|
quote:They’re not converting people anymore (check the stats). They are no longer winning souls. They’re still selling a cure to a disease which people of this generation don’t even believe they have. But they’ve got to be about something. They have to matter to the world somehow. So now they’re manufacturing conflicts in order to have something to rally behind. It makes them feel more in touch with the early Church’s tumultuous beginnings. But it takes a lot of smoke and mirrors to make it look like the people with the most privilege in a region (like Christians in the Bible Belt) are being mistreated by the people who run things. Where I live, all the judges, jurors, and attorneys are devout Christians. So are the teachers, the principal, and almost all of the parents. There's a lot of people my age that are no longer attending church because of those reasons. Which is sad in a lot of ways because a good pastor can be very helpful in terms of helping out with one's spiritual and moral conflicts in life. I think when crazy evangelicals talk about this being a "LOST GENERATION!!!" they're right in a sense, but it's not because of Sex, Drugs and Rock N'Roll. Rather it's a good portion of the Church that has truly failed to reach them as human beings. It's on them. They are the ones that have failed the faith. People can feel very much alone and like we're in a cold world sometimes. It doesn't exactly help when you have the bible thumpers just throw out their dumb bit of logic at people, and really don't offer any sort of legitimate solution to the problem. FuzzySkinner fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Jul 22, 2015 |
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 01:58 |
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I believe this post is guilty of existing. People that believe in multiple gods are theists because they believe in gods. People that believe in river gods are theists because they believe in gods. Some eastern religions believe in gods, ie. Hinduism and much of Shintoism, so they are theists. Some, like different sects of Buddhism don't, so it is a case by case basis, and sometimes an individual basis in that. Hell, some Christians are atheists, and only go to church for social reasons. As a personal example, I'm atheist because I don't believe in any gods. I'm gnostic about certain gods like the Christian God, who I believe we have the knowledge to know does not exist in the format in which he is presented, but agnostic about other, more vague notions of gods that we don't have any evidence for and can't be so easily disproven. That's not an "either/or side" it's just a definition of belief as using the words as presented. It's completely succinct and avoids any confusion or other interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Xae posted:Belief is not a court of law. You're attempting to force a binary answer to a non-binary question. So I'll reply with a proper binary answer: NULL. No poo poo belief isn't a court of law, that's why it's an analogy. And did you even read my post? I don't think you did because I specifically explained how the "binary choices" include a large range of choices. And how am I denying the existence of a group who disagrees with my viewpoint when I'm only speaking about using clearer terms? Do you even know what my beliefs even are? Please, I'm being serious, tell me what you believe my beliefs to be and why you think that. Guavanaut posted:I believe this post is guilty of existing. Zing! quote:You're making the argument that somebody is an atheist unless they specifically believe (presumably beyond reasonable doubt, being as you invoked the courtroom standard of evidence) in God. Does it have to be the one big God? Can you believe in only a limited fetish or river god or something, but believe in them fully or honestly? What about the Eastern religions that have a significantly different conception of what it is that is actually believed in? Yes, people who do not believe in a god concept are atheists, that seems pretty obvious. No, theism does not require belief in one big God. Yes you can believe in a limited fetish or river God or something and believe in it fully and honestly and still be a theist. Yes eastern God-concepts are theistic but those religions without God-concepts are atheistic. quote:You're lumping a lot of different people into the atheist tent here by not having them be active believers, which is similar (but less exclusive) to the Evangelical grouping of "people that have a personal belief that the Lord Jesus Christ died for their sins" and "heretics". The only people I'm limping into the atheist tent are people who don't believe in a God concept. That's it. Maybe you have me confused with another poster because I'm not saying the things you're accusing me of. I'm not saying "you aren't agnostic, you're really atheist instead!" I'm saying "you're agnostic if you don't claim to have knowledge, and atheist as well if you don't believe". Two separate questions, two separate answers. If you're going to make strawmen out of what I'm saying at least put in a little effort to make them look at least superficially like what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I have the image saved on my computer, I don't remember where I got it. What specific issues do you take with it, or is vague allusions to the spooky "New Atheist movement" all you have? For one thing, it's got a great big asterisk on it and I want to know what it refers to. reverse GIS just gives me a bunch of rabid atheist blogs without a root source. More generally, this category system is (for reasons others have articulated), something developed by, I wanna say Dawkins- one of the four, anyways. Its purpose is to collapse several distinctions so that individuals holding the atheist position have the freedom to shift certainty statements and definition classes, while keeping the burden of proof on an externally defined Opposition. quote:More parrotting Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Jul 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:For one thing, it's got a great big