The Gospel

[bluess]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehost/276844469ec8e43bd.gif

It's from the movie The Lion King.

Hakuna Matata

Not to be confused with...

Bwa ha ha ha..... Loved the second reference...

Thanks.

 

[chance]

Perhaps it's true, "You have to be like a child to see." The great thing about kids is they are open minded and teachable. I think adults can learn much from children, how about you? Sometimes children can say the most profound things that really get your attention.

Do you have any children?

Things children believe in …. for a while! (very small selection) Santa clause, tooth fairy, god, FSM, thor, devil, super man etc, etc, etc.

How do you decide what is fantasy and what is not? Enquiring minds want to know.

 

[ceo_esq]

what about women being chattel

Yet surely the advent of Christianity brought about substantial improvements in the status of women in the classical world.

 

[UrsulaV]

Yet surely the advent of Christianity brought about substantial improvements in the status of women in the classical world.

I am SO gonna need evidence on this statement...

 

[Roadtoad]

I do believe he's right. Martin Luther, for one, was a major proponent of elevating women's status in Europe. I'll need to hunt to find the reference, but I believe it was discussed in an issue of National Geographic some years ago.

 

[UrsulaV]

I do believe he's right. Martin Luther, for one, was a major proponent of elevating women's status in Europe. I'll need to hunt to find the reference, but I believe it was discussed in an issue of National Geographic some years ago.

Yes, but Martin Luther was born in 1483. That's not exactly corresponding to the advent of Christianity in the classical world...

 

[lostnick3]

"After that, therefore because of that."

I think I have the right fallacy. I know your argument contains a flaw of causality. It could be another non-sequitur, however.

They are both fallacies. Post hoc affirms the consequent, while non-sequitur can either affirm the consequent, or deny the antecedent, among other forms.

In any case, what I'm saying to your argument is that there is no reason to ascribe morals to a god while there are people around. It's also a parsimony issue, as has been mentioned before.

The simpler and more rational explanation for morals is that humans create them based on various societal needs. Why bring a god, or aliens, or any other unprovable thing into it when the simple answer is acceptable?

possibly. but that would make it to hard to bat the idea back and fourth.

 

[lostnick3]

Yet surely the advent of Christianity brought about substantial improvements in the status of women in the classical world.

I keep getting stuck with thought of the missionary work in the south pacific which as a result left a big divide between men and women by their espousing that there is womans work and there is mens work and that the work wasn't interchangeable.

 

[delphi_ote]

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.

1 Corinthians Chapter 11

As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

1 Corinthians Chapter 14

Also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

1 Timothy Chapter 2

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Ephesians Chapter 5 verses 22-24

Wives submit to your husbands, as is fitting to the Lord.

Colossians Chapter 3 verse 18

Likewise, you wives should be subordinate to your husbands so that, even if some disobey the word, they may be won over without a word by their wives' conduct when they observe your reverent and chaste behavior.

1 Peter Chapter 3 verse 1

Woman is more guilty than man, because she was seduced by Satan, and so diverted her husband from obedience to God that she was an instrument of death leading to all perdition. It is necessary that woman recognize this, and that she learn to what she is subjected; and not only against her husband. This is reason enough why today she is placed below and that she bears within her ignominy and shame.

-Calvin

ETA I'll bring up the Inquisition, but only if I have to.

 

[ceo_esq]

I am SO gonna need evidence on this statement...

From Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity (HarperCollins, 1997):

Amidst contemporary denunciations of Christianity as patriarchal and sexist, it is easily forgotten that the early church was so especially attractive to women that in 370 the emperor Valentinian issued a written order to Pope Damasus I requiring that Christian missionaries cease calling at the homes of pagan women. Although some classical writers claimed that women were easy prey for any "foreign superstition," most recognized that Christianity was unusually appealing because within the Christian subculture women enjoyed far higher status than did women in the Greco-Roman world at large (Fox 1987; Chadwick 1967; Harnack 1908, vol. 2). ... Historians have long noted this fact ...

...

First of all, a major aspect of women's improved status in the Christian subculture is that Christians did not condone female infanticide. Granted, this was the result of the prohibition of all infanticide. But the more favorable Christian view of women is also demonstrated in their condemnation of divorce, incest, marital infidelity, and polygamy. As Fox put it, "fidelity, without divorce, was expected of every Christian" (1987:354). Moreover, although rules prohibiting divorce and remarriage evolved slowly, the earliest church councils ruled that "twice-married Christians" could not hold church office (Fox 1987). Like pagans, early Christians prized female chastity, but unlike pagans they rejected the double standard that gave pagan men so much sexual license (Sandison 1967). Christian men were urged to remain virgins until marriage (Fox 1987), and extramarital sex was condemned as adultery. Chadwick noted that Christianity "regarded unchastity in a husband as no less serious a breach of loyalty and trust than unfaithfulness in a wife" (1967:59). Even the great Greek physician Galen was prompted to remark on Christian "restraint in cohabitation" (quoted in Benko 1984:142).

