Sidebar discussion between Paprika and robrecht

[robrecht]

Short answer: eisegetical gymnastics to insert one contemporary ideology is good practice for insertions of other ideologies.

Most people who support women's ordination don't do so because Scripture allows it, but because in this modern day and age we have been Enlightened by egalitarianism. The motivation is not primarily to follow Scripture but to harmonise Scripture with the contemporary cultural norms; so as with feminism, also LGBT normalisation.

I think the question to be asked here is whether we view the biblical texts as written by people, inspired but also living within historical and cultural contexts that also contributed to their views or as a pristine inhuman text that was delivered by angels on tablets of gold. If the former, which is my view, I think it would safe to say that there are ways in which ancient cultures are superior to ours as well as other ways in which our culture is better (eg, opposition to slavery). I see the greater leadership role that women exercise in today's world as a positive evolution, including in the church.

[Paprika]

I think the question to be asked here is whether we view the biblical texts as written by people, inspired but also living within historical and cultural contexts that also contributed to their views or as a pristine inhuman text that was delivered by angels on tablets of gold. If the former, which is my view, I think it would safe to say that there are ways in which ancient cultures are superior to ours as well as other ways in which our culture is better (eg, opposition to slavery). I see the greater leadership role that women exercise in today's world as a positive evolution, including in the church.

This is a typical example of how the question is begged that the relevant Scriptures are culturally limited, because (I repeat myself) in this modern day and age we have been Enlightened by egalitarianism.

From the premise that it is possible that the relevant Scriptures are culturally limited (which is obvious and undeniable), egalitarians generally jump to the premise that they are culturally limited. It is, I must admit, a clever sleight of hand.

[robrecht]

This is a typical example of how the question is begged that the relevant Scriptures are culturally limited, because (I repeat myself) in this modern day and age we have been Enlightened by egalitarianism.

From the premise that it is possible that the relevant Scriptures are culturally limited (which is obvious and undeniable), egalitarians generally jump to the premise that they are culturally limited. It is, I must admit, a clever sleight of hand.

I don't think it is question begging or sleight of hand, but rather a different perspective on how we understand and approach scripture and modern culture.

[Paprika]

I don't think it is question begging or sleight of hand, but rather a different perspective on how we understand and approach scripture and modern culture.

A perspective that, as far as I can see, is merely asserted and has no justification.

[KingsGambit]

A perspective that, as far as I can see, is merely asserted and has no justification.

Have you ever read William Webb's Slaves, Women and Homosexuals? From a fairly conservative standpoint, Webb detects a cultural trajectory over time for changing attitudes toward slavery within the Bible and explores to what extent this is true for the rights of women. (He also engages homosexuality as a test case and concludes there is no such trajectory for homosexuality).

The book came to my attention when I saw Craig Blomberg (complementarian) frequently citing it in one of his own books.

[Paprika]

Have you ever read William Webb's Slaves, Women and Homosexuals? From a fairly conservative standpoint, Webb detects a cultural trajectory over time for changing attitudes toward slavery within the Bible and explores to what extent this is true for the rights of women. (He also engages homosexuality as a test case and concludes there is no such trajectory for homosexuality).

I have not read the book.

[robrecht]

A perspective that, as far as I can see, is merely asserted and has no justification.

I think these kinds of perspectives are based on individual and communal experience and reflection and thus both subjective and intersubjective. Do you have some other kind of justification for your perspectives on the bible and aspects of modern culture?

[Paprika]

I think these kinds of perspectives are based on individual and communal experience and reflection and thus both subjective and intersubjective.

But if you do not provide a reason for your view, there is hardly any reason to be convinced. In addition, one could also make the same argument for any deviation from Scripture: it is limited to that culture, we now know better etc.

Do you have some other kind of justification for your perspectives on the bible and aspects of modern culture?

Truth doesn't change.

[robrecht]

But if you do not provide a reason for your view, there is hardly any reason to be convinced. In addition, one could also make the same argument for any deviation from Scripture: it is limited to that culture, we now know better etc.

Truth doesn't change.

Yes, of course, all sorts of arguments can and are made, pro and con, but very few people are ever genuinely convinced to abandon their own personal and communal experience and foundational perspectives by such arguments. Truth does not change but our understanding and acceptance of truths deepen and evolve over time.

[Paprika]

Yes, of course, all sorts of arguments can and are made, pro and con, but very few people are ever genuinely convinced to abandon their own personal and communal experience and foundational perspectives by such arguments.

I quite agree, not least because most egalitarians don't reach their view from a careful reading of Scripture but by simply following the herd.

Truth does not change but our understanding and acceptance of truths deepen and evolve over time.

Not at all, understanding tends to decrease as the church is slowly corrupted.

[robrecht]

I quite agree, not least because most egalitarians don't reach their view from a careful reading of Scripture but by simply following the herd.

One could certainly say the same of those who prefer a more literal and unchanging practice and reading of scripture and tradition.

Not at all, understanding tends to decrease as the church is slowly corrupted.

I think both evolution and devolution occur in a variety of ways. A claim that only one of these occurs seems like a fundamental perspective and presumption that cannot be well supported by argument or evidence.

[Paprika]

One could certainly say the same of those who prefer a more literal and unchanging practice and reading of scripture and tradition.

Quite, that is the way of things. They will, of course, be less vulnerable to the tossing and turning of every wind.

I think both evolution and devolution occur in a variety of ways. A claim that only one of these occurs seems like a fundamental perspective and presumption that cannot be well supported by argument or evidence.

Indeed, hence such a statement as yours should be met with the equal opposite.

[robrecht]

Quite, that is the way of things. They will, of course, be less vulnerable to the tossing and turning of every wind.

Including the wind of the Spirit of God.

Indeed, hence such a statement as yours should be met with the equal opposite.

But I did not claim that only one of these occurs. I only spoke of one, because only one was pertinent to your comment, but I did not limit it. So do you now agree that our understanding and acceptance of truths deepen and evolve over time?

[Paprika]

Including the wind of the Spirit of God.

The winds of false doctrine buffet without, the Spirit breathes within.

But I did not claim that only one of these occurs. I only spoke of one, because only one was pertinent to your comment, but I did not limit it.

As I've said, mine is the equal opposite.

[robrecht]

The winds of false doctrine buffet without, the Spirit breathes within.

The Spirit blows wherever it will, within and without. Regarless, we still must be open and attentive when the Spirit might be calling for change. Repentance is change.

As I've said, mine is the equal opposite.

But do you now agree with me that our understanding and acceptance of truths deepen and evolve over time?