asterisk on it and I want to know what it refers to. The asterisk is for a clarification that "Gnostic Atheist" is what is commonly referred to as Hard or Strong-Atheism, if I remember correctly. But do you have any actual criticisms beyond "There's a scary piece of punctuation and GIS sent me to blogs I didn't like"? Like with the actual definitions themselves and how I am using them in this thread, maybe? quote:More generally, this category system is (for reasons others have articulated), something developed by, I wanna say Dawkins- one of the four, anyways. I don't give a poo poo. I'm not a "new atheist" or whatever because I don't follow these things so accusing me of being one is really more baffling to me. Although it's really funny that multiple people have accused me of trying not to dismiss people or shove them into different categories while doing that themselves. quote:Its purpose is to collapse several distinctions so that individuals holding the atheist position have the freedom to shift certainty statements and definition classes, while keeping the burden of proof on an externally defined Opposition. Can you show me where I've done this? quote:Right, so it's pretty clear that the New Atheist Framing Debate is going to be what this thread is about for a while. I'll be back when it's over. Oh, never mind, you're just making GBS threads and running. Well that's disappointing and I really wish you wouldn't. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Jul 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
90% of the people I know who are agnostics and not atheists are basically atheists but don't want to use that word because of association with internet fedoralord types
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:No poo poo belief isn't a court of law, that's why it's an analogy. And did you even read my post? I don't think you did because I specifically explained how the "binary choices" include a large range of choices. And how am I denying the existence of a group who disagrees with my viewpoint when I'm only speaking about using clearer terms? Do you even know what my beliefs even are? Please, I'm being serious, tell me what you believe my beliefs to be and why you think that. Your entire posting spree is an attempt to use word games and semantics to deny the existence of a group of people. Here, I'll demonstrate how stupid your line of questioning is: Is this a picture of a Puppy or a Kitty? http://imgur.com/gallery/ZvqkvyF Because animal is either a puppy or a kitty. I'm just using clearer terms! icantfindaname posted:90% of the people I know who are agnostics and not atheists are basically atheists but don't want to use that word because of association with internet fedoralord types Xae fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Jul 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Xae posted:I know your belief is that an entire category of "Belief" doesn't exist because you can't stop sucking off Dawkins. I have 10 total posts in this thread, 1 of which is a double post, and only 5 of which pertain to this topic, only two more than you. If that's a spree then ok? Again, do you have me confused with someone else? And you fundamentally don't understand the question I'm asking because "puppy" and "kitty" are not direct negations in the way that "belief" and "non-belief" are. Your example is actually two questions, "is it a puppy" and "is it a kitty" put into a single sentence. To be accurate the options would be "Is this a picture of a puppy or not a puppy?" in which case I would answer "not a puppy".
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Most Agnostics I know have a mystical belief system that they just don't engage or talk about for lack of trusted spiritual authorities, making them basically "soft" deists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:For one thing, it's got a great big asterisk on it and I want to know what it refers to. reverse GIS just gives me a bunch of rabid atheist blogs without a root source. More generally, this category system is (for reasons others have articulated), something developed by, I wanna say Dawkins- one of the four, anyways. Its purpose is to collapse several distinctions so that individuals holding the atheist position have the freedom to shift certainty statements and definition classes, while keeping the burden of proof on an externally defined Opposition. If anything, the "framing" only happened when atheists were given voices and allowed to frame the debate. It's essentially the reverse of what you're saying. Religious people, with the majority voice, defined atheism as what they wanted so that they could easily disprove it. This FINALLY ties back into the thread, because it's generally churches, and fundamentalist churches, that spread this type of definition, and to their followers, which then spread it into popular language. What you're defining as "new atheists" are more like, "the average atheists now given a voice thanks to the Internet that can ACTUALLY define what they believe as opposed to have others do it for them." There is a verse in the Bible that says, and I paraphrase, "the fool says there is no God." Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christians use that verse to define all atheists, and then say "the Devil uses this track as well to get people on his side." They then push/argue against this position whenever brought up in popular culture, media so that it becomes the one true definition of a wide set of beliefs. What many modern atheists have done, now that they have a platform, is re-frame it as, "no, most atheists do not believe there is no God, and have a wide variance of beliefs." People jumped on the "agnostic" label simultaneously, even though their views are pretty much identical to people that label themselves atheists, because the Bible has no direct counter for this, and the church hasn't really framed it widely - they just come off as people that can possibly be saved as well. It's not about the atheist shifting positions, it's about the religious not being able to make up strawman definitions that they use to suit their needs of, again, stifling thought among their believers. If they say "all these people trying to prove you wrong are saying there can't be any God," then it becomes something much easier to counter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
