Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Genesis and Antis

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
    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.
    It just means man has the place of leadership. Again, this assumes that because one leads, the other is automatically less.

    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?
    No. Eve wasn't around then. The man was just conveying the information he had been given.

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



    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.
    Yes. The employer has the responsibility. He is the one who has the most to lose, has to work the hardest, and has to be willing to sacrifice the most. That's to be the way a man is with the woman. He is to do the most for her.

    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.
    Except for in the cases Jesus spoke about with adultery, and yes, there are some who say that is more than just sex outside of marriage. It is any unfaithfulness to the covenant.

    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.
    Only one people can be chosen to bring about the Messiah. That group again bears the greater responsibility.

    Well I would assume the card was referring to modern Christianity.
    So would I, which is part of the problem.

    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.
    Of course it does, but that's another issue. The whole science vs. religion thing is really a huge myth that is accepted in fundamentalist circles everywhere.

    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.
    And if that was all Christianity said, you might have a case. I could point out numerous negatives from science on the right side of the card, but that would not be a fair case. It's easy to make any opponent look bad if all you do is state their negatives. Everyone of us on this site has many negative traits. All of us would look very bad if we were just described by our negatives to the exclusion of our positives.

    Oh. It's also denying the question of how much of it all is true.

    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...
    Oh the NT could handle more, but I wanted to go back to our origins and see what happened in the Garden and see how humanity is described and ask if we're really put in that bad a light. We're not.

    That someone being you, right? "I answered I was sticking with just Genesis itself. You don't find the resurrection in Genesis."
    See above for why I used Genesis. It's not that hard.

    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.
    Which doesn't answer the question. Why ignore the good things? Would I represent science well by only giving the negatives?

    Comment


    • Hi AP

      We seem to be reaching a natural conclusion (as much as these things every do), so I will finish off here. Thanks for the discussion.
      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      It just means man has the place of leadership. Again, this assumes that because one leads, the other is automatically less.
      While you seem to assume that leader and follower can be completely equal. This seems to be the fundamental difference in our positions; I see a leader as necessarily higher in rank than the led.
      No. Eve wasn't around then. The man was just conveying the information he had been given.
      That is a good point. But now you have the issue that Adam was created first. I just read "Book Plunge: The Lost World of Adam and Eve" (http://deeperwaters.ddns.net/?p=8428; nice layout by the way), it is interesting that in the main text "Adam" appears 20 times, "Eve" only six. Why is that? Eve is just not as important in the account. She is created later, she gets commandments second hand via Adam, Adam is the archetype, Adam is the one Paul relates back to Jesus, not Eve.
      Adam is the leader, the one in charge, the one with the responsibility. Eve is the one who obeys the leaders.
      Exactly.
      Yes. The employer has the responsibility. He is the one who has the most to lose, has to work the hardest, and has to be willing to sacrifice the most. That's to be the way a man is with the woman. He is to do the most for her.
      Again we agree entirely.

      As I said, the difference here is that I think the leader is therefore of higher rank.
      Except for in the cases Jesus spoke about with adultery, and yes, there are some who say that is more than just sex outside of marriage. It is any unfaithfulness to the covenant.
      Ah, so when you said "a valid reason", you meant specifically adultery? I think this (together with Paul skipping that bit) is what confused me.
      Of course it does, but that's another issue. The whole science vs. religion thing is really a huge myth that is accepted in fundamentalist circles everywhere.
      Not just accepted but promoted.

      Sometimes I wonder if they need a bugbear to demonise, and science, disagreeing with a very specific literal interpretation, is the target they have chosen. It seems ultimately self-defeating, but I wonder if the Ken Hams of the world care?
      And if that was all Christianity said, you might have a case. I could point out numerous negatives from science on the right side of the card, but that would not be a fair case. It's easy to make any opponent look bad if all you do is state their negatives. Everyone of us on this site has many negative traits. All of us would look very bad if we were just described by our negatives to the exclusion of our positives.
      It is not as simple as that. The card is focusing on what Christianity says about the individual. If you were to focus on a specific aspect of an opponent that had some relevance (such as lack of relevant qualifications) then that would be quite different to just listing the bad qualities of your opponent.
      Oh. It's also denying the question of how much of it all is true.
      Agreed, and others on this thread have also pointed this out, but that is a whole different argument, and not what you stated on your blog.
      Oh the NT could handle more, but I wanted to go back to our origins and see what happened in the Garden and see how humanity is described and ask if we're really put in that bad a light. We're not.
      Sure, if you look only at Genesis, we look pretty good. But if we look at the whole Bible, or at what Christianity traditionally promotes, we are sinful, fallen and deserve to go to hell.
      Which doesn't answer the question. Why ignore the good things? Would I represent science well by only giving the negatives?
      Why does Christianity ignore the good things about us? Or at least play them down so much? A big message from Christianity is that we all deserve hell, and are not worth saving. What good things do you want have that counter-balance that?

