|
Post by Shiggy on Jan 12, 2005 19:39:44 GMT -5
But the wife, through her compulsory submission to her husband, ends up unable to exert influence over the situation if things DO go wrong. This is what I've been saying all along.
Sure, I agree, the husband may well be in the wrong if he chooses to exploit this situation, but that doesn't really help his wife at all. She is trapped in her marital role of consistent submission, whether or not her husband chooses to obey God himself.
Husbands have the power to pull their wives into line when their actions aren't in line with God's commands, but the wife does not have this same power over the conduct of her husband. There are no considerations for the rights of the wife in Christianity; if her husband mistreats her, all she is allowed to do is submit.
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Jan 13, 2005 21:34:11 GMT -5
The only problem as I see it is that we've got to recognise that Bible was written for a different time and culture and - whilst the central theme of the Biblical stories must remain for Christians - a lot of the peripheral ideas can be intepreted with respect to modern times.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Jan 14, 2005 0:36:59 GMT -5
amen
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Jan 14, 2005 5:51:57 GMT -5
The only problem as I see it is that we've got to recognise that Bible was written for a different time and culture and - whilst the central theme of the Biblical stories must remain for Christians - a lot of the peripheral ideas can be intepreted with respect to modern times. Personally I agree with this, but the Church's task of deciding which bits to keep for today and which to "reinterpret" (deciding which Biblical teachings are to be regarded as "central" and which "peripheral") is one which can never occur properly, due to differences in opinion regarding "truth" in the Bible. Cultural reinterpretation applies to everything in the Bible. Selective application to topics such as women's domestic and marital rights today merely reflects our current social values and is not logically followed through by the Church; I don't see it being applied to equally warranted areas such as homosexuality or even women in Church leadership positions. IMO, most Christians just believe whatever they want to and aren't the slightest bit interested in how many holes exist in their apparently "Biblical" arguments they use to support their opinions.
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Jan 14, 2005 7:32:38 GMT -5
Personally I agree with this, but the Church's task of deciding which bits to keep for today and which to "reinterpret" (deciding which Biblical teachings are to be regarded as "central" and which "peripheral") is one which can never occur properly, due to differences in opinion regarding "truth" in the Bible. True, but we don't need the Church to reinterpret things for us - we can do that ourselves if we choose too. Eventually (often after a long, long time) the Church does seem to catch up with public opinion, but it's a slow moving entity (and perhaps it should be). Well that's true, but it equally applies to all things that are subject to interpretation and opinion. We all like to think that we're the ones who have made the correct interpretations! Some of the most heated arguments I've witnessed are between members of the same faith about interpretations of the faith's religious scripts. I remember once I was 'invited' to a gathering of born again Christians, supposedly because they wanted to find out more about Buddhism. Their real motive, however, was to allow the Church seniors to try and pick holes in Buddhism to demonstrate to the Church juniors how sinful it was and that their way was better. So I came in for a fair bit of flack, but I didn't really need to do much in the way of defending Buddhism as the sheer closed-mindedness and, indeed, aggression of my attackers was doing the job for me. However, it got onto details of scripture somehow and they started arguing amongst themselves. I've never seen such vitriolic arguments as those that ensued. They didn't seem to care that it was in front of a guest or what light it showed them in; they simply wanted to be 'right'. I went and had a drink instead and fair play to the chap that invited me (used to meet him most days when walking the dog) - he apologised the next time I saw him. Fortunately I've met a lot of decent, tolerant Christians since then so it didn't tarnish my view of Christians in general (although I still have a thing about missionaries!).
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Jan 14, 2005 8:15:40 GMT -5
I think, instead, that we need to recognize that the Bible isn't meant to be mashed into our culture, so that it fits all nicely. To say that what the Bible says about homosexuality, women leadership roles, etc. only applies to a different culture is ridiculous. If you can just choose what you like about the Bible but throw out what you don't like, how can it ever challenge you? Interpretation of Scripture can't be done in a way so that you can get rid of what you don't like or what you struggle with. However, if you still don't like what Scripture says, then may I suggest that the true issue isnt the interpretation of Scripture, but your desire not to submit to it?
Also, Satori, what is your thing with missionaries?
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Jan 14, 2005 9:47:16 GMT -5
I think, instead, that we need to recognize that the Bible isn't meant to be mashed into our culture, so that it fits all nicely. I disagree. It was written (or parts of it were) with the specific purpose of mashing into the Roman culture at the time and it's sources were written to mash into the Hebrew culture before that. I think it needs to adapt to cultural change because cultures do change, irrespective of religion. If you think that the Bible's message should be read as-is then you're free to do so, but I don't happen to think that and I don't think it benefits Christianity to think that either (but that's just my opinion). Okay, so you don't agree - fair enough. Not true. I can interpret scripture any way I choose, and so can you. There aren't any laws about how one should interpret scripture in my country. Well I wouldn't submit to it, would I? I'm not a Christian! I see Biblical scripture as an interesting theological study that happens to have some good things to say in places. I also think that, whether or not one is Christian, Biblical scripture has been quite inluential on western society and thus, in some ways, it affects us all. It was planted into Roman society at a time when their influence was reaching (or would eventually reach) a large portion of the world. It has therefore been central to the development of western (and other) society and reaches well beyond Christians alone. It's a valid course of study even for non-Christians. Don't want to get into that here ... maybe in another thread.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Jan 14, 2005 20:09:13 GMT -5
Areopagite, what do you have to say to 1 Corinthians 16:20 when Paul commands the christians in corinth to "greet one another with a holy kiss"? Is this a command that is relevant today? Or how about when Paul tells Timothy that women are not even allowed to speak in church?(1 Timothy 2:12) And he repeats it to the Corinthians(1 Corinthians 14:34) Surley you would say that these verse must be read in the context of the culture, wouldnt you? Or is it a sin for women to speak in church?
