The Mote Archive - Religion and Philosophy pt. 5

Religion and Philosophy

22845. kuliginthehooligan - 7/30/2004 6:34:23 AM

Kerry waffles on abortion, again:

"Stepping gingerly into another social issue, Kerry reiterated that he believes that life begins at conception - and that a woman has the right to choose whether to abort.

Asked whether he believes abortion is taking a life, Kerry said a fetus is a "form of life."

"The Bible itself - I mean, everything talks about different layers of development. That's what Roe v Wade does. It talks about viability. It's the law of the land." The Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v Wade ruling legalized abortion in America.

"I don't believe personally that it's the government's job to step in and take my article of faith and transfer it to somebody who doesn't share that article of faith," said Kerry, a Roman Catholic."

This tired, old argument, though, ignores entirely that we do this consistently, especially when it comes to protecting the more vulnerable people in our land. In this instance of abortion, Kerry believes that human life begins at conception, yet it doesn't bother him that someone would choose to terminate this life. He retreats into the private/public corner, where he must retreat if he intends to stay in the Democratic Party, which has become so narrow that even moderates are finding it increasingly difficult to stomach.

22846. kuliginthehooligan - 7/30/2004 6:38:52 AM

Interestingly, Kerry used to be consistent when it came to capital punishment, saying he opposed all forms of capital punishment. He has now started, though, to support it for terrorists.

"Kerry has long been an opponent of the death penalty, but in recent years has made an exception for terrorism. The former prosecutor said crimes like rape and child murder do not warrant the highest punishment.

"It's certainly terrorizing to the person who's undergoing it. I understand that," Kerry said. "But terrorism is a political act to terrorize a nation, to try to challenge a way of life and a standard... It's just a different act."

So when it comes to terrorists, he calls for execution, but no capital punishment for any other crime. Fine. But when it comes to abortion, even though he agrees that human life begins at conception, he doesn't think the US should stop this form of human destruction.

Now I fully expect the liberals in The Mote to come here and criticize Kerry for the above positions. Just as a fundie is considered inconsistent by opposing abortion but supporting capital punishment, so too now these same critics should have at it with Kerry and his inconsistent position as well.

jexster, surely you find Kerry unpalatable on such matters, right? I mean, you oppose ALL war and ALL capital punishment, yet Kerry supports both in limited circumstances. Shouldn't you be calling Kerry Beelzebub as well for his support of war, even his fighting in one and killing others?

22847. Ulgine Barrows - 7/30/2004 6:54:16 AM

22842. wonkers2 - 7/23/2004 7:01:22 PM
Bishop Spong appears to have a quite credible resume.

wonkers2, sorry to be irreverent. I could get past Spong's name for about 30 seconds, before the lyrics to Sponge Bob Sqare Pants popped up.

I did enjoy reading the article you linked.

kuliginthehooligan, waffle not. When you can choose to abort or not, then do so.

22848. Magoseph - 7/31/2004 2:08:44 PM

Interesting article, Kuli.
EVANGELICALS V. MUSLIMS IN AFRICA--Enemy's Enemy

Excerpt--This could be good news for the United States. For years, American evangelical missionaries have been coming to Africa, making connections with local populations and doing charitable works in places where few other aid groups dare go. Now, at a time when the United States finds itself losing friends in the developing world, Africa's evangelicals may be one of the strongest pro-American blocs in the world. Grateful for years of patronage by their American brethren, bound by a sense of fellowship to the nation where the contemporary evangelical movement was formed, and respectful of born-again President Bush, these Africans represent a growing constituency of friends. In 2002, the Pew Global Attitudes Project conducted a public opinion poll of 38,000 people in 44 countries including Uganda. It found that nearly three in four Ugandans had favorable opinions of the United States and that 67 percent supported the war on terrorism. The numbers were even higher in Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya, and Nigeria--all countries that have experienced religious revivals similar to Uganda's--and they were, collectively, far higher than those in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. And, despite the divisive Iraq war, anecdotal evidence suggests that born-again African Christians still embrace the United States. In fact, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has proudly made Uganda a member of America's "coalition of the willing" in Iraq, knowing he can count on Ugandan evangelicals' powerful support for his decision.

22849. wonkers2 - 7/31/2004 3:11:03 PM

Go KuliganMan!

22850. kuliginthehooligan - 8/1/2004 5:35:02 AM

Very interesting article, Mags. Thanks. I suppose that had I said it here myself earlier, I would never have been believed.

22851. Ulgine Barrows - 8/1/2004 9:05:44 AM

It's all about what one believes.

22852. alistairConnor - 8/1/2004 12:14:28 PM

"I don't believe personally that it's the government's job to step in and take my article of faith and transfer it to somebody who doesn't share that article of faith," said Kerry, a Roman Catholic."

Obviously you have to oppose this, Kuligin, insofar as you wish for a religious dictatorship.

Most of us, including those with deeply-felt religious convictions, support the separation of Church and State.

Taking an article of faith, because it is an article of faith, and making it law, would violate this.

It is legitimate for the faithful to seek to pass laws to enforce articles of faith, but only insofar as they provide non-religious justifications for it.

22853. alistairConnor - 8/1/2004 12:35:05 PM

Making a special case for the execution of terrorists?

I'm not a pacifist (I doubt if there are any true pacifists among us) - that would require opposing all war under any circumstances, wishing for all armies to be dissolved etc. While this is a morally admirable position, it lacks any practical application. At a minimum, a nation has to be prepared to kill, in order to defend its own existence. The world being what it is.

I imagine that Kerry's thinking is along these lines. Rapists and murderers do not threaten the existence of a nation, as such. Terrorists might.

I don't agree that the existence of the USA is imperilled by terrorism, so in my view, making an exception amounts to overkill... but I accept the validity of the moral distinction that Kerry makes.

And, given that there appears to be a substantial majority in favour of capital punishment in the US, his position seems to me to be both courageous and didactic.

22854. thoughtful - 8/1/2004 7:13:29 PM

protestant majority evaporating

22855. kuliginthehooligan - 8/1/2004 7:45:24 PM

"Obviously you have to oppose this, Kuligin, insofar as you wish for a religious dictatorship."

This is just silly. I'd never want the State to dictate religion, no matter which one. However, I do think it is in the State's mandate to stop murder, such as the killing of innocent, unborn, human life. This isn't simply a "religious" issue. Since 1973 we've exterminated roughly 40 million human lives via abortion. If you can't see past this as solely a religious issue, alistair, I feel sorry for you.

22856. alistairConnor - 8/1/2004 8:42:24 PM

I did not accuse you of wishing for the state to dictate religion; I simply mentioned the fact that you wish for your religious diktats to apply to everyone, regardless of their religion.

If indeed you seek to discuss abortion without reference to religion, then obviously we are in the wrong thread... not my fault, as it happens.

(Interestingly, you seem to be implicitly acknowledging that Kerry is correct in dissociating his religious faith from his policy view concerning abortion.)

I personally have views on abortion, which are independent of my (lack of) religious faith (I consider it to be abhorrent, but I don't consider myself qualified to dictate what a woman can do, or should be obliged to undergo, concerning her own body). I am somewhat sceptical that you, Kuligin, have views on anything at all that are independent of your faith.

22857. jayackroyd - 8/1/2004 9:34:49 PM

However, I do think it is in the State's mandate to stop murder, such as the killing of innocent, unborn, human life.

In vitro fertilization kills embryos. Should the state stop that? The use of fertility drugs often leads to multiple embryos, sometimes dangerously many. The usual procedure is remove some of them. Should fertility drugs be banned?

22858. kuliginthehooligan - 8/1/2004 10:23:09 PM

alistair, here's what I said:

"This isn't simply a "religious" issue."

In other words, abortion isn't ONLY of religious concern. I never said it ONLY was, nor did I imply that it was NOT.

Therefore, this comment from you is dead wrong:

"(Interestingly, you seem to be implicitly acknowledging that Kerry is correct in dissociating his religious faith from his policy view concerning abortion.)"

