No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

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

Moderator: Metacrock

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 » Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:53 am

If you take Genesis 2-3 as figurative, then the Curse expresses a statement of a lost ideal, an articulation of the "human problematic" or the problem of being human-- that the world is not as we feel it should be, nor are we as we feel we should be. It is a lament about the difficulty of life in a world of thorns and thistles, painful and too-frequent childbirth, male domination and female dependency, and a need to cover ourselves and hide in shame from God.
that's great. So well said! :!:
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 » Thu Nov 04, 2010 4:02 pm

Kristen, the big problwem with this while thisg is oru desire for me to just shut up. If you really just want to interpret the Hebrew in a way that helps your personal pet theories, you prove my point as to why I distrust the whole Egalitarian argumen you make to begin with. The problem is, it seems too much that you want to simply justify you position, not seek an objective Truth rrespective of how it makes you feel.


DOes Truth require tobe silent for your feelings?

That is also a core of my objection, in addition to the obvious lack of understandign of how Hebrew works.

But as I said, wait for the thread. Imeant to post it Tuesday but got busy, and coudln't.

Hebrew is not English and is not based around physical objects beign defined and verbs describign what objects do, itsabout essence.


In that way its similar to Russian.

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 » Fri Nov 05, 2010 1:51 pm

Zarove, I do not want you to just shut up. You should re-read what I actually said, which amounted to an admission that we two CANNOT discuss these topics without fighting about them, and I DON'T WANT TO FIGHT.

So I have asked that we not discuss women's issues. There are some things that two people who want to get along should avoid talking about with one another. I want to get along. You persist in making this be about my having a problem with "the truth." But it's actually about just not wanting to be constantly fighting with you. End of story.

Take my terms or leave them, but I will not discuss these matters further with you (though I welcome discussion with you on other matters and hope that will be possible). And please stop making personal judgments about me.
Wag more.
Bark less.

User avatar
MonolithTMA
Posts: 590
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:16 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by MonolithTMA » Fri Nov 05, 2010 3:09 pm

KR Wordgazer wrote:Zarove, I do not want you to just shut up. You should re-read what I actually said, which amounted to an admission that we two CANNOT discuss these topics without fighting about them, and I DON'T WANT TO FIGHT.
I think you've made that very clear, but have been ignored.

Zarove has some interesting things to say, but his attitude makes them less than desirable to read. It would be nice if he could get his point across without being insulting.
Peace,
Mike aka MonolithTMA

"The idea that the truth of God can be bound in any human system, by any human creed, by any human book is almost beyond imagination for me." -- John Shelby Spong

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by met » Fri Nov 05, 2010 4:53 pm

ZAROVE wrote:Kristen, the big problwem with this while thisg is oru desire for me to just shut up. If you really just want to interpret the Hebrew in a way that helps your personal pet theories, you prove my point as to why I distrust the whole Egalitarian argumen you make to begin with. The problem is, it seems too much that you want to simply justify you position, not seek an objective Truth respective of how it makes you feel.


DOes Truth require tobe silent for your feelings?

That is also a core of my objection, in addition to the obvious lack of understandign of how Hebrew works.

But as I said, wait for the thread. I meant to post it Tuesday but got busy, and coudln't.

Hebrew is not English and is not based around physical objects beign defined and verbs describign what objects do, itsabout essence.


In that way its similar to Russian.
. . . but Z, isn't your current debate about hebrew and specifically about 'el shaddai' sposed to be . . . (1) with META and not KR . . . and (2) on another thread ?

How do you think posting this note here reflects on your commitment to Truth (with a capital 'T') . . .( and that rhymes with .. .)
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

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

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by ZAROVE » Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:59 pm

The El Shaddai argument began with Kristen.

As for me being insulting, I’m not. But I post it that anyone who dares to disagree with the whole Egalitarian argument is seen as Insulting regardless.


I really haven’t a bad attitude, nor have I been overly offensive. I've just been direct. However, if I am not offensive on other threads, I shouldn’t be offensive here.

I’m not offensive on other threads, so why am I offensive here? It snot like I've changed my manner of speech.

So again, I think my insulting attitude is more the product of people seeing an insult where none was intended because of the assumed sexism on my part and people tending to side with Kritsten.

Still, her whole argumental style is not as profound as others here say, just as mine isn’t as weak.

Take another look at the core argument here:

Why should we believe that part of the Curse on Eve was that she would become Pregnant more often than her body can bare? Is this really the result of Kristen doing detailed Biblical study and coming not this conclusion based solely on what Scripture says? Or is this her bias against this "Quiverful" movement and her adamant insistence on the morality of Birth Control leading her to conclusions that aren't there?

The above will, no doubt, have you imagining me speaking with hateful tones and a snarled face, but I’m not. Its a legitimate question. Her Theology is based upon her desires, and that’s a basic mistake in any study. She WANTS this to be True, and so it is.

Fine, I’m insulting, but how else can I convey this? Or should I pretend that her entire premise is based upon dispassionate research?

Its obvious she imports her biases into these arguments.