This was a pretty good thread about American Evangelical Christianity and all of it's intricacies for a while.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:This was a pretty good thread about American Evangelical Christianity and all of it's intricacies for a while. I'm gonna link some good Fred Clark posts if anyone wants to read about that subject instead of agnosticism/atheism. Baptist white supremacy and Luther’s anti-Semitism(one of the latter in a long series of articles) It’s not gullibility; it’s malice. (on the most recent manufactured Planned Parenthood scandal) ‘Ceremonial law’ folklore is no substitute for an actual hermeneutic(for all your "the shellfish thing in Leviticus and the gay thing are totally different!" needs) The Duggar Family Scandal: A Reader Back to the ’80s, because we never left them (part 1) (part 2) (the moral panic over D&D) Kick a gay, keep your platform: Tribal gatekeepers of white evangelicalism demand their tribute be paid
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
One of the most interesting developments in American Protestantism is the current fight over "Watch Dog Blogging." This goes by a bunch of other names ("Discernment blogging," referencing what one of the posters in this thread talked about earlier - The gift of Discernment is essentially "seeing through bullshit" so a bunch of Christian watch-doggers identify as "Discernment bloggers") but "Watch Dog" is probably a good example of the type of conflict coming out of this: The "FBC Jax Watchdog" was a blog started by an anonymous member of the First Baptist Church of Jacksonville. FBC Jax is a megachurch, and in 2006 they were given a new pastor, Marc Brunson, who raised some suspicion with members of the congregation over the use of church funds and the kicking out of old members of the congregation. Tom Rich, a member of the church, wrote an anonymous letter raising his concerns to the pastor, and in response the pastor demanded that whoever wrote the letter identify themselves. After it was clear that the purpose of this was for retaliation, Tom Rich started a blog to write about these problems. The pastor had one of the members of the church, who was a policeman, abuse his powers to uncover the identity of the anonymous blogger. They kicked him out of the church and tried to convince his wife to divorce him. The pastor ended up making seriously weird allegations against people who had left the church in order to try to shut down the blog through lawsuits. This has played out frequently over the last few years, leading to some really amusing rulings. (Check out Josh Autry's successful defense against Ergun Caner for some sick judicial burns.  ) At a formal gathering of baptists in Georgia, they passed a resolution condemning this kind of blogging:quote:“(We) call upon bloggers to cease the critical second-guessing of these elected leaders; and be it further resolved that all Georgia Baptists respectfully request and expect that individuals who disrupt the fellowship through blogging repent and immediately cease this activity and no longer cause disharmony for the advancement of their own personal opinions and agendas.” ( )Discernment Blogging gets even more interesting when it comes to how they relate to each other. Many discernment bloggers are Calvinists and view protestants bloggers of other denominations as just as big a threat as their establishment targets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Here's some juicy quotes from the Josh Autry case. Josh Autry was a blogger who decided to debunk the story of a notorious SBC leader who falsely claimed to be an ex-Jihadist. To do this, he used clips from a video of a talk that Ergun Caner gave to marines outlining his "past" as an extremist. Caner couldn't win a lawsuit based on Autry misrepresenting him, so instead he pursued a frivolous copyright infringement claim. Autry was going to settle until Caner demanded that his wife and three children sign non-disparagement agreements.quote:F
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
So where do neo-Calvinist shitheads like Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Church fit into this wonderful tapestry? Why do they hate women so much, and why are they so loving abusive to members who aren't "in good standing"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
A lot of that is Paulism, if we're talking about the same types of stuff. Paul specifically states in his letters to the congregations that women are subordinate to men and should not teach or speak out in the congregation, and a lot of that gets absorbed into the Evangelical side. That's also tied into original sin (Eve was cursed more and directly and also made as a compliment to Adam) and how women were treated in Israel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Darko posted:A lot of that is Paulism, if we're talking about the same types of stuff. Paul specifically states in his letters to the congregations that women are subordinate to men and should not teach or speak out in the congregation, and a lot of that gets absorbed into the Evangelical side. That's also tied into original sin (Eve was cursed more and directly and also made as a compliment to Adam) and how women were treated in Israel. Yeah, from the letter itself (1 Timothy 2:11-15), Paul seems to be suggesting that women can't be trusted to teach in church because Eve was the one deceived by the devil, not Adam. So like, women are less trustworthy than men when discussing spiritual matters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:This was a pretty good thread about American Evangelical Christianity and all of it's intricacies for a while. Yeah sorry about that, I realised it was a touchy topic and should have left it out really. I don't quite care enough to make a new thread about it but glad to see that there's some new and interesting posts on actual Evangelical christianity. On a wider topic, does anyone know much about evangelical works abroad and co-ordination/communication with other parts of the world? I know the whole megachurch thing moved into the UK a few years back, which I'm guessing was a US importation. I'm also aware Holy Trinity Brompton (which my dad used to attend back in the 90's) and its Alpha Course have been spreading from the UK for a while now. Hell I'm living in Malaysia currently and just discovered there's a satellite church here next to my gym.