I do not believe it is proper to dissociate one's religious views from the public arena, nor do I think anybody really does it anyway.

"I am somewhat sceptical that you, Kuligin, have views on anything at all that are independent of your faith."

Now then, this statement of yours is accurate. My faith intimately affects all of my worldview, both public and private. However, as I have already noted, I am skeptical of a government - any government -which attempts to dictate which religion the people should adhere to. The people should never be coerced, and your silly earlier comment that I want a religious dictatorship is just nonsense.

However, the government obviously institutes laws and regulations which can affect one's religion, that is obvious.

22859. kuliginthehooligan - 8/1/2004 10:28:14 PM

On the issue of abortion, simply throwing it into the "it's the woman's body so she can do what she wants to" arena is nonsensical. Do you oppose drug use? Why can't a person, in the privacy of his own home, use crack if he wants to? It's his body and his alone, right?

However, abortion doesn't just affect the woman and no one else. It affects at bear minimum the human being in her womb, as well as potentially her husband or partner should she decide to terminate the human life therein.

Abortion need not ONLY be argued on religious grounds, but of course religious grounds should play a part in the debate. We've exterminated roughly 40 million American lives in the past 31 years. Then we hear all the bellyaching about the 1000 American deaths in the past year in Iraq. Seems rather unbalanced to me, at least.

Lastly, if you find abortion abhorrent, then why do you just stand there and say or do nothing? Of course, perhaps you do, but don't you think the State should come in and protect the innocent, that portion of society which has not way of protecting itself? In other words, I think saying one finds abortion abhorrent, but also thinks it's quite okay to stand there and not stop it, is just plain nuts. It is nothing more than a cop-out.

And when it comes to someone like Kerry, it is a political cop-out meant to sidestep the issue so as to not risk losing votes in the process.

22860. jayackroyd - 8/1/2004 10:34:30 PM

On the issue of abortion, simply throwing it into the "it's the woman's body so she can do what she wants to" arena is nonsensical.

That's pretty much a consensus view. As viability moves down from the third trimester, and up into the first trimester, the "woman's body" argument is going to get weaker and weaker.

Do you oppose drug use? Why can't a person, in the privacy of his own home, use crack if he wants to? It's his body and his alone, right?

I don't know. Why not?

22861. kuliginthehooligan - 8/2/2004 4:50:09 PM

"Clinton's formulation--safe, legal and rare"

jay, I've brought your comment over here from the Election thread. The above you actually said twice, but you've also repeated in the past, obviously in favor of the formulation.

I have to dispute your concept of "rare." 1.2 MILLION humans slaughtered annually on average via abortion can hardly be considered rare. The fact is, year in and year out, abortion ranks in the top two medical procedures performed in the US (if memory serves, circumcision is the other one). In short, it is hardly rare.

However, I'll grant you that on average abortions in America have dropped from the 1.5 million per year level. That's a 20% drop. Great, right?

But "rare?" Hardly. 1.2 million of anything cannot be considered rare. And let's try that "rareness" on another topic, and see if it would fly. Let's say that 1.5 million homosexuals used to die every year from AIDS, but now it is "only" 1.2 million. Do you think the homosexual community would be lauding such a great drop in the dead toll?

And how would they respond if you told them not to worry, the deaths are rarer now than they were before?

Nearly half of all abortions are performed on women who had one previously. Abortion is used in very large part as a form of birth control and nothing else. Forget all the talk about the less than 1% in the case of rape or incest. We are slaughtering human lives for no other reason than the women find it convenient to do so, and now we have granted them legal protection to do it.

1.2 million lost American lives EVERY YEAR is harldy rare, jay.

22862. kuliginthehooligan - 8/2/2004 4:51:40 PM

Clinton's formulation is just another example of empty, political rhetoric, and you consistently parrot the party line despite the facts.

Oh, and by the way, 1.2 million is the bottom end of the annual rate. It actually still bounces up to around 1.3 million. But hey, who really cares, right? Rare is what we say it is.

22863. alistairConnor - 8/2/2004 5:36:59 PM

I agree, K, that there is a necessity to promote contraception as a public health measure. Not only is abortion abhorrent, it is a dangerous and expensive procedure. Prevention of unwanted pregnancies is a far better option.

Does your church campaign in favour of contraception?

22864. judithathome - 8/2/2004 5:46:30 PM

Of course, perhaps you do, but don't you think the State should come in and protect the innocent, that portion of society which has not way of protecting itself?

That is sort of what I asked myself when George Bush failed to sign a bill (as Governor) providing health insurance for children living in poverty. Didn't he think it was worth it to protect those chldren, who can hardly go out and earn money on their own to pay for their healthcare?

22865. thoughtful - 8/2/2004 5:55:01 PM

ktheh, why put it all on women? Are there not men involved in the conception process? Are there not couples deciding to have abortions? Are there not women who are told by their husbands/boyfriends/molesters to "get rid of it" whether they want an abortion or not? Are there not teenagers told by their parents to have an abortion whether they want one or not?

And what is this "abortion on demand" thing? As opposed to forcible abortion? If a woman is raped and decides to end the pregnancy, does that make it "abortion on whim" or "justifiable abortion"? Is an unwanted pregnancy resulting from rape any less "convenient" than an unwanted pregnancy resulting from consensual sex? Or is the logic behind drawing that line a desire to punish and shame a woman for having sex voluntarily for non-procreative purposes?

And is a fetus less human with less of a right to life in your view because it was conceived by rape as opposed to conceived voluntarily?

Those issues never made sense to me. Either a fetus has full-blown human rights, or it doesn't. If you're going to draw that line at conception, then the how of the conception should be irrelevant.

And if you draw the line at some point later in pregnancy, as I do, (I view the early fetus as potential human life so it has not yet acquired a right to independent life) then prior to that line, that pregnancy can be terminated for whatever reason, regardless of how it was conceived.

22866. jayackroyd - 8/2/2004 6:33:06 PM

I agree that there are too many abortions, that we should be engaged in an effective public health campaign that would reduce their frequency. Such a campaign would include education and easy access to contraceptives, including the morning after pill.

The fact that the anti-choice folks are opposed to such a campaign indicates that this is not really about abortion.

Still waiting to hear about fertility drugs and in vitro fertilization, both of which lead to the destruction of embryos.

22867. thoughtful - 8/2/2004 8:24:54 PM

Jay, I agree with you on all points the points made in 22866.

22868. angel-five - 8/2/2004 8:45:34 PM

The campaign against abortion in America is just a chosen battleground for the far right, not its raison d'etre. They're less interested in helping people than they are in gaining more political power. Pro-choice, and neutral participants in the debate, have repeatedly pointed out that the anti-abortion advocacies consistently fail to put their money where their mouth is in terms of significantly helping people who choose not to have abortions. They put their money into attack campaigns. The outreach programs the far right fields for actually helping poor mothers with children they decided to keep, or put up for adoption, are dwarfed by the amount of fuel they try to dump on the fire.

Like Jay said, it's not really about abortion. As if you'd need told that, given the demeanor of the people here who are most vehemently anti-abortion.

22869. jayackroyd - 8/3/2004 8:49:04 AM

well, there are two layers to that. The politicians who give lip service to anti-choice issues, but never actually get around to anything are one layer. The second layer, the Kulligans of this world, use the rhetoric of murder to advocate not a program of reducing abortions or unwanted pregnancies (both of which are clearly bad things), but a reassignment of women's role in American society. They want to hark back to the Cleavers of the 50s, not recognizing that the Cleavers were a myth.

22870. jayackroyd - 8/3/2004 8:57:27 AM

I've said this before, but I'll nonetheless add that the feminist advocacy groups, like NARAL, have also missed the boat on this issue. They only accept the "safe, legal" part of Clinton's formulation, which is shortsighted on their part. They should have clambered onto a ban on late term abortions (Roe v Wade allows states to regulate third trimester abortions iac, so they wouldn't have been giving anything up) in return for a public health campaign to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

22871. thoughtful - 8/3/2004 4:11:59 PM

I don't see how that would work, jay, since anything other than abstinence is not an "approved" message by the rwers. And the rwers for whatever reason refuse to realize that abstinence is simply unrealistic for the majority of humans, especially these days where fecundity is kicking in at age 10 and marriage postponed until well into their 20s. How realistic is it that humans stay celibate for over 10 years during the time in their life that their sex drive is at its peak?

