No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Discuss Biblical and theological support for concept that Bible teaches equality between sexes.

Moderator: Metacrock

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by KR Wordgazer » Mon May 17, 2010 7:29 pm

Wow, thanks, Tiny! I've been a bit in awe of your writing since I came here, so the idea that you'd be jealous of mine amazes me! Hope you don't mind a hug!
*hugs*
Wag more.
Bark less.

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by KR Wordgazer » Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:37 pm

Wag more.
Bark less.

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by ZAROVE » Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:53 pm

Not that you will listen to, or even appreciate, anything I have to say but, the Logic is shoddy in this article. Take the bit about Eve becoming pregnant more often being the result of a Curse: No Hebraic or Christian commentary on the Original Hebrew for Genesis ascribes increased frequency of pregnancy with the Curse, and certainly no one reading the text in Hebrew will come to that conclusion. It simply meant that Eve will be in pain when she delivers and it will become unsafe, NOT that she will become Pregnant more often.

If you knew anything about the women in that sort of society, you’d also realise that the feminist assumptions you make would be seen as ridiculous. I mean, they weren’t exactly dreading pregnancy, they wanted pregnancy for this would supply them furtherance of their bloodlines. Women in the Bible literally weeped over infertility. Contrasting this to thee Egyptians, especially since you omitted hwy they’d not want women to get pregnant, is intellectually dishonest.

Egyptians wanted to prevent out of wedlock births but had a rampant culture of premarital youthful sex, much like we do, so came up with their advise to avoid problematic familial situations. Besides, the Egyptians weren’t exactly godly were they?

Logically they’d not be a very good source of information for the article other than to dispel a myth that such things did not exist in Biblical times, but that speaks nothing of morality I use.

The think that strikes me about that article in particular, or the rest of the site, is what I’ve mentioned before; its less about living a good Christian life in obedience to Gods will, and more about seeking ones own will and trying to drape that in Biblical Sanction, so as to maintain a Christian Identity. Also, the whole thing seems mainly bent on discrediting someone else’s beliefs, so its rather like the Anti-Missionary Sites some Jews set up, which purport to be about supporting Judaism but are really only in existence to attack and degrade Messianic Jews or Christians, and to elevate themselves in contrast. They certainly use the same Sophistry.

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by ZAROVE » Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:56 pm

Also, the Churches of Christ aren’t Post Millennial or Dominionist, and certainly aren’t Evangelical. They also aren’t a Denomination. Much like Catholics, the Churches of Christ simply do not participate in the idea that each Church is a branch of the body of Christ and operate in total Isolation within themselves.

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by KR Wordgazer » Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:40 am

Zarove, I tried to make peace with you, but you would not. I apologized to you, but you would not accept. I expressed to you that you were mistreating me, but you would not stop.

I have not replied to one of your posts since. I have not disparaged your beliefs, though I very well could. Could you do me the courtesy of allowing me to post my views on this forum without treating me-- and everything I say-- like dirt?

I have tried to leave you alone. But you refuse to leave me alone.

There could be room for both of us here if you could just have a little smidgeon of courtesy. If not-- well, then I will have to go away-- because I can't remain in an environment where there is someone who treats me with hostility at every turn.

We disagree on these issues. I asked you to agree to disagree; that we could simply ignore one another's posts on this issue. You refuse, preferring instead to attack.

I don't understand why you have to post in the egalitarian section of this forum, since you are not an egalitarian. Does it injure you personally that I believe differently than you?

I asked you before, now I'm repeating. Please. Stop. Now.
Wag more.
Bark less.

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by ZAROVE » Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:51 am

Kristen, this is a debate and discussion board. Not everything people say is going to agree with you, and I certainly am not going to simply allow poorly thought out articles just sit here being congratulated.

I know that you, and to some extent Metacrock, think this is wholly about me being some sort of male chauvinist but its not. I meant the El Shaddai thing proves the opposite. I simply point out that it’s a Masculine word in Hebrew and somehow this proves I’m antiwoman or think God has a “Manhood”. it was a fiasco that needn’t have been.

But still, I’m not doing anything I don’t do on literally every other Thread here. Your just taking it more personally than you ought because of an emotional investment in the issue. An investment, I may add, which prevents you from taking anything I say as what its meant to mean, or even thinking of me as possibly being right.


Zarove, I tried to make peace with you, but you would not. I apologized to you, but you would not accept. I expressed to you that you were mistreating me, but you would not stop.