Should they be widowed, Christian women also enjoyed very substantial advantages. Pagan widows faced great social pressure to remarry; Augustus even had widows fined if they failed to remarry within two years (Fox 1987). Of course, when a pagan widow did remarry, she lost all of her inheritance - it became the property of her new husband. In contrast, among Christians, widowhood was highly respected and remarriage was, if anything, mildly discouraged. Thus not only were well-to-do Christian widows enabled to keep their husband's estate, the church stood ready to sustain poor widows, allowing them a choice as to whether or not to remarry. ...

In all these ways the Christian woman enjoyed far greater marital security and equality than did her pagan neighbor. But there was another major marital aspect to the benefits women gained from being Christians. They were married at a substantially older age and had more choice about whom they married. Since ... pagan women frequently were forced into prepubertal, consummated marriages, this was no small matter. ...

The quantitative data are based on several studies of Roman inscriptions, combined by Hopkins (1965a), from which age at marriage could be calculated. Hopkins was also able to separate these Roman women on the basis of religion. ... Pagan women were three times as likely as Christians to have married before age 13 (10 percent were wed by age 11). Nearly half (44 percent) of the pagans had married by age 14, compared with 20 percent of the Christians. In contrast, nearly half (48 percent) of the Christian females had not wed before age 18, compared with a third (37 percent) of the pagans. ... Unfortunately, the literary sources offer little information about how prepubertal girls felt about these practices [of pre-menarchal consummated marriage]. Plutarch regarded it as a cruel custom and reported "the hatred and fear of girls forced contrary to nature." I suggest that, even in the absence of better evidence and even allowing for substantial cultural differences, it seems likely that many Roman girls responded as Plutarch claimed. Thus here too Christian girls enjoyed a substantial advantage.

...

As to the status of women in the early church, there has been far too much reliance on 1 Cor. 14:34-36, where Paul appears to prohibit women even from speaking in Church. Laurence Iannaccone (1982) has made a compelling case that these verses were the opposite of Paul's position and were in fact a quotation of claims being made at Corinth than Paul then refuted. Certainly the statement is at variance with everything else Paul wrote about the proper role for women in the church. Moreover, Paul several times acknowledged women in leadership positions in various congregations.

...

[T]here is virtual consensus among historians of the early church as well as biblical scholars that women held positions of honor and authority within early Christianity (Frend 1984; Gryson 1976; Cadoux 1925). Peter Brown noted that Christians differed not only from pagans in this respect, but from Jews: "The Christian clergy ... took a step that separated them from the rabbis of Palestine … they welcomed women as patrons and even offered women roles in which they could act as collaborators" (1988:144-145). And none of his colleagues would have regarded the following claim by the distinguished Wayne Meeks as controversial: "Women ... are Paul's fellow workers as evangelists and teachers. Both in terms of their position in the larger society and in terms of their participation in the Christian communities, then, a number of women broke through the normal expectations of female roles" (1983:71).

 

[Palimpsest]

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Woman" (written in 1912) seems to agree with ceo_esq. Rome was in deep moral degradation, Jews were misogynistic bastards, Christ was the first female emancipator, etc...

Sounds like a load of revisionist BS to me. What these old-school Catholics call "emancipation" is a lot of tired sexist tripe, venerating virgins and mothers. They wouldn't know real female emancipation if it came up and kicked them in the goolies--which it did. I remember hearing stories of the Church fighting against women getting the vote, way back when.

So, yeah. I'm with Ursula on this one.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Woman" (written in 1912) seems to agree with ceo_esq. Rome was in deep moral degradation, Jews were misogynistic bastards, Christ was the first female emancipator, etc...

Sounds like a load of revisionist BS to me. What these old-school Catholics call "emancipation" is a lot of tired sexist tripe, venerating virgins and mothers. They wouldn't know real female emancipation if it came up and kicked them in the goolies--which it did. I remember hearing stories of the Church fighting against women getting the vote, way back when.

So, yeah. I'm with Ursula on this one.

The only more mysogynistic books than the New Testament are the books about Gor.