I remember how ticked i was at barbara bush whose family was responsible for bringing in planned parenthood into ct and yet for political reasons refused to speak out on family planning even though she personally supported it.

As long as the radical right keeps a firm grip on the party, there will be no rational approach to sex education, std prevention, or contraception, resulting in even more costs for social programs, medical care, and abortions.

22872. kuliginthehooligan - 8/3/2004 5:00:39 PM

"They're less interested in helping people than they are in gaining more political power."

This is utter nonsense, and obviously you have no idea what goes on at the grassroots levels, angel-five.

"the anti-abortion advocacies consistently fail to put their money where their mouth is in terms of significantly helping people who choose not to have abortions."

And this coming from an avowed atheist who has absolutely no clue what churches and religious institutions are doing in America. Angel-five, you are still up to your old tricks, playing the expert in things you have no clue about. Since Roe v. Wade the number of organizations and groups and religious institutions which have gone to help women, unwed mothers, women seeking guidance, adoption agencies, a whole hoard of organizations, have come into existence. You are truly an idiot if you parrot the empty rhetoric you posted above.

22873. kuliginthehooligan - 8/3/2004 5:04:13 PM

Shifting gears, there seems to still be some hope for our country and its slide down the moral cesspool. At least the people of Missouri recognized that what the degenerates want isn't right or good, and other states, are moving in the same direction:

"Missouri Voters Approve Consitutional Gay Marriage Ban"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=3&u=/ap/20040804/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

22874. kuliginthehooligan - 8/3/2004 5:05:27 PM

"Missouri and 37 other states already have laws defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. But amendment supporters fear a court could toss aside the state law, and they believe the state would be on firmer legal ground if an outright ban is part of the Constitution.

Louisiana residents are to vote on a marriage amendment Sept. 18. Then Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah are to vote on the issue Nov. 2. Initiatives are pending in Michigan, North Dakota and Ohio.

Four states — Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada — already have similar amendments in their constitutions."

And yet another sign that John Kerry is out of touch with mainstream America.

22875. angel-five - 8/3/2004 7:55:37 PM

This is utter nonsense, and obviously you have no idea what goes on at the grassroots levels, angel-five.

I live at the grassroots levels, simpleton. What's more, I'm involved in grassroots politics. Your rhetoric about Christian charities sidesteps the point which I actually did mention about the vicious anti-abortion advocacy groups among your kind and the fact that your people poll much, much higher on denying abortion rights to women than it does on providing them government funding to help support their kept children, and charity isn't charity when it comes with proselytization. It's a coercive bribe. Classic Vic, strawmen abounding with your every word.

22876. angel-five - 8/3/2004 8:02:19 PM

And this coming from an avowed atheistwho has absolutely no clue what churches and religious institutions are doing in America.

Wrong again. Twice. It's pretty funny that you followed up that cite with a statement about 'playing the expert in things you know nothing about', isn't it?

Since Roe v. Wade the number of organizations and groups and religious institutions which have gone to help women, unwed mothers, women seeking guidance, adoption agencies, a whole hoard of organizations, have come into existence.

Ignoring for the moment that this sentence doesn't even make grammatical sense nor state a complete thought, the fact is that it doesn't address what anti-abortion advocacy groups are doing, and where they are spending their money. People like you are far more willing to wave the flaming brand and scream about hellfire and take peoples' rights away than you are to help them with the alternatives.

The simple truth is that your church groups aren't solving the problem of abortion, or else you wouldn't be shrieking about it any more. Clearly other efforts must be made to help women keep their babies. And you and your kind are just a lot more interested in trying to threaten them into doing what you want than you are in finding further constructive solutions. It is examples like this which make so many people find your personal politics repulsive.

22877. angel-five - 8/3/2004 8:04:35 PM

Saving the lives of unborn children are secondary to Vic. Promulgating his particular feverish and angry vein of thumper Christianity is primary. I think he'd happily see a few million fetuses aborted with broken bottles if it gave the religious right control of one of the houses of Congress.

22878. jayackroyd - 8/3/2004 8:10:23 PM

Still waiting to hear what the anti-choice position is on embryos destroyed by in vitro fertilization and fertility drugs.

22879. pelty - 8/3/2004 10:55:44 PM

"Your rhetoric about Christian charities sidesteps the point which I actually did mention about the vicious anti-abortion advocacy groups among your kind and the fact that your people poll much, much higher on denying abortion rights to women than it does on providing them government funding to help support their kept children, and charity isn't charity when it comes with proselytization."

And it is the government's responsibility to be the Daddy, Mommy and Bank for people who make bad choices? Remind me in which article of the Constitution that is to be found? That said, if someone in that situation is willing to work to get out of their predicament, I am all in favor of a form of temporary support (that is well-defined and, indeed, temporary) so that these people can live the American dream.

22880. jayackroyd - 8/3/2004 11:03:50 PM

That's not the point pelty. The point is that the people who are most up in arms about protecting the unborn are the least up in arms about protecting the born. To say they care about the children here is patently false. As I said earlier, it isn't really even about abortion, because they oppose effective measures to reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies.

And they skirt issues where embryos are destroyed, in modern fertility techniques.

It's not about the children. It's not about abortion. It's about islamizing American culture, but with a christian face behind the chador.

22881. thoughtful - 8/3/2004 11:06:12 PM

pelty, I think you miss the point. People attempt to make the right choice by preventing or terminating a pregnancy rather than raising a child they can't afford or relying on govt aid to fund the child, but they are prevented from doing so because of blocked access to family planning/contraception/abortion services.

22882. thoughtful - 8/3/2004 11:12:45 PM

jay, xpost!
islamizing? I suppose, but to me it feels a lot more like just getting down on women. While islam certainly does that, it puts restrictions on men as well. This anti-choice doctrine is focused on women, IMHO. I don't hear any of them talking about men doing the right thing, marrying the women they impregnate, financing children born out of wedlock, keeping it in their pants, etc. Especially when you start trying to jail women who are pregnant and alcohol or drug addicted, or drive without seatbelts or smoke, etc.

22883. kuliginthehooligan - 8/3/2004 11:45:18 PM

"Saving the lives of unborn children are secondary to Vic. Promulgating his particular feverish and angry vein of thumper Christianity is primary. I think he'd happily see a few million fetuses aborted with broken bottles if it gave the religious right control of one of the houses of Congress."

This is classic. You see, you can't argue on the issues, so you have to resort to basically saying that I really don't care at all if innocent human lives are lost via abortion. Really, all I care about is power.

Hopefully, reasonable people can see through this. But regardless, the Republicans DO have control of both houses, and I'm still talking about abortion and its evils nonetheless. And even if the Repubs had 80 seats in the Senate and an equal majority in the House, I'd still be talking about its evils.

So say what you want to, and make up all the lies you care to make up. Nothing new with you Resonance/angel five.

22884. kuliginthehooligan - 8/3/2004 11:47:52 PM

"To say they care about the children here is patently false."

jay, this is also a lie. What do you really know or care, though? You think 1.2 million abortions a year is "rare," remember? Regardless, though, tons of Christians who care about unborn humans do participate in adoption, give millions of dollars to help unwed mothers, donate millions of manhours nationwide each and every year to helping women who are thinking about killing their unborn babies, and so on.

And angel-five, for the future, I ask that you refer to me only by my current moniker. Thank you.

22885. kuliginthehooligan - 8/3/2004 11:49:42 PM

pelty, don't waste your good reason on this rabble. As you see, since they can't argue on the basis of facts, they have to result to denigrating character. As you know, of course, I couldn't care less about the actual morality of abortion, or about the countless humans who have been slaughtered via this ghoulish practice. I'm really just interested in power, and all I can get!!