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:So where do neo-Calvinist shitheads like Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Church fit into this wonderful tapestry? Why do they hate women so much, and why are they so loving abusive to members who aren't "in good standing"? The New Republic has a short article on that. Mark Driscoll and his ideological fellow travelers are really the heirs to an older culture war. The idea that society is feminized and that there is an attempt to systematically destroy maleness has been around for a while. Mark Driscoll just managed to be heavily influenced by one of the best selling religious expressions of it: A book called "Wild At Heart" that talks about how society is trying to suppress the male spirit and rewrite Jesus to encourage feminine behaviors like turning the other cheek or forgiving your enemies. It argues that the purpose of a man's life is always to seek conflict and "gain power." (This book is probably how a lot of people following in Driscoll's footsteps got into it, but not the funniest. That would be a book that came out a few years before Wild at Heart: Leon Podles "The Church Impotent," which is about the thousand year conspiracy to feminize Christianity. Included is the argument that Eucharist was an attempt by Roman female supremacists to force men to symbolically breast feed on Jesus. The book is free here if you want a peek into the kind of paranoia that spawned this sort of thing.) In the book, Eldridge argues that men should be more like secular / pagan men, who represent the last holdouts of masculinity.* One of his prime examples is William Wallace in the movie Braveheart, and so it's no coincidence that when Driscoll loses his mind and decides to start openly flaming and trolling his original church for being full of "queers" like "Jerry Falwell," he does so under the pseudonym "William Wallace II."** *Interestingly enough, one of the critiques of this book is by conservative Christians arguing that Eldridge is too open with salvation since he is constantly praising non-believers ability to practice the "image of God" - masculinity. **  This should be his complete meltdown, where you can clearly make out how much of this is taking the overall American reactionary response to feminism and desperately trying to apply it to Christianity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
So are any of them even slightly aware of the irony of Neitzschean 'Christians'?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
I should also note that for Driscoll's kind of groups, a part of the reason they are harsh on members is because their view of women applies to the church. The church is the bride of christ (feminine) and it's lead by a pastor (masculine - Driscoll viciously attacks any church with women in leadership positions) and so it's hierarchy should operate like a family. Enforcing that hierarchy is part of their reformation. That's just one of the reason church membership disputes are getting more ridiculous, though. While there are churches that are leaning towards egregious membership contracts because the new trend in megachurch operation is to hire business consulting firms for advice on how to increase membership / donations, a lot of these contracts are coming out of churches that are operating on a belief that people are spiritually obligated to their "local church" (the first one that they attend) and that once they attend that church, the pastor has authority over their entire religious fate, arguing that members cannot even switch churches within a denomination without their pastors permission lest they revoke their salvation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:, arguing that members cannot even switch churches within a denomination without their pastors permission lest they revoke their salvation. How does that correlate with the whole accept Jesus as your personal saviour thing? Catholic church 2, the American evangelical protestants?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Darko posted:A lot of that is Paulism, if we're talking about the same types of stuff. Paul specifically states in his letters to the congregations that women are subordinate to men and should not teach or speak out in the congregation, and a lot of that gets absorbed into the Evangelical side. That's also tied into original sin (Eve was cursed more and directly and also made as a compliment to Adam) and how women were treated in Israel. I was under the impression that was more for what was going on at that particular time. You had temple prostitutes who were converting and trying to mix their previous religion with their new one i.e. interrupting with babbling prophecy and what not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
I think Paul just really hated women, probably. "Middle Eastern religious zealot has lovely views on women" is not much of a stretch statement
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