And when it comes specifically to the Hebrew Language I can’t even discuss that because she has the Blue Letter Bible and snippets of word definitions that she can interpret to be support for her theology.

Atheists do the same thing, they insist that Elohym is a Plural so Genesis Chapter 1 should be "In the beginning the gods created the Heavens and the Earth" and that the Bible was intentionally mistranslated. When explained that the Verb is Bara not Baro, they ignore it and insist we look at the word Elohim alone, as if words taken alone in Hebrew can really be used to prove a point.

They do this because they want Genesis to be Polytheistic as this proves that there was an evolution towards Monotheism and the Faith was originally the product of Polytheistic men who later revised their beliefs to Monotheism, and that the Scriptures were written by men, and therefore all of its mythic and unusable. it’s a way to undermine the Christian ( and Jewish but they don’t care so much of them) Faiths by saying it was originally a Polytheistic Religion, to contradict a belief held by those they argue against.

Their Bias are certainly worth talking about, and we have, and no one calls me rude or offensive.

Yet I am rude or insulting for saying basically the same thing here?

Or is it that people simply disagree with me?

User avatar
MonolithTMA
Posts: 590
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:16 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by MonolithTMA » Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:16 pm

ZAROVE wrote:Still, her whole argumental style is not as profound as others here say, just as mine isn’t as weak.
Nope, nothing insulting ever comes from you.
Peace,
Mike aka MonolithTMA

"The idea that the truth of God can be bound in any human system, by any human creed, by any human book is almost beyond imagination for me." -- John Shelby Spong

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 » Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:07 pm

I’m not offensive on other threads, so why am I offensive here? It snot like I've changed my manner of speech.
yea, but you've been a butt hole on this one! :mrgreen:

don't worry, we love you anyway. Just the fuck up!
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

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 » Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:15 pm

Zarove, the problem is that you can't see why this:
The problem is, it seems too much that you want to simply justify you position, not seek an objective Truth rrespective of how it makes you feel.
is an insult. Instead of addressing my arguments, you are attributing motives.

Until you can see that, why should I go on talking to you?

Should I respond in kind? Ok, here goes:

The problem is, it seems that you want to simply win the argument, and nothing less than my full capitulation will satisfy your need to win.

That wasn't fair, was it? Instead of addressing your arguments, it attributed (bad) motives to you.

Until you can stop doing stuff like this, we cannot have a conversation.
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 » Sat Nov 06, 2010 3:29 pm

Mono- sayign my arguments arent as weak as they have been called is insultign how?


Kristen,


"The problem is, it seems too much that you want to simply justify you position, not seek an objective Truth rrespective of how it makes you feel." is an insult. Instead of addressing my arguments, you are attributing motives.

I address both. When I address the arguments Im usually dismissed or accused of Sexuism though. I mean you've alreayd said I cant discuss this or that, that pretty well leaves the Hebrew and your motives. Now you wan tthta removed to.


When I address the arguments, you balk. When I address you motives, you balk. This really is a "Shut up Zarove" thread. You don't want to discuss Egalitarian Concerns with amyone ho disagrees with you, period.

If I DID address the arugments ( I did in the past so I know) you'd consider that insulting too.

What do you rreally expect me to do?

Until your emotionally able to disatnce yourself from a need to be right on this and see why others say what they do, and perhaps admit error oin yoru stidies and these biases, then of coruse I'm limited ot talking about your motivations and the Hebrew Language constructs.


Of do you just want me to see the light, admit I was wrong, and that women shodu. preahc, part of the curse was women getitng prengnant mroe often, and anythign at all to do with anyhtign else is Sexusm and dominaiton of Women?

I'm pretty Isolated in these arugments to begin with by your insistance that everyhtign I say agaisnt anythign is insulting.


Until you can see that, why should I go on talking to you?

You don't. If I address thre arguments you call that inslting to. Heck, you think it sinusulting when I say women shoudl not be allowed ot Preach. I can't even state my position without insulting you.

I can't tell you that I reject the reinterrpetation of 2 Timothy because it goes agsint the obviosu reading and seems mor elike wordplay, and the whole "But lets dig deeper int he Bible" rhetoric is the resort of those who simpy want to make the Scriptures say what they want wihttu that beign an insult either.

The only way I can tlak to yu and not insult you is to agree, and see yoru arugments as solid and well thought out. But, they often aren't. THis is most particuallry True when you try to assign meanign to texts based on a half digested Hebrew word root.

No, I did not sya tghat to insult you, but please ttry to see how actulaly impossible any sort of discussion with you is on this mater as you insist on discussing it but refuse to allow anyone to disagree iwht you on it at all without that disagrement itslef beign an insult.

Read the past threads. Read what you and Metacrock have said to me abotu my motives or how you've both attakceed me for basiclaly not buyign into your fanciful expanations of ascripture. yes I said fanciful, sorry I inslted you, I shoudl have said brilliant exegesis.

But if I do that it implies tha its right, or at lats is valid, and dons't that undermien my poisiton? Oh wait, my position is wrogn and driven by me beign sexist...