And look how much power I already have. Bwahahahahaha.

22886. judithathome - 8/4/2004 1:19:31 AM

tons of Christians who care about unborn humans do participate in adoption, give millions of dollars to help unwed mothers, donate millions of manhours nationwide each and every year to helping women who are thinking about killing their unborn babies, and so on.

Think of how much time and effort and money all of you would save if you counseled everyone in pregnancy prevention, though.

22887. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 2:01:15 AM

Not so, judith, because people will still do what they want to do, regardless of whether or not it is right or good for them. For instance, I can see someone arguing that the reason why abortions in America on average have fallen from 1.5 million per year to around 1.2 million is because of the blitz of birth control information we have had. Certainly, it must have played some role, although I don't think the sole or even most important role. But certainly some role.

That still leaves us with 1.2 million per year, and nearly half of those are performed on women who have already had at least one abortion previously. In other words, despite the inundation of information and the varied educational efforts concerning birth control, roughly 600 thousand human beings are slaughtered each and every year by women who just don't really care, and use abortion as another form of birth control.

And the common caricature of evangelicals never teaching their children about forms of birth control, but rather just talking about abstinence of nothing else, is just that, a caricature. I, for one, am proof that that is simply not true. But there really isn't any point in pointing that out to the rabble here, because, well, they tend to never believe the truth anyway.

And despite our varied disagreements in the past, judith, surely you see that I am very passionate about this issue and always have been, and angel five's notion that I really don't care about God's creations in the womb is just nonsense. So can't you even see how the issue is not even addressed, but rather, character assassination is instead opted for (at least in the case of jay and angel five)?

22888. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 2:06:10 AM

There is a HUGE grassroots movement and organization of people and resources working on the abortion front, attempting in varied ways to save these human beings from the selfish choices of people who should really love them. Again, it is the height of hypocrisy for people to come here and whine about the 1000 American soldiers lost in the last year in Iraq (as bad as that is nonetheless), and not even bat an eye to the MILLIONS of human beings that we needlessly and selfishly slaughter in our country.

Incredibly, if a person drives his car alone, without a seatbelt, he is breaking the law in most states and is subject to prosecution. But if a woman decides to kill the unborn child in her tummy, we call that a private right of that citizen!

We have become a cold, heartless nation. It is part and parcel of the moral dumbing down of America.

22889. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 2:07:46 AM

On another topic, I saw yesterday that home schooling has exploded in America, up 29% when comparing 2003 to 1999. The main reason given was the condition of public schools, particularly when it came to moral and religious education, as to why more and more parents are opting for home schooling options.

22890. judithathome - 8/4/2004 2:26:56 AM

So can't you even see how the issue is not even addressed, but rather, character assassination is instead opted for (at least in the case of jay and angel five)?

yes, I see this quite clearly and here is but one example:

But there really isn't any point in pointing that out to the rabble here, because, well, they tend to never believe the truth anyway.

I guess that wraps up the entire group, all right. We're just a truth-evading rabble, unwilling to bend to your belief system.

22891. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 2:39:43 AM

Whatever, judith. But you know full well that if you came in here and said you care for the poor, and I said that that is a lie and that you don't care at all, but rather care about XYZ, that you'd cry foul, and rightly so.

No matter. Believe what you want to, which is, of course, your right to do.

22892. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 2:43:17 AM

"The simple truth is that your church groups aren't solving the problem of abortion, or else you wouldn't be shrieking about it any more."

Huh? It is LEGAL, the law says it is okay. "My church" thinks it is the killing of an innocent human life.

You guys seem to think that if ALL the churches and religious groups and evangelicals and "fill in blank" just taught birth control, there'd be no need for abortion. But not only is that nonsensical, but it also ignored historical fact and what is currently happening right now. Nearly half of all women who have abortions have already had at least one. They don't care, don't you get it?

And yet, the State has labeled this slaughter a woman's right.

22893. arkymalarky - 8/4/2004 2:50:45 AM

The main reason given was the condition of public schools, particularly when it came to moral and religious education, as to why more and more parents are opting for home schooling options.

It's because the government has undermined and underfunded public schools while subsidizing privatization options, including some that facilitate home schooling. Of course this still only benefits those who can afford to take advantage of the government changes, and precious few of them.

The poor (children) you will have with you always, even in the richest country in the world.

22894. judithathome - 8/4/2004 2:59:54 AM

Kuligan, I have said nothing about your caring for the unborn or your beliefs in this matter. All I am saying is birth control would go a long way toward saving people from the need for abortions.

And it is not the church I blame for lack of birth control but women themselves. Especially those who are having their second or third abortion. Birth control is readily available to any woman who chooses to use it. The church may frown on it but it is easier to sin a little by using BC than to sin a lot by getting an abortion, I would think. However, I know many churches frown on using birth control and I think this gives some women a pass from trying to avoid pregnancy in the first place.

22895. jayackroyd - 8/4/2004 3:45:50 AM

You think 1.2 million abortions a year is "rare," remember?

No, I don't. I think there are too many unwanted pregnancies. I think we should adopt policies to reduce those numbers. You don't. If you cared about embryos as if they were human beings, you would. Your position is profoundly dishonest.

And I still haven't seen your response to in vitro fertilization and fertility drugs.

22896. jayackroyd - 8/4/2004 3:48:08 AM

You guys seem to think that if ALL the churches and religious groups and evangelicals and "fill in blank" just taught birth control, there'd be no need for abortion.

No, we want to know why, if you are deeply concerned about embryos and fetuses, you don't support increased access to contraception and family planning services.

22897. pelty - 8/4/2004 4:27:22 AM

"People attempt to make the right choice by preventing or terminating a pregnancy rather than raising a child they can't afford or relying on govt aid to fund the child, but they are prevented from doing so because of blocked access to family planning/contraception/abortion services."

My problem is the inherent selfishness in this type of reasoning that is wrapped up in the guise of unselfishness, of doing the right thing. I mean, to step back and say, "this child will be born at a severe disadvantage, so let's kill it to save it the misery" is a tragically warped way of looking at the child and its potential future. I readily admit that I was born into a situation very different than the type we are envisioning for this hypothetical child, but even circumstantial evidence from a nightly newscast demonstrates to me that people in the projects hold onto life just as dearly as I and even in the midst of poverty they find reason to laugh and enjoy life. This is not to discount attendant suffering; it surely exists. I would venture to say that Vic might be able to tell us a thing or two about young children in poverty given his experiences in Namibia. Further, why not give the child a shot at adoption rather than making a choice for it, not to mention, a choice for one's own self as many abortions are undertaken not because the child will be at a social disadvantage, but rather because the parent(s) will be inconvenienced, embarassed, etc.

22898. pelty - 8/4/2004 4:27:41 AM

And as Vic rightly mentions, this "pro-life for power" argument is silly. I believe that there is a recent poll that shows the pro-life position to be losing the culture war, so it would seem that the way to gain power with the majority would be to be an abortion rights advocate. Bush aside, it even would seem (admittedly based on nothing of substance save that they are being swept under the carpet at their convention) that the pro-life bloc is becoming an increasingly shunned group within the party that has generally supported the rights of the unborn, the GOP.

22899. pelty - 8/4/2004 4:41:35 AM

"No, we want to know why, if you are deeply concerned about embryos and fetuses, you don't support increased access to contraception and family planning services."

I, for one, support this w/ a couple of caveats. First, I would like a definition of "family planning services." If abortion is included as an option, then I am against it. In my opinion, if one reaches the point where abortion is an option (i.e., the woman is pregnant) then we are past the point of planning and are now at the point of "Oh shit, what are we going to do now (please excuse my language)?!?!?"