What you wanted was for me to shut up and to let you continue posting without any impute form me, but if I posted you have full rights to make comments. One sided discourse is not peace. As to apologies, I accepted those, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to look at poorly thought out arguments and let them stand as if they are well thought out just because you prefer them. Again, your reading too much into this as some sort of personal attack or me fixating on you, when the Truth is I’ve posted similar sorts of comments o other threads while you haven’t been posting here. What did you expect?


Making me some sort of bad guy or monster may make you feel better, but I’m not being a villain here. I am simply doing what I always do and entering a discussion as I always have.



I have not replied to one of your posts since. I have not disparaged your beliefs, though I very well could. Could you do me the courtesy of allowing me to post my views on this forum without treating me-- and everything I say-- like dirt?

I didn’t treat you like dirt, but I did treat the article you linked to like poorly thought out Sophistry, which is what it is. You simply don’t like my disagreement, but would you rather believe a lie that sounds better to you than to be honest with your arguments?

I have tried to leave you alone. But you refuse to leave me alone.

I’m not following you any where. I simply don’t think the materials you have written are that good logically.


There could be room for both of us here if you could just have a little smidgeon of courtesy. If not-- well, then I will have to go away-- because I can't remain in an environment where there is someone who treats me with hostility at every turn.

You know, this is emotional manipulation. The whole “Your mean Zarove” routine has pretty well stopped working on me three years ago. I use to get worked up on it, but not any more. Any time I shoot down anything anyone prefers to believe they think I’m evil and motivated by pure malevolence. I was called rude and nasty by an Atheist for telling them they were Religious, and explaining why. it’s the same thing.

They ate Religion so much they cant possibly admit their own beliefs are Religion. You hate the idea of people not agreeing that these are powerful arguments and deeply accurate or pointing out that they aren’t really valid linguistically or logically, because you prefer to believe they are. But, I’ve seen much better Egalitarian arguments than these that I would say are better, but come on! Eves multiplying pregnancies is a totally absurd comment to justify Birth control.

Its not even that I oppose Birth Control, its that the argument is just pat nonsense and exists only to provide an argument for it.


We disagree on these issues. I asked you to agree to disagree; that we could simply ignore one another's posts on this issue. You refuse, preferring instead to attack.

The issue I attacked was Birth Control and how Eve’s Curse includes Multiplying Pregnancies. I’m really not that complicated, and I usually mean what I say. This issue though is one that’s just silly. Its an argument that’s tailored to suit an agenda, not the result of actual study of the Bible. Its basically about proving a point, not trying to learn from the text. That sort of mentality I’ve always had issue with because it means instead of listening to what the Text says, the reader simply imputes on the text whatever they want it to say.

I don't understand why you have to post in the egalitarian section of this forum, since you are not an egalitarian. Does it injure you personally that I believe differently than you?
It’s the opposite. It injures you personally whenever anyone disagrees with you. This section is about discussion and debate regarding those matters. This is why there is such emotion from you to begin with.

“Discuss Biblical and theological support for concept that Bible teaches equality between sexes.”

If all you want is congratulatory comments that simply exist to further insolate you in your view, you do not do yourself any justice nor the Faith you would claim to serve.


I asked you before, now I'm repeating. Please. Stop. Now.

Can I ask that you stop believing every argument that you personally prefer to believe in, and actually use Critical Thinking and honest evaluation first? As I said, I’m not really as Cruel as some imagine me to be, but I’m not going to just pretend that this is an “Agree to disagree” argument in regards to Eve. There is no logical reason to believe that her becoming pregnant more often was part of the Curse and its just an absolutely silly argument that exists to further an agenda.

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by KR Wordgazer » Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:58 am

Zarove, I do not get upset when someone disagrees with me. I get upset when someone attacks me.

Here are some common definitions for the word "Sophistry" (which is what you just called something I wrote).

a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone

An argument that seems plausible, but is fallacious or misleading, especially one devised deliberately to be so; The art of using deceptive speech or writing; Cunning or trickery

The controversial method of an opponent, distinguished from one's own by superior insincerity and fooling.


In calling my arguments "sophistry," you are personally attacking me, according to the above definitions. You are not merely calling my arguments illogical; I could put up with that. You are saying I am being deliberately deceitful, applying arguments I know are fallacious with the purpose of misleading others, that I am using cunning and trickery. How in the world can you not see that this is an uncalled-for personal attack? You are not questioning just my words, you are questioning my morals and my character.

