Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Politcally Correct Christ
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 76 of 301 (347041)
09-06-2006 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Hyroglyphx
09-06-2006 3:56 PM


Re: On translation
I think its just recognizing that God bestows certain qualitative personalities and physical and mental attributes that are better suited for certain situations.
I don't see how the Bible supports that assertion.
I think you're just interpreting the Bible in your own context, to mean what you wish it to mean. Just like those other guys.
However, men tend to be a bit more pragmatic on monetary matters. They tend not to inject as much emotion into critical matters as women.
You seem to forget that anger is an emotion, too, and it's one that pretty consistently impairs the judgement of men more than women. Men, far more often than women, injure themselves or others because they can't control their anger in critical situations. I would not trust a man over a woman to be cool-headed in the clutch under just about any circumstances.
In every household I've ever heard of, the women handled the money because they were the ones cool-headed and practical enough to do it. The way I grew up, handling money, paying bills and making those kinds of decisions, was "women's work." Even to this day if I want to spend some money on something, it's basically my wife's call because I know she's a lot more responsible than me in that regard - again, because women tend to be more rational and cool-headed than men, in my experience.
When you're on a date, who usually picks up the tab?
The server usually hands it to me, but since we have a joint checking account, we both do.
When you are on a date, who opens the cardoor for the other person?
My wife has arms. We both know how to open a car door. If I started rushing over to do it all the time she'd probably kick me in the balls.
When you are on a date who typically drives their own vehicle and basically chauffeurs their date?
Her name is on the title of our car, but we both drive it.
I also believe, however, that these are natural inclinations that should not be dismissed.
I don't know what "inclinations" you're referring to. In my marriage we handle things like adults. We arrive at a consensus. We rarely argue. Almost never, in fact. And absolutely none of the above is an answer to my question, which was:
quote:
What do you think goes on in a home that needs to be "overseen"?
It says it in the verse I provided.
No, it doesn't. It says that the woman should submit to the man as the man submits to God.
Where does it say that the man should submit to his wife as though to God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-06-2006 3:56 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-06-2006 8:53 PM crashfrog has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 301 (347045)
09-06-2006 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by ringo
09-06-2006 3:59 PM


Re: On translation
Here you're projecting your "politically correct" beliefs onto the bible.
There seems to be a lot of that going around these days. I guess he's "modernizing" as you suggested.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by ringo, posted 09-06-2006 3:59 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by ringo, posted 09-06-2006 6:04 PM robinrohan has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 78 of 301 (347059)
09-06-2006 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by robinrohan
09-06-2006 5:32 PM


Re: On translation
robinrohan writes:
I guess he's "modernizing" as you suggested.
Since nemesis_juggernaut is the one who's against "modernizing", I was just pointing out his self-inconsistency.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by robinrohan, posted 09-06-2006 5:32 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by robinrohan, posted 09-06-2006 6:12 PM ringo has replied
 Message 87 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-06-2006 9:49 PM ringo has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 301 (347064)
09-06-2006 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by ringo
09-06-2006 6:04 PM


Re: On translation
Since nemesis_juggernaut is the one who's against "modernizing", I was just pointing out his self-inconsistency.
So as long he admits that he's modernizing, that's ok as far as you're concerned? He can still call his view in basic agreement with the scriptures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by ringo, posted 09-06-2006 6:04 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by ringo, posted 09-06-2006 6:15 PM robinrohan has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 80 of 301 (347066)
09-06-2006 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by robinrohan
09-06-2006 6:12 PM


Re: On translation
robinrohan writes:
So as long he admits that he's modernizing, that's ok as far as you're concerned?
I couldn't care less whether he admits anything or not, as long as the lurkers know he's shot down his own argument.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by robinrohan, posted 09-06-2006 6:12 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by robinrohan, posted 09-06-2006 6:19 PM ringo has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 301 (347067)
09-06-2006 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by ringo
09-06-2006 6:15 PM


Re: On translation
I couldn't care less whether he admits anything or not, as long as the lurkers know he's shot down his own argument.
When I said "ok with you," I meant in a logical not in an emotional sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by ringo, posted 09-06-2006 6:15 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by ringo, posted 09-06-2006 6:30 PM robinrohan has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 82 of 301 (347072)
09-06-2006 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by robinrohan
09-06-2006 6:19 PM


Re: On translation
robinrohan writes:
When I said "ok with you," I meant in a logical not in an emotional sense.
Logically, he's shot down his own argument.
Whether he admits it or not is irrelevant logically, Biblically, locally, territorially, emotionally, loudly, definitely, equivocally, dispensationally, metamorphically, metaphorically, metaphysically....