Caveat number two would be that abstinence is given a fair hearing. In other words, don't present it as "well, you *could* refrain from sex, but we all *know* that that is a near impossibility at your tender age, so let's move on and talk about IUDs." An explanation of the potential risks, both physical and emotional (and moral as well if the FP center is so inclined) of sex at a young age, while by no means a guarantor of abstinence, will at least give them something to think about and will be a message different from that received from the culture. Present it as a legitimate option, one that is of an equal or superior stature with pre-marital sex, and then proceed to other options (condoms, pill, etc.). The problem is that the adult population just assumes that kids are going to do it no matter what, so we may as well give them the tools. I do not believe that it is necessarily true that kids will go to it at the first opportunity. Some might, I am not so naive to assume that there would be a 100% success rate, but a stronger plea for abstinence might end up saving a young girl from being placed in a situation where she is faced with some awful choices.

22900. sakonige - 8/4/2004 4:49:38 AM

pregnancy can be devastating to a person's health. It can kill you.

22901. sakonige - 8/4/2004 4:57:06 AM

not if you're male, of course. The disease aspects of pregnancy are a non-issue for males. For them, it's just a matter of having sex and waiting for the baby to pop out.

22902. jayackroyd - 8/4/2004 5:27:35 AM

I, for one, support this w/ a couple of caveats. First, I would like a definition of "family planning services."

I simply want to know why you are oppposed to contraceptive services.

22903. thoughtful - 8/4/2004 5:29:26 AM

but, pelty, to people who believe life begins at conception, iud is NOT an option as it does not prevent conception...only pregnancy. Morning after pills are NOT an option as they do not prevent conception...only pregnancy. Also, many argue that one cannot educate children about contraception as that is giving tacit approval to premarital sex which is not acceptable. Therefore, the only thing one can teach children is abstinence.

And those who violate the rules deserve whatever punishment they get, even if it's a death sentence due to aids, or death by illegal abortion, or death by child birth.

22904. thoughtful - 8/4/2004 5:31:12 AM

That's how some see protecting the "right" to life, which has been said so many times before, seems to begin at conception and end at birth.

22905. pelty - 8/4/2004 6:22:49 AM

"I simply want to know why you are oppposed to contraceptive services."

I don't think that I said I was. I just may have a different idea of just what such a service should entail.

22906. pelty - 8/4/2004 6:33:16 AM

"And those who violate the rules deserve whatever punishment they get, even if it's a death sentence due to aids, or death by illegal abortion, or death by child birth."

Huh? I don't think dying from AIDS, abortion, or childbirth is something deserved, but it is ultimately the result of lifestyle choices. There are risks inherent in having unprotected sex that include some of the things you mention. If people are aware of these risks, than I can feel sorry for them, but they are not necessarily tragedies. I would certainly prefer that a cure to AIDS be found, that people did not die from botched abortions, and that women would not die in childbirth, but until such a time should arise, make your choice and then live (or die) with it. It called "personal responsibility."

Sakonige, surprisingly, brings up a good point. Men do have it easy when it comes to accidental pregnancy. It stinks. I am open to suggestions as to how to make males more responsible in this day and age. I suspect that it starts from birth and that by the time a young man is of an age to impregnate a young woman, it is too late to reach the one who is of a mind to up and leave when the going gets tough.

22907. angel-five - 8/4/2004 6:36:08 AM

And despite our varied disagreements in the past, judith, surely you see that I am very passionate about this issue and always have been, and angel five's notion that I really don't care about God's creations in the womb is just nonsense. So can't you even see how the issue is not even addressed, but rather, character assassination is instead opted for (at least in the case of jay and angel five)?

I think it's a murderous passion, if anything. And it isn't character assassination to point out obvious truths in your demeanor and the fights you choose to make and how you choose to make them. Whatever you choose to claim about your beneficient beliefs, here you mostly share hate.

22908. angel-five - 8/4/2004 7:23:14 AM

You guys seem to think that if ALL the churches and religious groups and evangelicals and "fill in blank" just taught birth control, there'd be no need for abortion. But not only is that nonsensical, but it also ignored historical fact and what is currently happening right now. Nearly half of all women who have abortions have already had at least one. They don't care, don't you get it?

I think if that all the churches and religious groups and evangelicals and etc taught birth control and family planning, there'd be much, much less need for abortion. I believe it would be much more efficacious than your placarded ranting and the applied politics of your religious hate. I believe that overall our world would be a much better place than it is now for the children whom you claim to be concerned about.

There are, simply, far too many abortions in America, and while I believe the right to choose is important, I do not believe I could ever make that choice. You choose to point the finger and say 'They're bad, they must be punished'. I believe, on the contrary, that if our culture were more pragmatic and less dogmatic about adoption, birth control and the philosophies of personal responsibility, that our people would make much better choices overall and that abortion rates would plummet.

22909. angel-five - 8/4/2004 7:28:17 AM

You choose to harp on how wrong it is. I choose to realize that it is a problem that hasn't been ameliorated by harping, and might be ameliorated by education. You find the moral center of America in religion -- all well and good. All the more reason for religion to be at the table, discussing instead of finger-pointing, helping people to make smart choices in a complex world instead of demanding that they do what makes no sense to them and threatening to have them thrown in jail if they do not. You believe America is in some sort of moral slide. I believe that historically speaking there have always been people like you saying such things, and that the moral worth of our people depends less on draconian adherence to Procrustean stricture, and more upon our willingness to foster good in the world despite the fact that people don't always do precisely what we want them to. At the end of the day I care less about who got branded a wrongdoer and more about who got a better life despite their occasional error, and I refuse to stand on arcane and irrelevant principle when it will only cause more harm than good. I wish people like you felt the same way, but you don't, and I will stand in your way, and push back, when you attempt to rape the spirit of 'love thy neighbor' in the name of the letter of your Law.

There is simply far more to be gained by working with people than there is to shriek hellfire at them, and it is at times like this that I am most glad that whatever gave rise to me gave me the power of independent reason, rather than slavish adherence to inflexible principle, when it comes time for me to decide what is right and moral and just in a world which ten commandments can neither control nor cage nor command.

22910. alistairConnor - 8/4/2004 10:24:16 AM

The problem is that the adult population just assumes that kids are going to do it no matter what, so we may as well give them the tools.

But the point, Pelty, is that they already have the tools.

Well, half of them do.

22911. alistairConnor - 8/4/2004 10:36:52 AM

But seriously : I agree with you that there should be much more than just technical info on contraception available.

Schools ought to be the place where children can learn and decide about the moral framework that accompanies their sexuality; about the consequences of their choices; about the joys of non-penetrative sex; etc. In particular, there needs to be more social engineering aimed at particular high-risk sub-cultures, empowering young women in their relationships with men. The possibility of abstinence is one part of this; but "just say no" is just stupid.

22912. judithathome - 8/4/2004 3:42:21 PM

Explaining the risks will fall by the wayside as soon as a couple of teenagers have sex for the first time and nothing dire happens. They immediately assume all they've been told was bunk.

22913. thoughtful - 8/4/2004 3:44:18 PM

Huzzah A-5!

22914. thoughtful - 8/4/2004 3:54:30 PM

pelty, personal responsibility is all well and good. however humans are not born with instinct and need to be educated. With the proper information, they are better able to make the right choices. Why create a system that leaves them to their own devices and forces them to live with the consequences, when, with a little education, the "not necessarily tragedies" as you put it, of disease and death may be avoided all together?

22915. thoughtful - 8/4/2004 5:18:10 PM

Speaking of which, Lawsuit Says Women Were Misled to Delay Abortions

In a federal lawsuit, seven women now charge that Mr. Graham never intended to refer them for an abortion at all, but was merely stalling until it was too late....

Five of the women who sued Mr. Graham said in court affidavits that his tactics had forced them to carry their pregnancies to term, either because they had passed the legal time limit for abortions - generally at the end of the second trimester - or they could no longer afford an abortion, which tends to cost more later in a pregnancy.

and

In 2002, Mr. Graham enrolled in the state's anti-AIDS condom distribution program, picked up 30,000 free condoms and discarded them. He pleaded guilty to theft and is on probation.