As for what you say about birth control, are you taking into account simple female biology? The fact remains that in ancient days, every pregnancy was a serious risk of death-- particularly when the woman's body was already worn out by getting pregnant every year or every other year (depending on how well breast-feeding worked for an individual woman in preventing ovulation immediately after childbirth. For some women it didn't -- still doesn't-- work at all). A normally fertile woman who got married at, say, the age of 16, could easily have 10-18 children in her lifetime, unless she died of it-- which she was most likely to do at some point. Yes, Israelite women wanted children; yes, they longed for them. That doesn't mean they wanted to be slowly killed by too-frequent pregnancies. That doesn't mean they were eager to die in childbirth, when the simple use of an Egyptian method might give their bodies a little longer to heal before the next one.

I am simply stating what the text says in the original language-- that the multiplication of pregnancies was a pronouncement of the curse. I was not being deliberately deceitful, tricky or cunning. You insult me. And now you insult me again by claiming I have some emotional reaction to being disagreed with, when my reaction is to being insulted. You want me to listen to you. In order to obtain that result, you have to treat me with respect. You have not done so.

As for why I post essays against Quiverfull's teachings-- it's because I have been in a spiritually abusive cult, and I have therefore dedicated my time to combating other spiritually abusive cults. My essays have, by giving abused women another way to read the Scriptures that were used to control and manipulate them, have so far kept many women from leaving Christianity altogether. I suggest that you let me do my work, and go and do yours, and stop making personal attacks.

Yes, you have a right to post in any thread you want to. But this is a thread I started, for the purpose of linking to my own essays. Other people here have enjoyed reading them. I think I should have the right to post my own essays in my own thread that I opened for the purpose, without having my character maligned. No one's forcing you to click links and read something you don't like.
Wag more.
Bark less.

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by ZAROVE » Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:05 pm

EVEN the definitions of Sophistry you presented do not say they are always intentionally deceptive arguments, and the word generally means that the argument is designed to sound reasonable but really isn’t. It can conotate intentional deceit, but most often simply conotate the use of an argument to support a position even though said argument is not supported by proper evidence.

I’m not attacking you, your simply reading into my posts a hostility that’s not present. Really I’m treating you no differently than I did Messiah Rain, who spells god in lower case each time he uses it even though this is bad grammar, and also claims Adam And Eve could not have really been responsible for their actions for they had not yet taken of the Tree of Knowledge. His argument fails because Adam and Eve need to be ignorant, possessed of little to no knowledge, before they eat the Fruit off of a tree known as “The Tree Of Knowledge”. But the Tree if the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, not simply the Tree of Knowledge, and thus his argument was invalid.

I did not call his argument sophistry, but it was the same sort of thing. He begins with a position, then seeks to argue for it and uses any argument that can be used to defend his position. People do this all the time, and the sort of thinking is Dangerous as it prevents true evaluation of the arguments. You simply accept something because you prefer It if you think along these lines. You personally did the same thing with El Shaddai, you preferred that it meant “The Breasted One”, and you Interpret this to be Feminine because women have breasts and men don’t. The fact that men do, In fact, have Breasts and the actual word may have simply came form the word for upper chest (Assuming that’s even right) never occurred to you. You took a modern English idiomatic use of the word “Breast” and applied it Universally. You do this without thinking through the ramifications of the argument. It never occurred to you that “Breast” is not a feminine exclusive. You wanted this to be Feminine, so it was, and the argument made sense to you, and you likely still use it.



The same thing is true here. You want to support Birth Control so you buy into any argument that allows you to, and treat it as if its somehow valid and that your “Taking a deeper look” at the Bible. In this case though the deeper look makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The Hebrew, and subsequent English translations, don’t obviously mean that Eve will become pregnant more often as the result of the Curse, and if you study anatomy at all and contrast Human reproduction with that of other Animals you will see Humans actually reproduce at a significantly lower rate than most other Species. If you reduce the number of Pregnancies women have naturally you will end up with a Species which doesn’t produce enough offspring to ensure the survival of the species. In fact, even in today’s world you see that the pattern where if most people use Birth Control they tend not to have a Population that is growing but contracting, and this is even with intentional discontinuation in order to have a specified number of Children, or people who forget in the heat of passion to take nay precautions.

Humans can offset this by other technical means to be sure but, if Humanity did not have the Technology that is wielded today, the fact that the Average European population is at below 2.0 and stands more at 1.5 would spell disaster, perhaps doom, for Europe.



Given that a woman can only become Pregnant once a month, and considering that women do not generally become pregnant while Pregnant, and the vast Majority of Births are single Child, its hard to imagine Eve being made less fertile if the Curse were lifted, and the Human race surviving.

