More From The Religion Of Peace!

[Adrift]

3. If you're saying that providing for your family (as mentioned in I Timothy 5:8) does not include defending them from physical violence, then I will simply have to strongly disagree. That strikes me as plainly absurd. The conclusion of that verse ("he has denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel") is downright scary to me.

I suppose you might be able to squeeze some sort of physical security message out of this passage, but from what I can find, it seems more concerned with financial provision than anything:

Source: The Letters to Timothy and Titus by Philip H. Towner

In the Greco-Roman world, generally, the female obtained her status and social identity by virtue of being "embedded" in a male -- first her father, and then passing from his household and that "embedding" to "embedding" in her husband and his family. This was at least how things were understood in the traditional mainstream. As Malina explains, "Females are always perceived as embedded in some male unless they find themselves in the anomalous situation of being a widow or divorcee without kin." It is precisely this "anomalous situation" that Paul seeks to address, but an additional cultural trend outside the mainstream -- that of the new Roman woman already considered in 1 Tim 2:9-15 -- may make the background to this text still more "anomalous" (see below). In any case, various solutions were open to the church to ensure that widows were not dishonored, and providing church support was only one of those options. The death of a husband raised questions about the disposition of the dowry (given by the wife's family to the husband for oversight). The widow might find herself without support if the dowry, as part of the husband's property, were to pass directly to his children, if she were too old or otherwise unable to remarry (the normal recourse), or if there were neither dowry nor family to provide for her needs. In such cases, the state would provide providentia. But in Judaism and Greco-Roman society it was first the responsibility of the family to provide for its widows.

Given the sensitivity of the church to its widows, it is reasonable to assume that the church as a community would mobilize itself to meet the needs of widows who had neither private means nor family to care for them. Acts 6:1-6 reflects one such instance of community care for widows, as well as an example of the sort of complications that might arise. And later Christian writings suggest that care for widows was regarded by the church as an ever-present responsibility. We can see in 1 Tim 5:3-16 evidence not only of problems but also of measures taken to care for widows that place the text into what we know to have been the social framework of that time. Family support of widows was expected as a first line of care (5:4, 8, 16), though this responsibility was also apparently being neglected (5:8). But the passage assumes the existence of a community mechanism for the support of widows (a list or roster of eligible widows; 5:9), and suggests that some form of abuse of this mechanism had occurred. On the one hand, younger widows, quite possibly caught up in the new definition of "woman," who could have remarried were choosing a more liberated, single path, and still receiving support from the church. Not only did this add to the financial strain on the church, but their questionable behavior (subsidized by the church!) was threatening the community's reputation with those outside. On the other hand, the financial strain itself on a small church, caused by supporting increasing numbers of widows, needed to be relieved. To address these matters, Paul gives instructions to limit church support to those who prove to be "real widows."

© Copyright Original Source

Gordon Fee exegetes the passage in pretty much the same way in his commentary on 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus.

[Zymologist]

I suppose you might be able to squeeze some sort of physical security message out of this passage, but from what I can find, it seems more concerned with financial provision than anything:

Source: The Letters to Timothy and Titus by Philip H. Towner

In the Greco-Roman world, generally, the female obtained her status and social identity by virtue of being "embedded" in a male -- first her father, and then passing from his household and that "embedding" to "embedding" in her husband and his family. This was at least how things were understood in the traditional mainstream. As Malina explains, "Females are always perceived as embedded in some male unless they find themselves in the anomalous situation of being a widow or divorcee without kin." It is precisely this "anomalous situation" that Paul seeks to address, but an additional cultural trend outside the mainstream -- that of the new Roman woman already considered in 1 Tim 2:9-15 -- may make the background to this text still more "anomalous" (see below). In any case, various solutions were open to the church to ensure that widows were not dishonored, and providing church support was only one of those options. The death of a husband raised questions about the disposition of the dowry (given by the wife's family to the husband for oversight). The widow might find herself without support if the dowry, as part of the husband's property, were to pass directly to his children, if she were too old or otherwise unable to remarry (the normal recourse), or if there were neither dowry nor family to provide for her needs. In such cases, the state would provide providentia. But in Judaism and Greco-Roman society it was first the responsibility of the family to provide for its widows.

Given the sensitivity of the church to its widows, it is reasonable to assume that the church as a community would mobilize itself to meet the needs of widows who had neither private means nor family to care for them. Acts 6:1-6 reflects one such instance of community care for widows, as well as an example of the sort of complications that might arise. And later Christian writings suggest that care for widows was regarded by the church as an ever-present responsibility. We can see in 1 Tim 5:3-16 evidence not only of problems but also of measures taken to care for widows that place the text into what we know to have been the social framework of that time. Family support of widows was expected as a first line of care (5:4, 8, 16), though this responsibility was also apparently being neglected (5:8). But the passage assumes the existence of a community mechanism for the support of widows (a list or roster of eligible widows; 5:9), and suggests that some form of abuse of this mechanism had occurred. On the one hand, younger widows, quite possibly caught up in the new definition of "woman," who could have remarried were choosing a more liberated, single path, and still receiving support from the church. Not only did this add to the financial strain on the church, but their questionable behavior (subsidized by the church!) was threatening the community's reputation with those outside. On the other hand, the financial strain itself on a small church, caused by supporting increasing numbers of widows, needed to be relieved. To address these matters, Paul gives instructions to limit church support to those who prove to be "real widows."

© Copyright Original Source

Gordon Fee exegetes the passage in pretty much the same way in his commentary on 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus.

So you don't think that providing for one's family includes protecting them from physical harm? So if I provide financially for my family, but allow them to be killed through my inaction, I have fulfilled the command of this verse?

