sinful and deserve hell. You have confirmed that that is the case.

I was focusing on just Genesis for the sake of argument and where we are at the start of the story and what our origins are. I said nothing about saying we should ignore the NT at all. I just said for the sake of argument I was wanting to just stick to Genesis. That would be like saying because I go to metaphysics for arguments on morality, that I think what the Bible says about morality is useless.

You lost me. As far as I can see, the NT has a huge bearing on this discussion. If you say you are sticking to Genesis, then you are indeed saying you are ignoring what is in the NT.

It seems to me that you have an argument against the card if you focus on Genesis only, where as if you consider the whole of the Bible, the "meme" on the card looks pretty accurate. If, for the sake of argument, we ignore the big message of Christianity, and in effect pretend it is Judaism, then you can object to what the card said.

On the other hand, if we consider what modern Christianity actually says...

For someone who says I ignored the NT...

That someone being you, right? "I answered I was sticking with just Genesis itself. You don't find the resurrection in Genesis."

For someone who says I ignored the NT, why this constant ignorance of all the good things Christianity says about us and only listing the problem?

Because this is about what Christianity has to say about the individual, and Christianity says every individual is sinful and fallen, and deserves to go to hell.

[Abigail]

Right. God told Adam and not Eve. Because Adam, being the man, is in charge. Eve was merely a woman; why would God talk to her?

God told Adam before He made Eve.