We also have the stark reality that no one in the Ancient World understood the Curse of Eve as being that she will have more Children than before. None. Its not in any Hebrew commentaries. Sure, I’ve not read them all, maybe I’m wrong, but I doubt you have any text from the Ancient world that said that, in addition to pain in Childbirth, Eve will also become Pregnant more frequently. If this was indeed part of the Curse, why did no one mention it at all in Antiquity?
Or is this another instance of “The Patriarchy” suppressing the Truth?

You claim that this is what the Text said in the Original Hebrew. No, its not. No one else read those word s into the Original Hebrew who happened to live when the language was actually spoken as a Living Language, no one understood that as part of Eve’s Curse. If its so obvious in the Text, why did it take till now to discover it?

Its simply a misreading of the text. The Curse was that she would have pain in Childbirth, but would still long for Children anyway so she’d be subjected to said Pain, not that she would become Pregnant more often.


Your claim about the Egyptians, letting the body rest, ect… all of that is still base don an intrinsically modern ideal that even the Egyptians didn’t hold to, much less the Hebrews. The Hebrews would have seen it as a Duty to turn out as many Children as possible. Heck, some women in the Bible competed with other women in how many Children they bore. This is a Culture in which having many Children was like having a lot of Livestock, it increased your wealth and standing in society, increased your security, increased your wealth, and made sure your name would live eon to future Generations. Women would have longed to have multiple Children, which was seen as both a Duty and an act of Continuance. These women would not have understood your Liberated Feminist stance on the issue at all, and would have seen you as stark raving mad. That’s simply the Culture they lived in.

Andbefore you think the aboveis an attack, keep in midn that a lot of the Ideals I hodl to would also be seen as insane by both men and women in the period, andthis isn’t limited to our Views on Chidlbirth. Even our Western Ideal about Individual rights and personal freedom would be seen as Insanity. The idea of Relgiion beign an inhernalty private affair kept in the Home and Churhc we hear about today would not have been understood. The Ideal about Dmeocracy we hodl to (Admitedly I don’t butthis is a point) would not have been seen as anything but sheer madness. Its just nonsense to them.

You cannot present a modern feminine ideal as if its somehow Universal and Set in Stone, nor should you try to project this sort of attitude on the past. My rule of thumb is, if I had a Time Machine and went back in time with what I think this meant, would the Original Authors agree? In this case, your claim that pat of the Curse that fell on Eve was that she’d become Pregnant more often would be looked at as sort of a Bizarre take on the Text. Neither the men nor the women would find this plausible, nor would they be very interested in your argument for it.


Also, your claim that women would most likely die in Childbirth is exaggerated. While women did, in fact, die in Childbirth, it was not t all the most lily way a woman would die. Even women who bore 18 Children would usually survive each Birth. Deaths from Childbirth were more common back then, but were not the most common way a woman died who was married and fertile.



As to your personal experiences, I don’t mean to sound Cruel but, I have been abused a lot in my life, I don’t feel the need to endlessly rehash why that abuse was wrong or to simply attack that sort of abuse endlessly. Its unhealthy and leads to exaggerated thinking which is equally as Dubious, perpetuating the cycle of abuse rather than eliminating it. A better way to handle the past is to simply let go of the abuse and to put things into proper perspective.

You don’t do this by simply countering everything the abusers said.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by Metacrock » Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:11 pm

ZAROVE wrote:Not that you will listen to, or even appreciate, anything I have to say but, the Logic is shoddy in this article. Take the bit about Eve becoming pregnant more often being the result of a Curse: No Hebraic or Christian commentary on the Original Hebrew for Genesis ascribes increased frequency of pregnancy with the Curse, and certainly no one reading the text in Hebrew will come to that conclusion. It simply meant that Eve will be in pain when she delivers and it will become unsafe, NOT that she will become Pregnant more often.
Sorry Zor you don't know what you are talking about. There were Rabbis in the Talmud who said a lot of stupid things about the "curse" and they did say it meant women would be pregnant more. Not that all Rabbis have said that, but there is a quote fomr an ancient one who did. They said other such stupid things too. These are quoted by Bushnell in her 1923 book God's Word to Women, a classic of the egal movement. Bushnell was a fine scholar read Hebrew and learned it at Northwestern.

I have seen the research and you are wrong.

(2) this is not the sort of boards where we tell each other insulting kinds of thinks about our thinking abilities. We especially don't say it to Kristen.