KennyTheFish posted:How does that correlate with the whole accept Jesus as your personal saviour thing? It has to do with how they define the authority of the local church and how discipline works. A lot of the time these churches view the role of the local church as affirming the faith of the believer and believe that this affirmation is necessary to actually be a Christian. If you remove yourself from the local church, you aren't just removing yourself from that church, you are removing yourself from the community of believers, and therefore the faith. The interesting part is how this interacts with church discipline. There was a case very recently where a woman in TX found out that her missionary husband was a user of child pornography and decided to get her marriage annulled. The membership contract of the church said that major life decisions of members like annulment had to be decided by the elders / board of directors, and in their opinion not trying to reconcile was sinful. When she dropped out of the church and started attending another, they informed her that she wasn't allowed to leave because she was under church discipline for living in sin and therefore they would not accept her resignation. Of course, this is bullshit - the church can't force you to keep coming. But claiming someone as a member because they are under "discipline" seems to be a way to encourage some pretty bad interactions with them. Here is a quote from an article from 9Marks, where Mark Driscoll used to also write. quote:
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I think Paul just really hated women, probably. "Middle Eastern religious zealot has lovely views on women" is not much of a stretch statement Why do you think that? I mean really? I've looked into the issue and there was an problem, at the time, of many people from other belief systems converting and trying to bring in other religious elements. And the church in question, Corinth, was having an issue with some women being loud in assemblies because that was expected/encouraged at other god's temples.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
That seems like a really bullshit convenient way to handwave away the blatant surface-level misogyny, kind of similar to the people who argue the eye of the needle bit is a contorted metaphor and really means that rich people are totally welcome into heaven. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar dude, and sometimes "those loving sluts should shut up and learn their place" is just misogyny, no matter how much you want there to be some convoluted way to explain it away
icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Jul 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:I was under the impression that was more for what was going on at that particular time. You had temple prostitutes who were converting and trying to mix their previous religion with their new one i.e. interrupting with babbling prophecy and what not. Evengelical comes from various mixings of Protestant understandings of scripture and tradition, so it's less important as to what the actual context is as compared to how they interpret the words. Evangelical sects as well as some Protestants and offshoots like Jehovah's Witnesses all have bans on what women can do in the church based mainly on Paul's writing and various interpretations of it. It goes as far as women having to wear a head covering if they pray around their male children because of the headship of a man over a woman.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:That seems like a really bullshit convenient way to handwave away the blatant surface-level misogyny, kind of similar to the people who argue the eye of the needle bit is a contorted metaphor and really means that rich people are totally welcome into heaven. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar dude, and sometimes "those loving sluts should shut up and learn their place" is just misogyny, no matter how much you want there to be some convoluted way to explain it away My bad. Thought this was a discussion where I would post an idea and then you would add some more to the idea, or put forward more of an idea than: Paul just hated women, lol. Darko posted:Evengelical comes from various mixings of Protestant understandings of scripture and tradition, so it's less important as to what the actual context is as compared to how they interpret the words. Evangelical sects as well as some Protestants and offshoots like Jehovah's Witnesses all have bans on what women can do in the church based mainly on Paul's writing and various interpretations of it. It goes as far as women having to wear a head covering if they pray around their male children because of the headship of a man over a woman. This is interesting. Do you think that some protestant denominations have tradition in the same sense as the roman catholic church?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Why do you think that? I mean really? I've looked into the issue and there was an problem, at the time, of many people from other belief systems converting and trying to bring in other religious elements. And the church in question, Corinth, was having an issue with some women being loud in assemblies because that was expected/encouraged at other god's temples. Why do you think Paul had a problem with women? He was just putting those uppity Corinthian dames back in their place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
Well the text says X, but this contrived, bullshit explanation means it could theoretically mean Y instead, so let's just pretend it says Y and forget about X okay? Am I talking to an evangelical right now?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:I was under the impression that was more for what was going on at that particular time. You had temple prostitutes who were converting and trying to mix their previous religion with their new one i.e. interrupting with babbling prophecy and what not. spacetoaster posted:Why do you think that? I mean really? I've looked into the issue and there was an problem, at the time, of many people from other belief systems converting and trying to bring in other religious elements. And the church in question, Corinth, was having an issue with some women being loud in assemblies because that was expected/encouraged at other god's temples. How do either of these things make what Paul says somehow non-misogynistic? I have no problem believing your claims are true, but they don't somehow excuse Paul for being a lovely rear end in a top hat to all women.