Again, the conclusion given by the verse is very strong, and I can't think of anything similar elsewhere in the Bible (i.e., if you fail at this you have denied the faith). Now that I have a family that I am responsible for, that verse is a very potent reminder to me of my responsibility. I have incredible difficulty with the idea that God would want me to provide food for my family, but then to just let them die if they were attacked.

Btw, I'm not denying the verse is speaking of financial responsibility. Obviously providing for your family includes that. Edit: it just seems clear to me that providing for your family includes more than that also.

[Cow Poke]

To (1), torture was indeed defined as criminal violence or threat of violence in pursuit of a political goal.

I think you added that part in bold. Can you show where some legitimate source actually defines torture that way?

ETA:

Source: Dictionary.com

Noun
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.
Verb
6. to subject to torture.
7. to afflict with severe pain of body or mind: My back is torturing me.
8. to force or extort by torture: We'll torture the truth from his lips!
9. to twist, force, or bring into some unnatural position or form: trees tortured by storms.
10. to distort or pervert (language, meaning, etc.).

© Copyright Original Source

I think you added that last part to TORTURE this into a form that you can justify as terrorism.

[Sam]

I think you added that part in bold. Can you show where some legitimate source actually defines torture that way?

ETA:

Source: Dictionary.com

Noun
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.
Verb
6. to subject to torture.
7. to afflict with severe pain of body or mind: My back is torturing me.
8. to force or extort by torture: We'll torture the truth from his lips!
9. to twist, force, or bring into some unnatural position or form: trees tortured by storms.
10. to distort or pervert (language, meaning, etc.).

© Copyright Original Source

I think you added that last part to TORTURE this into a form that you can justify as terrorism.

We already discussed this when you claimed that torture wasn't being used for a political goal, only to "gather information." The information being gathered was pursuant to a political goal. Therefore, the kind of torture we were discussing was indeed in pursuit of a political goal. Not all torture is political but the kind we were discussing is political.

[Cow Poke]

We already discussed this when you claimed that torture wasn't being used for a political goal, only to "gather information." The information being gathered was pursuant to a political goal. Therefore, the kind of torture we were discussing was indeed in pursuit of a political goal. Not all torture is political but the kind we were discussing is political.

A legitimate source, Sam, not just your opinion, please. Not that I don't trust you, but you DO have an agenda.

[Sam]

A legitimate source, Sam, not just your opinion, please. Not that I don't trust you, but you DO have an agenda.

This isn't an opinion. It's a simple logical exercise. Torture of a suspected terrorist, as we've discussed, is either interrogative or punitive. Assuming the intent is interrogative, the purpose of such information-gathering by the State is for political purposes, reportedly national security. Thus, the act of the government torturing a suspected terrorist for information is pursuant to a political goal.

This is not debatable logic.

[Cow Poke]

This isn't an opinion. It's a simple logical exercise.

mental gymnastics.

Torture of a suspected terrorist, as we've discussed, is either interrogative or punitive.

So far, so good. That actually meets with the more widely recognized definitions!

Assuming the intent is interrogative, the purpose of such information-gathering by the State is for political purposes, reportedly national security. Thus, the act of the government torturing a suspected terrorist for information is pursuant to a political goal.

This is not debatable logic.

No, it's the Samification of a word. But that's OK - I really don't care.

Samify on!

[Sam]

mental gymnastics.



So far, so good. That actually meets with the more widely recognized definitions!



No, it's the Samification of a word. But that's OK - I really don't care.

Samify on!

If the goal isn't political, what is it? How would you categorize that information-getting?

[Adrift]

So you don't think that providing for one's family includes protecting them from physical harm? So if I provide financially for my family, but allow them to be killed through my inaction, I have fulfilled the command of this verse?

According to the commentary I cited, it appears the passage specifically has in mind financial provision. Like I said, maybe you can squeeze a physical security message out of it, but that doesn't seem to be the context of the passage.

Again, the conclusion given by the verse is very strong, and I can't think of anything similar elsewhere in the Bible (i.e., if you fail at this you have denied the faith). Now that I have a family that I am responsible for, that verse is a very potent reminder to me of my responsibility. I have incredible difficulty with the idea that God would want me to provide food for my family, but then to just let them die if they were attacked.

Btw, I'm not denying the verse is speaking of financial responsibility. Obviously providing for your family includes that. Edit: it just seems clear to me that providing for your family includes more than that also.

I think its probably unlikely that God would desire you to forgo defending your family against a physical threat as well. It simply doesn't appear that this passage is invoking a physical security message. The focus seems to be primarily a financial one as far as I can tell.

[seer]

If the goal isn't political, what is it? How would you categorize that information-getting?

Life saving goal?

[Cow Poke]

If the goal isn't political, what is it? How would you categorize that information-getting?

It's OK, Sam - the Mormons do the same thing.

[Sam]

It's OK, Sam - the Mormons do the same thing.

If you can't answer simple questions, your objections don't carry any weight.

[Cow Poke]

If you can't answer simple questions, your objections don't carry any weight.

I can answer the question, Sam, but it won't matter - your mind is made up.

And, to prove both points, I'll go ahead and answer the question!

The "information getting" could simply be to find the location of a kidnapped soldier, or the time and location of a next attack. Tactical stuff.

Proceed with your Samification.

[Sam]

I can answer the question, Sam, but it won't matter - your mind is made up.

And, to prove both points, I'll go ahead and answer the question!

The "information getting" could simply be to find the location of a kidnapped soldier, or the time and location of a next attack. Tactical stuff.

Proceed with your Samification.

Both of those fall under "national security" and both deal with political matters. "Military tactics" is a subset of "political goal".

[Cow Poke]

I can answer the question, Sam, but it won't matter - your mind is made up.

Both of those fall under "national security" and both deal with political matters. "Military tactics" is a subset of "political goal".

You'd make a great Mormon!