If you knew anything about the women in that sort of society, you’d also realise that the feminist assumptions you make would be seen as ridiculous. I mean, they weren’t exactly dreading pregnancy, they wanted pregnancy for this would supply them furtherance of their bloodlines. Women in the Bible literally weeped over infertility. Contrasting this to thee Egyptians, especially since you omitted hwy they’d not want women to get pregnant, is intellectually dishonest.
I think Kristen does something about the women of the ancinet world, I'm sure she knows a lot more bout the women of the modern world than you do. One thing we don't need here is that sort of insulting bravado. Obviously women valued being pregnant. That does not in any prove that they didn't also dread it because it usually meant they risked dying and they would be in pain. If you don't you get that you don't much either.

Egyptians wanted to prevent out of wedlock births but had a rampant culture of premarital youthful sex, much like we do, so came up with their advise to avoid problematic familial situations. Besides, the Egyptians weren’t exactly godly were they?



Logically they’d not be a very good source of information for the article other than to dispel a myth that such things did not exist in Biblical times, but that speaks nothing of morality I use.

The think that strikes me about that article in particular, or the rest of the site, is what I’ve mentioned before; its less about living a good Christian life in obedience to Gods will, and more about seeking ones own will and trying to drape that in Biblical Sanction, so as to maintain a Christian Identity. Also, the whole thing seems mainly bent on discrediting someone else’s beliefs, so its rather like the Anti-Missionary Sites some Jews set up, which purport to be about supporting Judaism but are really only in existence to attack and degrade Messianic Jews or Christians, and to elevate themselves in contrast. They certainly use the same Sophistry.
You're entitled to your opinion, uninformed though it may be. If you are talking about the "no longer quivering" site you need to understand what it was about before Kristen got involved. It was a totally atheist site. They were in full tilt renunciation of Christianity when she discovered them.They invited sec web people to help them and they were just in a mocking frenzy, ridiculing Christianity totally mocking one of the most hateful anti-Christian sites I've ever seen.

Kristen almost didn't hook up with them becuase they rejected any kind of Christians. She's the one who turned them around and got them to see that they could be Christians and not have to have 10 kids.

Zor I don't always find your logic to that sterling. In fact in the arguments we have I was singularly unimpressed with your debating. I don't tell you "you can't think" I don't act like a tyrant and bully and try to crush your ego just because you disagree with my view point. Look back over this post that you made and highlight phrases you said to her like "If you knew anything about..." If you can't how insulting that is you are a quite uncouth and insensitive..

I put up these boards. I decide what they are for. Debate is one thing, although discussion and intellectual commence and friendship are more important. One thing I did not put them up here for is to crush people's egos so we can feel like big tough bully boys.

I can't require that you grow some sensitivity, if you can't have some basic compassion for what women go through that is something I can't force you to do, but I don't have to tolerate you hurting someone who I respect and admire.

You are both my friends. I want you to get along. you need to try putting into practice the the old manners you so hypocritically pretend to admire but don't practice and be a gentleman to her.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by ZAROVE » Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:32 pm

Compassion should not exceed evidence, and it is not compassion to leave one to a false conclusion. You may not find my Logic sterling, but you haven’t said anything that would prove my reasoning is at fault. Bare in mind I’m simply challenging the point that Eve was cursed with increased frequency of Pregnancy here, and the Truth is the Text doesn’t say this. Its completely of the wall in how its interpreted. You may prefer hers as it fit your Ideology, but can you find anyone who backs this up in the Ancient World? Or any Hebrew Scholar? Its again like the El Shaddai claim, you were unimpressed with me in that, but I’m still right. The idea that this is a feminine name for God rests entirely on assuming the word “Breast’ is the root, and assuming “Breast” is feminine. it’s not all that illogical of me to point out that Breast is not really feminine is it? The term El Shaddai is not suppose to convey a motherly image, and its never understood as such. You prefer it to though, so my reasoning is poor. The same applies here.

What sort of Logic is it that lets you read into the text something the actual authors of said text never intended? Its not like I’m really addressing a huge amount of material here, I’m simply noting that no ancient source actually reads the text the same way Kristen has presented it. No one. it’s a fully new, completely modern reading of the text. It depends upon a desire to find something, as well. Why is it poor Logic to reject this and tell why?

My Logic is sound here. The argument is weak because the argument doesn’t flow naturally form the text. I am not discussing anything BUT the Genesis Text, before we bring in other samples form unrelated parts of the Bible. No one in the Genesis Text refers to increased frequency of Pregnancy as a part of the Curse of Eve. Its not even that difficult a case to make, and the only reason I object its because its shoddy reasoning.

But by all means tell me where the Logic fails.

Post Reply