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Jan 15, 2005 0:58:42 GMT -5
I wholeheartedly agree with what Joel just wrote. How can you answer this, Areopagite? To say that what the Bible says about homosexuality, women leadership roles, etc. only applies to a different culture is ridiculous. Does this mean that you also believe that the verses forbidding women to speak in Church apply equally today? If so, you would be quite alone in today's Christian Church; if not, then why do you regard these particular verses as open to cultural reinterpretation? I think that is what's truly "ridiculous" here. If you can just choose what you like about the Bible but throw out what you don't like, how can it ever challenge you? If you truly believed this then you would not be brushing aside verses such as 1 Tim. 2:12 as culturally irrelevant to today's Christians.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Jan 15, 2005 19:15:37 GMT -5
I think a great response to this issue is in a book written by Brian McLaren. He tries to find a high ground in the debate over whether the Bible is completely inerrant and 100 percent applicable to us today or a simple collection of un-authoritative, uninspired letters to various people in a different culture.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Jan 16, 2005 5:18:52 GMT -5
But what use is the text if it cannot ever be completely interpreted by people as God meant it? There is apparently always some mystical, "correct" way to interpret it (eg. "as God meant it"), but this is never attained or agreed on - the "correct" interpretation, if there is one, is at least certainly not a clear or obvious one.
This argument also provides the convenient excuse of "misinterpretation" for atrocities caused by the Christian faith and many verses of its Biblical text; if God wrote the Bible, then it must be good, therefore all bad things resulting from it are simply mistakes on our part. Please. If there IS some mystical, absolute truth, the Church needs to back this claim up by logically sticking to a single interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Jan 17, 2005 0:26:07 GMT -5
I love when i type a reply then accadently close the internet explorer...
I dont think studying the Bible is a lost cause, far from it. I think there is a lot of truth in the bible that can be interpreted correctly today. I just think we need to be careful when interpreting it. Culture and context must be taken into account. In my high school english class we studied stories from the 5th century. We do not just throw the book out because it is so old. There is a lot of truth that can be found in the books.
Maybe I am not explaining what I'm thinking very well. Maybe this anallogy will help: Imagine you find a letter written from one person to another who are deeply in love. You pick up this letter and begin to read it. I would think that youll be able to understand most of this letter but I would also think there is going to be things that simply wont make sense to you. You could interpret it many different ways and some ways will even seem better then others, but you really dont know exactly what is truely meant to the person it was written to. To understand you would have to meet these people and understand what is going on in their lives. Then it might begin to make more sense to you. In the same way I think there could be a lot of meaning between Paul and say the church in Corinth. This isnt a letter that was just written to some stranger, there was a relationship behind it.
This might not be making total sense; im not sure if i even completly understand what i am saying. This is all kind of new to me. I always said that I thought the bible was infallible and all that stuff but i clearly believe that it isnt. Im cool with a women not covering her head when she prays but 1 corinthians 11 says she should. I am also cool with a female pastor and not kissing you when i meet you. I think this is apart of the culture because it was respectful for a women to cover her head then. I do believe that the Bible is authoritative and as 2 timothy 3:16 says "all scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness." My is what is "scripture." Is it the words on the page or the meaning behind the words.
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Feb 1, 2005 18:42:08 GMT -5
Areopagite, what do you have to say to 1 Corinthians 16:20 when Paul commands the christians in corinth to "greet one another with a holy kiss"? Is this a command that is relevant today? Or how about when Paul tells Timothy that women are not even allowed to speak in church?(1 Timothy 2:12) And he repeats it to the Corinthians(1 Corinthians 14:34) Surley you would say that these verse must be read in the context of the culture, wouldnt you? Or is it a sin for women to speak in church? Sorry I haven't responded to this yet. Joel, I am not saying that the context of culture shouldn't be considered. But that is one out of several principles of hermeneutics and exegesis. Satori is right when he says "I can interpret scripture any way I choose, and so can you", because he can. However, that does not mean that he will interpret correctly. To do so, one should follow the principles of hermeneutics and exegesis, as well as the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is very different from what Satori and Shiggy would wish do with the interpretation of Holy Scripture. In fact, their interpretation is, indeed, reinterpretation. Due to the fact that they wish not to accept the correct interpretation of Scripture, people have chosen to reinterpret Scripture to make it accommodate their personal beliefs. This, of course, allows people to devolve into heresy (see the definition of heresy which was listed in the "Buddhist Christianity" thread).
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Feb 2, 2005 5:53:51 GMT -5
Sorry I haven't responded to this yet. Joel, I am not saying that the context of culture shouldn't be considered. But that is one out of several principles of hermeneutics and exegesis. Satori is right when he says "I can interpret scripture any way I choose, and so can you", because he can. However, that does not mean that he will interpret correctly. To do so, one should follow the principles of hermeneutics and exegesis, as well as the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is very different from what Satori and Shiggy would wish do with the interpretation of Holy Scripture. In fact, their interpretation is, indeed, reinterpretation. Due to the fact that they wish not to accept the correct interpretation of Scripture, people have chosen to reinterpret Scripture to make it accommodate their personal beliefs. This, of course, allows people to devolve into heresy (see the definition of heresy which was listed in the "Buddhist Christianity" thread). And let me guess, your (re)interpretation just happens to be the correct one, right?
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Feb 2, 2005 7:30:06 GMT -5
Haha, good point Satori, except for the fact that I've already written on orthodoxy in the "Buddhist Christianity" thread
|
|