And talk about irresponsible women getting abortions on demand for the sake of convenience:

With no job, no high school diploma, a boyfriend in jail and a mother who is terminally ill, Mary Schloegel, 19, says she is in no position to raise a child.

and

One of the women already had a child with hemophilia who required constant care. Now she has two. "I also did not want to bring another severely ill child into this world or be in the position where I am unable to give my children the full care and attention they need," she wrote in an affidavit under the name Jane Doe No. 4.

We cannot possibly know the difficult position people who choose abortion are in. We cannot know their personal situations and what choices they face. We should not presume to decide for them.

22916. pelty - 8/4/2004 6:01:14 PM

"personal responsibility is all well and good. however humans are not born with instinct and need to be educated. With the proper information, they are better able to make the right choices. Why create a system that leaves them to their own devices and forces them to live with the consequences, when, with a little education, the "not necessarily tragedies" as you put it, of disease and death may be avoided all together?"

I am obviously not mking myself clear here. Educate. Educate to your heart's content. Just make abstinence a *legitimate* option, not one that is something unattainable and pie-in-the-sky (and perhaps a bit wimpy). Then, by all means proceed to discuss condoms, pill, etc. I am not suggesting that we stick our heads in the ground and decide not to face the reality that teens are having sex. What I am suggesting is that we attempt to make abstinence an option worth pursuing for health reasons and, for those who are so inclined, moral reasons as well.

22917. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 6:22:27 PM

"There is simply far more to be gained by working with people than there is to shriek hellfire at them"

Then you might take a page from your own suggestions, angel-five. It does little good to wage character assasination on a person, and state that I do not care at all about unborn humans, but rather, about power. That's just nonsensical, and you should apologize for it instead of waxing eloquent and attempting to skirt the matter.

Yours are just dirty games, angel-five.

22918. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 6:24:10 PM

And if we want to be pragmatic, then let's teach our young people the 100% sure fire way of not getting pregnant, abstinence. You don't have to worry about having an unwanted baby if you abstain from the behaviour that produces them. I'm always amazed at how simple the formula is, and how pragmatic it is as well, and yet, how vehemently people oppose it. Seems to me they are much more interested in "sexual freedom" than in anything else.

22919. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 6:25:49 PM

"Just make abstinence a *legitimate* option, not one that is something unattainable and pie-in-the-sky (and perhaps a bit wimpy)"

Amen.

22920. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 6:29:51 PM

And let's keep in mind, the largest class of women having abortions is BY FAR middle to upper middle while women, not the poor and indigent. That is just a red herring. And again, nearly half of the women have already had at least one abortion previously.

So despite all the increase in education for birth control, and even if we did more for it, there'd still be a ton of American lives lost each and every year (hundreds of thousands) due to this practice.

Abortion, except in the case where the mother's life is in jeopardy, should be stopped in this country, period.

22921. sakonige - 8/4/2004 6:29:55 PM

You don't have to worry about having an unwanted baby if you abstain from the behaviour that produces them. I'm always amazed at how simple the formula is, and how pragmatic it is as well, and yet, how vehemently people oppose it.

Muslims are a fine example of these principles in action. They know how to prevent the behavior that produces unwanted babies, yet people vehemently oppose their methods.

22922. sakonige - 8/4/2004 6:31:06 PM

that is to say, many people oppose them, not the Muslims themselves, of course.

22923. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 6:33:36 PM

And as basically everybody here has agreed on, people often just don't do what they should do. In other words, even given the vast amount of birth control education that we have seen already in this country, people don't care.

My gosh, even in the homosexual community AIDS is on the rise, and it is shown by studies and polling that homosexual men aren't using condoms to protect themselves. They don't particularly care to.

So the argument that "what we need is MORE and MORE education" is just silly, and ignores the fact that, despite how much education you throw at people, many of them just aren't going to listen.

So we make abortion another form of birth control, and as the stats show, that is precisely how it is being used. Get rid of that option, though, and perhaps less and less people would have an "out" when it comes to fooling around. Because at it seems now, often the mentality is, "well, let's not use birth control, and if we get pregnant, we'll just abort."

22924. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 6:38:01 PM

22925. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 6:39:26 PM

22926. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 6:47:31 PM

Here is, literally, the face of abortion:

22927. jayackroyd - 8/4/2004 7:18:50 PM

Still wondering about those fertility practices.

And also wondering why the coherent program pelty mentions is not advocated by the religious right. Sure, abstinence should be part of any program that teaches kids about their future choices--and not merely because of unwanted pregnacy. But contraception should also be an important part of such programs, and those on the religious right who say they want to see reductions in abortion rates oppose such aspects.

22928. angel-five - 8/4/2004 7:24:11 PM

Then you might take a page from your own suggestions, angel-five. It does little good to wage character assasination on a person, and state that I do not care at all about unborn humans, but rather, about power. That's just nonsensical, and you should apologize for it instead of waxing eloquent and attempting to skirt the matter.

Actually what I said was that you care more for growing the power base of fundamentalism than you do for unborn humans, Kuligin, and I don't intend to apologize for the truth. People here recognize that in you. I don't 'skirt' that matter. It was the conclusion of my first series of posts in this discussion, and I'll reaffirm it whenever necessary.

And if we want to be pragmatic, then let's teach our young people the 100% sure fire way of not getting pregnant, abstinence.

Because that has worked so well for the first several thousand years we've taught it? What, do you think it's a matter of just finally getting it right? How many tries do you need?

I have no problem with abstinence being taught as an option, even the main option, but studies show that teens taught abstinence only, not only still have sex anyway, but they tend to have less protected sex more often than teens taught safe sex.

22929. Absensia - 8/4/2004 7:30:16 PM

This brings to mind a very Catholic and conservative family I knew. They refused to teach their four kids anything about birth control and were adamantly against sex education in school. They bragged about how their children would never, ever have sex before they were married. When it became obvious their 16 year old daughter was 6 months pregnant, the mother said, "I have no idea how this could have happened." Obviously the daughter did.

22930. angel-five - 8/4/2004 7:32:26 PM

I mean, WTF. 'Let's make abstinence a legitimate option'. Who here believes that abstinence isn't taught as a legitimate option? Well, besides in those places where abstinence isn't taught as an option, but the entire ball of wax, I mean.

How do you make it a more 'legitimate' option than it already is? Once again, if people think that teaching safe sex methods weakens abstinence, I point you to the results of teaching abstinence only vs. teaching abstinence and safe sex, which is, more teen pregnancy, more teen STD, more teen abortions. Teaching 'abstinence-only' is what makes abstinence an illegitimate option, and it's what's got to stop. There are right-wing advocacies in America that know fully well that abstinence-only has poor results and that the kids do worse for it. Anyone can read the studies. The fact that they know, and still press the abstinence-only programs, is just further example of the fact that they care less about what they claim to champion than the furtherance of their political agenda. The enforcement of conservative Christian values has become the end, and not the means, for these people.

22931. angel-five - 8/4/2004 7:37:30 PM

But contraception should also be an important part of such programs, and those on the religious right who say they want to see reductions in abortion rates oppose such aspects.

And that's simply because what was once a means for them has become the desired end. And Kuligin knows this, so much so that he has to distort it when it's said, from 'Conservative Christian prominence is more important to you than the unborn lives you're screaming about' to 'Power is all to you and you don't care at all about unborn lives'. It hits far too close to home.

But good luck getting him to admit it. He doesn't wanna talk about fertility practices, btw. He probably doesn't know much about them.

22932. thoughtful - 8/4/2004 7:45:49 PM

great shots, KtheH...now pray tell what is that first picture a picture of? It may be an aborted fetus, but it certainly doesn't look human. The human fetus in early stages had a disproportionately large head. Makes me mistrust the source.

22933. pelty - 8/4/2004 7:46:17 PM

"I mean, WTF. 'Let's make abstinence a legitimate option'. Who here believes that abstinence isn't taught as a legitimate option? Well, besides in those places where abstinence isn't taught as an option, but the entire ball of wax, I mean."