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by robinrohan, posted 09-06-2006 6:19 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by robinrohan, posted 09-06-2006 7:44 PM ringo has replied
 Message 88 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-06-2006 9:50 PM ringo has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 301 (347098)
09-06-2006 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by ringo
09-06-2006 6:30 PM


Re: On translation
Logically, he's shot down his own argument.
Yes, but that's not what I'm asking you. Apart from any inconsistency on his part, do you think it is proper for him to interpret those Biblical passages the way he did?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by ringo, posted 09-06-2006 6:30 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by ringo, posted 09-06-2006 8:20 PM robinrohan has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 84 of 301 (347114)
09-06-2006 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by robinrohan
09-06-2006 7:44 PM


Re: On translation
robinrohan writes:
... do you think it is proper for him to interpret those Biblical passages the way he did?
What does "proper" mean in Biblical interpretation?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by robinrohan, posted 09-06-2006 7:44 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by robinrohan, posted 09-06-2006 11:08 PM ringo has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 301 (347123)
09-06-2006 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by crashfrog
09-06-2006 5:21 PM


Re: On translation
I think you're just interpreting the Bible in your own context, to mean what you wish it to mean. Just like those other guys.
Okay, how about this one?
"Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun-- all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun." -Ecclesiastes 9:9
Solomon was a bit dark, but he sure loved his women.
"Wives, in the same way, accept the authority of your husbands, so that, even if some of them do not obey the Word, they may be won over without a word by their wives' conduct, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Do not adorn yourselves outwardly by braiding your hair, and by wearing gold ornaments or fine clothing; rather, let your adornment be the inner self with the lasting beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in God's sight. It was in this way long ago that the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves by accepting the authority of their husbands. Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham and called him lord. You have become her daughters as long as you do what is good and never let fears alarm you. Husbands, in the same way, show consideration for your wives in your life together, paying honor to the woman as the weaker sex, since they too are also heirs of the gracious gift of life--so that nothing may hinder your prayers." -1stPeter 3:1-7
"Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged. Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism." -Colossians 3:18-25
"Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self”‘control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts. Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you-although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.
Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.
I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs-how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world-how he can please his wife- and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world- how she can please her husband? I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.
If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin-this man also does the right thing. So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.
A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is-and I think that I too have the Spirit of God."
-1st Corinthians 7:1-40
This was about all of the Bible verses on marriage I know about that aren't little blurbs.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by crashfrog, posted 09-06-2006 5:21 PM crashfrog has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 86 of 301 (347127)
09-06-2006 9:00 PM


From professional Translators
Both that I know agree that you can NEVER translate literally. Don't know that it matters all that much but it might have a small bearing.

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 301 (347140)
09-06-2006 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by ringo
09-06-2006 6:04 PM


Re: On translation
Since nemesis_juggernaut is the one who's against "modernizing", I was just pointing out his self-inconsistency.
How am I against modernizing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by ringo, posted 09-06-2006 6:04 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by ringo, posted 09-06-2006 11:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 301 (347141)
09-06-2006 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by ringo
09-06-2006 6:30 PM


Re: On translation
Logically, he's shot down his own argument. Whether he admits it or not is irrelevant logically, Biblically, locally, territorially, emotionally, loudly, definitely, equivocally, dispensationally, metamorphically, metaphorically, metaphysically.
How exactly have I accomplished this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by ringo, posted 09-06-2006 6:30 PM ringo has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 301 (347153)
09-06-2006 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by ringo
09-06-2006 8:20 PM


Re: On translation
What does "proper" mean in Biblical interpretation?
Well, obviously you do think what he does is proper since you do the same thing yourself by "modernizing"--except that your (and Jar's) "interpretations" are even further from some fairly obvious meanings that the authors had in mind.
As regards the uncertainty of interpretation, it depends on what passages are in question and how frequently the same apparent meanings appear.
Not all interpretations are equally plausible.
Some passages are obscure, some not obscure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by ringo, posted 09-06-2006 8:20 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by ringo, posted 09-06-2006 11:26 PM robinrohan has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 90 of 301 (347157)
09-06-2006 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Hyroglyphx
09-06-2006 9:49 PM


Re: On translation
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
How am I against modernizing?
My first clue was in the OP:
quote:
There have been a number of subtle attacks on the divinity of Christ throughout the ages, however, in recent times it seems that the best way to undermine Jesus is just to invent ones' own cushy version of the Bible. Few instances better illustrate the point than a recent translation offered by the Oxford University Press's release of a "culturally sensitive" version of the Bible.
You suggested that a "culturally sensitive" version of the Bible is a "subtle attack on the divinity of Christ".
"Cultural sensitivity" is a modern concept. The writers of the Bible made no bones about what culture was "in" and which were "out".
Gender-inclusive language is also a modern concept. Most languages don't have it built in, which is why the "modernized" terminology sounds clumsy.
Now, I don't know what any of that has to do with the divinity of Christ, but it certainly sounds to me like you don't want those modern concepts "imposed" on the Bible.
Logically, he's shot down his own argument.
How exactly have I accomplished this?
If you had responded to Message 74, you would know that I was referring back to Message 70, where you said:
quote:
Mutual submission is required by both parties for a helathy marriage and family.
That too is a modern concept, which goes hand-in-hand with gender-inclusive language. By accepting equal marriage (which is non-Biblical) and rejecting gender-inclusive language (which is an accident of language), you contradict yourself.
At least, that's the way I understood your posts. Please feel free to clarify.
Edited by Ringo, : Promoted myself to "I", First Class.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-06-2006 9:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024