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/eccl/women.htm


The site's editorial comments are in brackets

1 Tim 2:8-11 — I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. [Men are to lead; women are to be modest, learning quietly, and in submission; in this way, they prove their claim to godliness.]

1 Tim 3:14,15; 2:11-15 — These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. [What follows are God’s instructions for a woman’s functioning in the formal services of the local church, which would include Sunday School] ... Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I [Paul, as an Apostle of Jesus Christ, with full authority of one inspired by God] suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. [A woman cannot teach with authority; e.g., in Sunday School classes, Bible conferences, etc. When a woman stands before a mixed crowd that includes men and opens the Bible and preaches or teaches, she is taking authority.] For Adam was first formed, then Eve. [The woman was created after the man to be his helpmeet, not his head. Obviously, this is NOT a cultural matter, but is based upon the order of creation; this establishment of the principle of order transcends culture!] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived [“quite deceived” (NASB—Gen. 3:13)] was in the transgression. [Therefore, the woman was not spiritually qualified to teach because of (1) the order of creation, and (2) the facts of the Fall.] Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, [i.e., she will be occupying herself with the duties of the home and family (as evidence of her salvation given through the birth of the Messiah), and will receive her fulfillment/purpose in life in that arena] if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety [“self-restraint” (NASB)].

1 Tim 5:9,10,14 — Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints’ feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work. [Faithful service in “home-related” activities necessary to qualify widows to receive church support.] … I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, [be the “ruler” or “despot” of the home, but under the leadership of her husband] give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

Titus 2:3-5 —The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; [See further: women teaching “home-related” activities to younger women, not Biblical doctrine.] That they may teach [“encourage” NASB] the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children [agape love, since a person can not be “taught” to have “feelings”], To be discreet, chaste, keepers [“workers” NASB] at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, [this alone would preclude a married woman from working outside the home, because outside work necessitates her to be under someone else’s authority, man or woman, other than her own husband] that the word of God be not blasphemed.

1 Cor 14:33b-35,37 — As in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. [Not a cultural factor, but established by God thousands of years ago.] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame [“improper” (NASB)] for women to speak in the church. [Women are to look for input and leadership from the man.] … If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

Eph 5:18, 22-24 — And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; ... Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. [Can’t submit to husband if don’t submit to Christ.] For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

1 Pet 3:1-6 — Likewise, ye wives, [same as in submissiveness to government authorities (1 Pe 2:13-17)] be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; [God is saying that even for an unbeliever, submissiveness to God-supported authority is a hard and fast rule, not situational, circumstantial, or cultural.] ... Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time [i.e., not “cultural”] the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, [Outward adornment should not be the focal point of a woman’s life—rather her life is to emphasize godliness.] being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord (Gen. 18:12) [2000 years earlier; therefore, not cultural]: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

1 Cor 11:3-10 — But I would have you know, that the head [i.e., authority (Jdg. 11:10; Eph. 1:22)] of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. [Therefore, no inferiority is implied in submissiveness, only different God-ordained roles.] Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth [direct revelation (which is no longer an active gift for anyone, men or women), not normal preaching/teaching (prophesying and teaching were two distinct gifts—Eph. 4:11)] with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head [an abnormal situation for woman to pray or prophesy in public, and therefore, she must have a visible sign of authority over her]: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause [the created order] ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. [Paul again refers back to the order of creation, and that the angels are watching (Eph, 3:10), for his authority, not because of the curse of the Fall as some so-called “Biblical feminists” contend.] [Paul is speaking here of conduct in meetings outside the church; he doesn’t speak to church conduct until verse 18; 1 Cor. 6:12-11:17 deals with personal conduct outside of corporate church meetings.]

 

[ceo_esq]

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Woman" (written in 1912) seems to agree with ceo_esq. Rome was in deep moral degradation, Jews were misogynistic bastards, Christ was the first female emancipator, etc...

Sounds like a load of revisionist BS to me.

...

So, yeah. I'm with Ursula on this one.

On the basis of what? Reputable historical scholarship? Or "stories" you "remember hearing"?

Whether something sounds like a load of revisionist BS depends largely on the degree to which it contrasts with your received ideas, and is independent of the relative merits of the new information versus the old. When I was a child, allegations of the non-existence of Santa Claus sounded at first like a load of revisionist BS to me.

 

[UrsulaV]

Interesting, ceo.

For the record, at no point did I say I thought the initial statement completely untrue--but I definitely require evidence before allowing a statement that sweeping to just go by.

It's interesting. The differing marriage age thing, at least, is notable, if true.