Ii guess I do, for one. Reflecting on my own experience, I am hard-pressed to remember any discussion of abstinence and if it was mentioned, it was in passing and glossed over. The unspoken understanding in the classroom is that people were going to have sex no matter what, so let's get to those things that will protect them. There is, of course, some truth to this as there will always be teen sex, but there *may* be less of it if abstinence is promoted as zealously as condom usage was in my own experience. I recently heard a poll that suggested abstinence was on the rise in the teenage population, although who knows what is to be learned from this. I do not have the source on that poll, so I mention it anecdotally and with some caution.

22934. judithathome - 8/4/2004 7:51:46 PM

I don't know how old you are, Pelty, but when I was a teenager in the 1950s, it was just understood that you wouldn't have sex until you married. And we had "homes for unwed mothers" to which many of my classmates were sent so obviously, even back in that more innocent time when there was no sex ed in schools, teens who would be ostracized for having pre-maritial sex still did it.

22935. angel-five - 8/4/2004 7:56:54 PM

Ii guess I do, for one. Reflecting on my own experience, I am hard-pressed to remember any discussion of abstinence and if it was mentioned, it was in passing and glossed over.

Abstinence was taught as the best option in my schooling, and you would be the first person I've encountered who might not have heard it mentioned. There are no school curricula today I know of where abstinence isn't taught as an option -- except, as I mentioned, where abstinence isn't taught as an option but the only choice. I'd welcome hearing any proof that we aren't teaching abstinence as an option these days.

I recently heard a poll that suggested abstinence was on the rise in the teenage population, although who knows what is to be learned from this.

Could it possibly be as a result of teaching it more sensibly than 'Just don't have sex'? I mean, everyone here was a teenager at some point. Who among us responded well to that sort of direct commandment? Teenagers have a profound sex drive and they are wired to rebel.

22936. angel-five - 8/4/2004 7:59:10 PM

Abstinence was taught as the best option in my schooling, and you would be the first person I've encountered who might not have heard it mentioned.

should end with 'in their sex ed class'. Of course, unfortunately, the generation that gave rise to Roe v. Wade wasn't really taught that much about sex, were they?

22937. jayackroyd - 8/4/2004 8:00:08 PM

Actually, I expect that abstinence is a significant part of sex education programs because of concern over STDs.

This WSJ article discusses the issue.

I know that if I had teenaged kids we'd talk about the emotional and physical risks involved with having sex before you're ready for it.

So, pelty, I think you're pushing on an open door. It would be crazy to have a sex education curriculum that didn't make very clear that the surest way to not get pregnant is not to have sex.

22938. jayackroyd - 8/4/2004 8:03:36 PM

From the article:

Among school districts that teach sex education, 51% discuss contraception but require abstinence be taught as the preferred option. About 35% require that abstinence be taught as the only option for unmarried people.

The remaining 14% teach teens that both abstinence and contraception are part of a broad range of options for adolescents.

22939. Magoseph - 8/4/2004 9:16:31 PM

A truly evil man--Lawsuit Says Women Were Misled to Delay Abortions

Unknown to the women, said officials of Planned Parenthood of Louisiana and the Mississippi Delta, Mr. Graham is a vigorous opponent of abortion who has picketed doctors' officers and videotaped people attending events for Planned Parenthood, which supports abortion rights.
According to a 1995 article in The Times-Picayune of New Orleans, Mr. Graham and his wife, Bonnie, once ran A Woman's Day Clinic, which she described as a "pro-life" clinic for pregnant women and women who had had abortions.

In 2002, Mr. Graham enrolled in the state's anti-AIDS condom distribution program, picked up 30,000 free condoms and discarded them. He pleaded guilty to theft and is on probation.

Five of the women who sued Mr. Graham said in court affidavits that his tactics had forced them to carry their pregnancies to term, either because they had passed the legal time limit for abortions - generally at the end of the second trimester - or they could no longer afford an abortion, which tends to cost more later in a pregnancy.

22940. thoughtful - 8/4/2004 9:38:30 PM

magos, see #22915

22941. Magoseph - 8/4/2004 9:41:31 PM

Oh, darn, sorry, thoughful. How could I miss that.

22942. thoughtful - 8/4/2004 10:12:39 PM

it's worth repeating!
;-)

22943. PelleNilsson - 8/4/2004 11:12:59 PM

Pictures of aborted fetuses (or whatever they are) posted in two threads. This certainly represents the low water mark in the history of the Mote. Kuligin is losing his composure and his judgement. Such a pity.

22944. Magoseph - 8/4/2004 11:34:47 PM

These Kuligin types introduce their horror stories, but they never introduce the pictures of young women butchered in their prime by unqualified so-called medical practioneers, simply because they didn't have the food or money to provide for another child. The so-called religious elements that have sponsored this horror, to the best of my knowledge, have never made a serious effort to control the birth of unwanted children, based on their ridiculous notion that an egg is a human being.

22945. Ms. No - 8/5/2004 12:34:43 AM

Good catch, Thoughtful. An 11 week pregnancy is about an inch long and looks like this:

22946. kuliginthehooligan - 8/5/2004 12:37:39 AM

I was hoping you'd say that, pelle. It is, though, simply the truth. Don't want to actually look at the truth, do you pelle?

Mags, doing things that are illegal have their consequences. What people opposed to abortion advocate is adoption, having the woman take the baby to term and not slaughtering it, and then putting it up for adoption. 25% of couples in America are infertile and many are forced to go overseas for adoption.

If the "deal" were, we'll end abortion and you guys on the right adopt the children instead, there wouldn't be one left behind.

22947. kuliginthehooligan - 8/5/2004 12:38:32 AM

"based on their ridiculous notion that an egg is a human being"

Nonsense. Or at bare minimum, Mags, be more precise.

22948. kuliginthehooligan - 8/5/2004 12:42:41 AM

"We cannot possibly know the difficult position people who choose abortion are in. We cannot know their personal situations and what choices they face."

Sure we can. They tell us, or we have in some way experiences it ourselves.

"We should not presume to decide for them."

More nonsense. We decide to people all the time. We tell them they must wear seatbelts, or they can't smoke pot in the privacy of their own homes. We do this with the law all the time.

Why? Because it has been determined that these people don't know good enough for themselves. The laws are created, in essence, to protect people against themselves in many instances.

With abortion, we have needless butchering and slaughtering of innocent human life. It is absolutely mind boggling how, with a wave of the hand, we can condone the death of 40 million Americans over the past 31 years, and then blithely call it a personal right and privilege.

22949. judithathome - 8/5/2004 12:48:13 AM

It is, though, simply the truth. Don't want to actually look at the truth, do you pelle?

Someone might want help with remedies for constipation but that doesn't mean they want to see pictures of turds.

22950. judithathome - 8/5/2004 12:50:01 AM

25% of couples in America are infertile and many are forced to go overseas for adoption.

People go overseas to adopt because of all the red tape put up by rules and regulations from "helpful" government bureaucracy.

22951. kuliginthehooligan - 8/5/2004 12:58:12 AM

judith, people know that turds are turds.

However, we have people in this thread who don't believe that abortions kill human beings? Then what was that head a picture of, a turtle? Zebra? Duck-billed platapus?

They need to see that each abortion kills a human being. There it is, for you to see. Hiding the pictures is a subtle attempt at skirting the issue.

It isn't just an undifferentiate mass. It is a human being.

22952. kuliginthehooligan - 8/5/2004 12:59:09 AM

"but it certainly doesn't look human"

Not sure what you think is a human, then, thoughtful, if that doesn't qualify.

22953. sakonige - 8/5/2004 1:06:56 AM

It's human, but it's also a parasite. The host should have some say in ridding itself of a parasite.

22954. sakonige - 8/5/2004 1:07:54 AM

especially a harmful parasite. No one should be forced to host a harmful parasite.

22955. angel-five - 8/5/2004 6:59:31 AM

Kuligin can post as many of those as he wants, as far as I'm concerned. Abortion involves something pretty horrific.