So ypu'll forgive me for not takign the whole idea htat I'm insultign to mean that I'm actually beign insulting. Anything, literally anything I say is an insult here, unless I change my midn and agree with you.

Should I respond in kind? Ok, here goes:

The problem is, it seems that you want to simply win the argument, and nothing less than my full capitulation will satisfy your need to win.

Except this is not True for me.

What I want is you for you do three things.

1: Stop abusign the Hebrew Language. I took years ot study it and while I am not a Hebrew Shcolar, and nver claimed ot be, do know that the way ypu just look up a word in a reerence book and assume that a definition ro root of said word proves some point that your makign is just disasterous linguistically.

I get pretty upset when anyone does htis to Hebrew. I get upset with Atheists do this pto prove their point. Hebrew never, ever rests on a singular word but needs the whoel sentance, for starters.

Liekwise, when you base some sort of intepretaiton ont he Origional Hebrew and I note that no on seems othave come to this conclusion before the 20th cenury, instead of dismissing what I've said at lats coem up with a plausable reason why anyone whoudl buy into that interrpetation.


2: Stop tryign to reinterrpet Historical attitudes and beelfis along Modern lines.

Peopel in the past woudl nto asosciate fertility with a Curse, no matter hwo you feel as a modern American woman livign in the 21st Century.

And again,this is not realy just this issue and I have told Atheists or other Christians the same thign when they try to do the same sort of arugment. When Neoconservatives claim that I shoudl no be a Monarhcist becuase God hates Monarhcy and use 1 Samuel chaptr 8 to prove this I do the same thing. You shoudln't interpret the Bible accordign to Modern Culture but on its own terms.



3: And again, I am not tryign to be rude, insltign, or attakc you personally, but I do feel that your too emotionally investe din this issue to really discuss it and do think its not Healthy for toyyou to be so engaged in it yurself precicley becuase you want to see things a certain way and will thus be prone to interpret things accordign to your own desires.

This is somethign everyone seems ot do form time to time but that we all need to grow out of.

No, it snot personal and no, it snot an insult. But OI do think you start with your conclusion that you want to prove and hten just seek arguments to support your contention, rather than basing your conclusiosn on detailed and dispassionate study, and I think this becuase of the way you approach the topic.

Its what I lie to cal the Lawyer Syndrome. You are actign as a Lawyer. Eithe rprosecution ro defence it doens't mater. You want to argue for a cause, and like a Lawyer your willign to filter or present information in a certain way as to get the results you want. We all know Lawyers do this to win cases, not to get at Truth, but the same applies to Acadmeic matters as well.

And htis is, ultimatley, an academic matter.

While you may see htis as offensive of me, I at leats have the Ability to say my stand is base don concern for the Truth and for the welfare of Souls, and that principle guides my posts, not a need to dominate owmen, win arguments, or punish someone. So no, I'm not beign Rude, I am tring to help you, its just that my helpo is the same help I got when I did my own studies, a very sharp critical reception whenevr I trid to force sometignt o be what its not.

Thats why I prefer classical Ediucation over modern education.

As it Says n the Proverbs, multiple tims (This is not a wuote) that we should be mindful of corection, have a multitude of counselors, and allow reproof.


That is what I am supplying here.


That wasn't fair, was it? Instead of addressing your arguments, it attributed (bad) motives to you.

But when I address your arguments, you consider that insultign and become angry. Likewise, there was no logical reason for you to assume my motivation was bad, any more so than Metacrock assumign I hold my position becuase as a SOuthern Male I cant stand the idea of Empowerign women as Equals as I feel like it weakens me. And in Metacrocks case it makes no sense in that I don't really come off as a Southern Male at all. Anyone who imagines me wearign a bseball cap, wearign T-Shirts and Blue Jeans, and watchign NASCAR or goign huntign on weekends has obviously never spoken to me for over five minuets and listened.

In your case, its the same.

I DID Address your arugments and even that was counted as an insult. And it sobvious form the manner in which your studies are ocndicted that they are driven by a desire ot justify a beleif rather than find what was beleivd by the authors of the origional text. You seek validation of a claim, not simply the Doctriens of the text itself, as can be shown by a need to fidn defnitionf of Hebree words, or how ytou adamantly refuse to accept the possibility hat the Curse of Eve wa snot increased fertility.

And I did address thosse arguemnts.

But before any argument can ruly be made, before any discussion held, the other party must be receptive. And despite how I will come off to thos ehwo faour yoru position as the one who is closed minded, the Truth is, Im not. I woudl hange my beleif if I was shown they were wrong, and have in the past. But I've not been. I've been shown fanciful wordplay and reinterpretationof Scripture that rests on tryign to mak it say the opposite of what it obviously says.

I'm also not attributing bad motives to you, I'm attributing an error in judgement inthat you simply place he Cart before the Horse. You Start at your conclusion then argue fro it, rather htan just look at the evidence and let it lead you.

And this is the problem I have in this regard.

Until you can stop doing stuff like this, we cannot have a conversation.

Butm why dont you stop beign offended whenever anyone says anything to you that disagrees?

Post Reply