Obviously, yeah, Palimpest, the status of women pretty much sucked ass (to use the technical term!) in both classical and early Christian society by today's standards. That the early Christians may not have been as misogynistic as good chunks of their holy book speaks well of them, however.

 

[Palimpsest]

On the basis of what? Reputable historical scholarship? Or "stories" you "remember hearing"?

Well, since the Catholic Encyclopedia isn't the most unbiased of texts, you'll pardon me if I'm doubtful of its claims. And I mentioned my grandmother's stories just to illustrate the fact that the Catholic Church, then or now, is not a friend of women's liberation, or progressive movements anywhere. So I find it very hard to believe that it was so different in its early days.

 

[ceo_esq]

Well, since the Catholic Encyclopedia isn't the most unbiased of texts, you'll pardon me if I'm doubtful of its claims.

I understand. I thought you were referring to my citation of The Rise of Christianity, not to the Catholic Encyclopedia. That said, though, I don't know how familiar you are with the Catholic Encyclopedia, but although it is in some sense "biased", still, as Wikipedia notes about it, the work "often offers in-depth and accurate portrayals of historical and philosophical ideas, persons and events." I think that's a fair assessment. When it comes to matters of history, philosophical ideas, persons and events, I have very rarely known the CE to make a material misstatement of fact (to the extent such facts could be known a century ago). The authors of the articles were generally legitimate experts in the relevant fields, often of high distinction. Apart from positive theological claims, of course, I've learned not to dismiss that source despite its age and limitations.

And I mentioned my grandmother's stories just to illustrate the fact that the Catholic Church, then or now, is not a friend of women's liberation, or progressive movements anywhere. So I find it very hard to believe that it was so different in its early days.

Well, I don't think it's controversial to observe that the early Christian subculture was a progressive movement by its very nature. And while not consistently so, the Church has certainly been associated throughout history with a number of progressive movements and initiatives (in such areas as abolition, human rights, education, health care, social work, etc.).

 

[Moochie]

Oh, come now, there's nobody in the public eye, maybe, but that's hardly the same as "no one around." There's probably a fair number of people quietly demonstrating true loving kindness that, lacking video cameras following them around, we don't know about. After all, nowhere in practical true loving kindness is included "and telling everybody about it."

Of course you are right. I was meaning more public examples that people might learn from. Jesus was certainly one. The DL is another.

In my opinion, Christianity today has been taken over by neo-conservatives whose philopsophy tends to follow the mores of that particular mindset, not the teachings of Jesus. Heck, how many so-called Christians know that "God helps those who help themselves" is not in scripture?

If one strips all the hype and spin from Jesus' message, one is left with a revolutionary creed that would turn today's world on its head.

M.

 

[Moochie]

Actually, I'm thinking we'd all be richer. There'd be no televangelists, faith healers, scaremongers, dumb chotchkes distributors or other scammers to suck money out of gullible sheep, who would then spend it on themselves, their loved ones, or worthwhile charities. Some industries would collapse, sure (no more Patron Saint customizable rosaries!) But not the important ones.

No argument there!

But neither would there be the psychopathic infatuation with the accumulation of wealth, and that would have repercussions.

Just cast your mind back to the panic that arose in some quarters during the 60s, when it was thought the youth of the nation had turned their backs on the predominant culture that was based on competitiveness and maximizing profit at any cost.

Some of the brightest lights from that generation are now CEOs, etc., in some of the world's leading companies.

IMO, the only thing that's changed in 150 years or so, in the Western world, is that people have ditched the idea of fairness. That may or may not have something to do with the decline of genuine religious engagement.

One of the things that makes me cringe the most when I see it in the media is when some person, who has accumulated great wealth, is described as a "self-made" man or woman, when nothing could be further from the truth, unless that august person operated in a total vacuum.

It's telling that you would base your example on the accumulation of wealth through nefarious means. How utterly modern.

M.

 

[slingblade]

1 Corinthians Chapter 11

1 Corinthians Chapter 14

1 Timothy Chapter 2

Ephesians Chapter 5 verses 22-24

Colossians Chapter 3 verse 18

1 Peter Chapter 3 verse 1

Those verses give me nightmares.

 

[Palimpsest]

IMO, the only thing that's changed in 150 years or so, in the Western world, is that people have ditched the idea of fairness. That may or may not have something to do with the decline of genuine religious engagement.

...Does not compute.

What do you mean by "fairness"? Is it different from the idea of human rights, environmental awareness, religious tolerance, abolition of slavery? These are all things we have more of now than 150 years ago, thanks in large part to Enlightenment values that go hand in hand with the decline of religious engagement (genuine or otherwise).