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:This is interesting. Do you think that some protestant denominations have tradition in the same sense as the roman catholic church? Yes, it's just not labeled as such or expressed somewhat differently at times. Choirs, testimony, healing, tongue speaking are just a few examples of things that become required parts of worship that were just presented as one-off things in the Bible (ie. the Holy Ghost giving the disciples the ability to speak in multiple languages to spread the Word to different lands becoming a weekly gibberish session that truly blessed people experience while at church). This is really no different than writ-law passed down from saints; it's just semantics, really.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:My bad. Thought this was a discussion where I would post an idea and then you would add some more to the idea, or put forward more of an idea than: Paul just hated women, lol. I, too, would like to be an apologist for the blatant misogyny and homophobia of thousands of years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 10:35
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:I was under the impression that was more for what was going on at that particular time. You had temple prostitutes who were converting and trying to mix their previous religion with their new one i.e. interrupting with babbling prophecy and what not. Actually, fun fact: sacred prostitution is probably a myth, which has a lot of bearing on even liberal Evangelical readings of Paul.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 11:01
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:How do either of these things make what Paul says somehow non-misogynistic? I have no problem believing your claims are true, but they don't somehow excuse Paul for being a lovely rear end in a top hat to all women. I didn't know my comment was a defense of misogyny. Darko posted:Yes, it's just not labeled as such or expressed somewhat differently at times. Choirs, testimony, healing, tongue speaking are just a few examples of things that become required parts of worship that were just presented as one-off things in the Bible (ie. the Holy Ghost giving the disciples the ability to speak in multiple languages to spread the Word to different lands becoming a weekly gibberish session that truly blessed people experience while at church). This is really no different than writ-law passed down from saints; it's just semantics, really. Ordinances vs Sacraments too. Baptism isn't a "requirement", but I don't see anyone forgoing it for any reason. Same with communion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:Actually, fun fact: sacred prostitution is probably a myth, which has a lot of bearing on even liberal Evangelical readings of Paul. There are more historical references to prostitution being tied to temples than just the letters in the bible. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-0424.00072/abstract
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Why do you think that? I mean really? I've looked into the issue and there was an problem, at the time, of many people from other belief systems converting and trying to bring in other religious elements. And the church in question, Corinth, was having an issue with some women being loud in assemblies because that was expected/encouraged at other god's temples. I've heard this defense too, by evangelicals who want there to be some convoluted way to get around that verse because if it were true then hey, Christianity, and therefore God, is sexist, and that clearly can't be. Look, if Paul was addressing some specific problem at one specific church then why does he A) command similar things across multiple letters, B) call out women generally rather than women who are causing these problems and C) defend this command with an example of women being inherently defective (e.g. discussing Eve in relation to Adam)? Lastly I've yet to see compelling evidence that there was this pagan holdover or some Earth Mother cult or whatever is usually described as what was really going on. It's exactly like icantfindaname said: it's the Eye of the Needle bullshit all over again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:I didn't know my comment was a defense of misogyny. Well what do you call it when you ask why someone believes some comments about how women are lesser than and to be subservient to men in all regards to be misogynistic and then provide evidence for why it isn't quite as bad as previously thought?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 01:58 |
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:It has to do with how they define the authority of the local church and how discipline works. A lot of the time these churches view the role of the local church as affirming the faith of the believer and believe that this affirmation is necessary to actually be a Christian. If you remove yourself from the local church, you aren't just removing yourself from that church, you are removing yourself from the community of believers, and therefore the faith. What the poo poo!? Does a person have any legal recourse against a particularly obnoxious church that continues to claim they are a member when the person clearly does not want to be? Say it's a crazy church that is gaining notoriety for doing really offensive poo poo and the unwanted association is causing harm. Hell, this happened to me in a much more amusing way - my grandparents converted to Mormonism decades ago, and raised their kids in it. Not hardcore, but they did some stuff. My mother doesn't raise us in it because she was kicked out of seminary after some pointed questions regarding the "proper roles of women". Fast forward to when I'm of a similar age, around 7th grade. Mormon kids I know come up to me one day and ask, "why weren't you in seminary today, your name was called for attendance!". I obviously had no idea what they were talking about. Hell, my mom's been called more than once by the local stake center for "not showing up to do her assigned church duties". Maybe it has more to do with their obsession with record keeping and family trees, I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 19:49
|
|