      Why does God ignore or play down all the good things about us? As far as he is concerned, we all deserve to go to hell. Apparently he seems nothing sufficiently good in us to counterbalance the evil.
      My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

      Comment


      • Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
        Hi AP

        We seem to be reaching a natural conclusion (as much as these things every do), so I will finish off here. Thanks for the discussion.
        Yes. I like a discussion, but it must end at some point.

        While you seem to assume that leader and follower can be completely equal. This seems to be the fundamental difference in our positions; I see a leader as necessarily higher in rank than the led.
        And I do not equate rank with ontology. My statements have been all about ontology.

        That is a good point. But now you have the issue that Adam was created first. I just read "Book Plunge: The Lost World of Adam and Eve" (http://deeperwaters.ddns.net/?p=8428; nice layout by the way), it is interesting that in the main text "Adam" appears 20 times, "Eve" only six. Why is that? Eve is just not as important in the account. She is created later, she gets commandments second hand via Adam, Adam is the archetype, Adam is the one Paul relates back to Jesus, not Eve.
        Adam also can at times refer to humanity in general, but Adam is the priest in the account and he does indeed have the main role. He's also in the account longer. Thanks for the comment on the layout. We are working on it now.

        Exactly.



        As I said, the difference here is that I think the leader is therefore of higher rank.
        Rank has never been an issue for me. Ontology has been. I do not think having everyone of equal rank is even possible. Even when three friends get together, one of them will inevitably take a more leadership position. My personality is really dominant for instance, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. When I got together with friends in Charlotte, people would look to me to see what we'd do next. I co-lead a men's group at my church, but the attendees there would really say I'm the one who determines if we have to cancel a meeting or anything. I facilitate the discussion and determine when we wrap up.

        Ah, so when you said "a valid reason", you meant specifically adultery? I think this (together with Paul skipping that bit) is what confused me.
        Adultery is one, but I am not convinced it is limited to that.

        Not just accepted but promoted.

        Sometimes I wonder if they need a bugbear to demonise, and science, disagreeing with a very specific literal interpretation, is the target they have chosen. It seems ultimately self-defeating, but I wonder if the Ken Hams of the world care?
        You're making one mistake. Yes. There are Ken Hams, but there are fundamentalists on the other side. There are atheists who think that science is at war with Christianity and if you go with Jesus, you have to go against science. Scientism is a reigning philosophy. Both sides have their fools.

        It is not as simple as that. The card is focusing on what Christianity says about the individual. If you were to focus on a specific aspect of an opponent that had some relevance (such as lack of relevant qualifications) then that would be quite different to just listing the bad qualities of your opponent.
        And Christianity says some very good things about the individual. When Allie is in a slump, I remind her of what Christianity says about her.

        Agreed, and others on this thread have also pointed this out, but that is a whole different argument, and not what you stated on your blog.
        Sure, but the truth question is the most important one.

        Sure, if you look only at Genesis, we look pretty good. But if we look at the whole Bible, or at what Christianity traditionally promotes, we are sinful, fallen and deserve to go to hell.
        And in the image of God, loved by God, desired by God, worth the death of the Son of God, meant to be new creations, meant to rule in the heavenlies, meant to stand in the glorious presence of God, children of the King, etc.

        Why does Christianity ignore the good things about us? Or at least play them down so much? A big message from Christianity is that we all deserve hell, and are not worth saving. What good things do you want have that counter-balance that?
        See above.

        Why does God ignore or play down all the good things about us? As far as he is concerned, we all deserve to go to hell. Apparently he seems nothing sufficiently good in us to counterbalance the evil.
        But there is good in all of us. In fact, as a Thomist, I think there are things about the devil himself that are good. He has intelligence, existence, and free-will. These are good things. He's just morally corrupt and uses them wrongly. Total evil cannot exist. It has to have some good that it parasites off of. A good read on this could be something like Kreeft's "The God Who Loves You."

        Comment

        Related Threads

        Collapse

        Topics Statistics Last Post
        Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-15-2024, 10:19 PM
        14 responses
        75 views
        1 like
        Last Post rogue06
        by rogue06
         
        Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-13-2024, 10:13 PM
        6 responses
        61 views
        0 likes
        Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
        Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-12-2024, 09:36 PM
        1 response
        23 views
        0 likes
        Last Post rogue06
        by rogue06
         
        Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-11-2024, 10:19 PM
        0 responses
        22 views
        2 likes
        Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
        Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
        7 responses
        57 views
        0 likes
        Last Post whag
        by whag
         
        Working...
        X