His mistake, I'm thinking, is assuming that it will move people who already know abortion involves something pretty horrific. Maybe he's used to impressionable teenagers as his audience. The fact of the matter is that mature adults are capable of realizing that some decisions come at a horrible cost, and still decide it's the best decision. Maybe he does realize that somehow -- in fact, it seems likely he does. He just seems to think that they opt for that decision for selfish reasons. I know some do. Some do not, some are honestly trying to do the right thing, and in some cases it is assuredly the right thing to do! You can't reduce it all to some kinda caricature of selfish shallow upper class women deciding to murder an infant because it will fuck up their feng shui. Trying to do that just advertises the essential weakness of his position.

22956. Ulgine Barrows - 8/5/2004 7:57:31 AM

22861. kuliginthehooligan - 8/3/2004 2:50:09 PM
The fact is, year in and year out, abortion ranks in the top two medical procedures performed in the US (if memory serves, circumcision is the other one). In short, it is hardly rare.

Oh, please.
I'd guess taking weight and blood pressure readings were tops.

"Abortion is used in very large part as a form of birth control and nothing else."
That's a silly thing to read, how do you like this in response?
Pony up some money and time, and raise those kids yourself.

Not that you have a choice, whether it's legal or not, moral or not. Women can decide, and that just chaps your ass.

22957. angel-five - 8/5/2004 10:55:08 AM

>The fact is, year in and year out, abortion ranks in the top two medical procedures performed in the US (if memory serves, circumcision is the other one). In short, it is hardly rare.

Do you know why this is such obviously retarded propaganda, Kuligin?

How can there be more circumcisions than births?

The fact that you garbled is that abortion is usually one of the top two obstetric medical procedures performed per year in the world. (Childbirth is the number one obstetric medical procedure, go figure!) Pop quiz, Kuligin -- how many sorts of obstetric medical procedure do you think there are?

22958. Ulgine Barrows - 8/5/2004 11:02:56 AM

Slip in anything you like, angel-five.

Is this for real?

22959. angel-five - 8/5/2004 11:25:30 AM

Given that there's no comprehensive world (or US for that matter) database of the total count of medical procedures, really, no, it isn't for real. There's just estimation, especially when you're looking at a procedure that's often kept confidential. Anti-abortion propagandists like to estimate large numbers, for obvious reasons. But when they start claiming that abortions are more common than chest x-rays and childbirth and mammograms and colonoscopies, it becomes plain that they have left the real world far behind.

22960. angel-five - 8/5/2004 11:31:04 AM

I should have had 'fact' in quotes, as far as that goes. But that's a given when you're working with propaganda.

22961. Ulgine Barrows - 8/5/2004 11:43:15 AM

When I'm retired, I hope you or your kids are looking after me!

Go forth!

There are lots of stupid-sounding persons all over the internet.

Take care, candyman.

22962. thoughtful - 8/5/2004 6:41:34 PM

ktheh, if you can't see that whatever it was posted in your first picture is not human, then you only prove how little you know about the topic...or else it demonstrates your willingness to accept total nonsense as fact if it supports your presuppositions.

22963. judithathome - 8/5/2004 7:57:50 PM

That first picture doesn't look human because human embryos have larger heads and eyes before they have fully formed hands and feet...and the sonagrams prove this out.

I'm sure Kuligin knows this but that picture makes a graphic statement so he went with it.

22964. Magoseph - 8/5/2004 8:54:29 PM

Thank you to Judith for asking Hobbes at ATI to put a link for The Mote on his site. Hobbes put it on for us, folks.

22965. Magoseph - 8/5/2004 8:55:54 PM

Sorry for the post above. I thought that I was in the Cafe.

22966. kuliginthehooligan - 8/5/2004 10:25:28 PM

"ktheh, if you can't see that whatever it was posted in your first picture is not human, then you only prove how little you know about the topic"

AND

"That first picture doesn't look human because human embryos have larger heads and eyes before they have fully formed hands and feet"

Look again you morons. The head is severed off the body. Geez. Couldn't you at least figure that one out?? That is just the torso, no head in that picture.

22967. kuliginthehooligan - 8/5/2004 10:27:03 PM

I am always amazed at how quickly people attempt to divert the issue. Naw, Kuligin doesn't really care about human beings, just political power. Naw, those aren't really humans, something else and Kuligin disengenuously posted them just the same.

Bunch of creeps the lot of you. Dead humans, that's what those pictures are. And all of you call that a right. Losers. Try to skirt it all you want to, but all that shows is that you folks truly have no conscience.

22968. judithathome - 8/5/2004 11:00:55 PM

Look again you morons.

Have you ever addressed someone who disagreed with you without using an insulting name?

I am not a moron; I didn't look that closely at the picture. Just because you drooled over it for hours on end, don't assume we all paid it that close attention.

22969. sakonige - 8/6/2004 1:57:35 AM

parasite An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Don't want to actually look at the truth, do you kuligin? The reality is too raw and complex to be reduced to a slogan.

22970. sakonige - 8/6/2004 2:00:39 AM

unless you have hosted such a parasite in your own body, I think you should shut the fuck up about it, because you don't know what you are talking about.

22971. tmesis - 8/6/2004 4:10:59 AM

sakonige, you're either retarded or disingenuous. The monospecies parasitism you keep harping on about is generally referred to as pregnancy. First, parasitism is understood to involve two different species, not one. Second, there's medical evidence that pregnancy, especially by a certain age, confers health benefits on a woman.

kuligin, stop trying to sensationalize. A person should have the option to participate in the discussion without having to look at abortion photos. Provide a text link, if you must. Have you seen the photo of tubgirl? No? Let's keep it that way.

22972. tmesis - 8/6/2004 4:14:07 AM

22973. tmesis - 8/6/2004 4:15:08 AM

Sorry. I guess refreshing causes the browser to repost.

22974. arkymalarky - 8/6/2004 6:08:43 AM

Yep.

22975. angel-five - 8/6/2004 9:50:33 AM

Does it really matter whether he posts pictures of sheep fetuses or human ones? That's what abortion looks like. Of course, it'd be pretty amusing if he bungle-fucked up and posted the wrong dead fetus, but the point is pretty much the same. Kuligin thinks that by shoving it in your face he will make you confront the reality and question your stand on it. It's a pretty patronizing view, and as shown so far in this discussion, it isn't working out terribly well for him, because everyone here's bright enough to understand what an abortion involves, and are all pretty unlikely to ever really take him that seriously anyway because they've seen him in action long enough to know what he's all about. Online ranting thumpers are kinda like street drunks in that regard, sometimes you watch them a bit out of morbid curiosity but usually your eyes slide right on by. The ironic thing is that with a different, reasoned approach he might actually make some points here and there that people would accept.

Tmesis -- He isn't trying to be a sensationalist. That's actually as far from the truth as you can get. Kuligin thinks of himself as some kinda grim footsoldier for an angry Christ, out doing the Lord's dirty work. His end is converting you, and any means will do -- a lie is as good as a truth if it strikes an equal blow for Jesus. Plus he likes to argue. If he had subtlety and charm he'd make a good Jesuit -- as it stands now, he'd make an excellent Witchfinder General. Try not to take it out on the guy, he's just in the wrong century.

22976. angel-five - 8/6/2004 9:53:39 AM

I am always amazed at how quickly people attempt to divert the issue.

Isn't that what you're doing right now?

22977. angel-five - 8/6/2004 9:56:38 AM

I mean, isn't that your old reliable MO? 'If I can't beat them or convert them, I'll just try to discredit them and their arguments, and cover myself by insisting that that's what's being done to me?'

Be honest now. I'm told the Lord hates it when we lie.

22978. tmesis - 8/6/2004 10:36:22 AM

Of course he's trying to sensationalize, to deliberately provoke a quick and powerful emotional or visceral response. In a discussion of deviant sexual practices, it is perfectly possible to verbally describe scatology without shoving a picture of tubgirl in your eyeballs. To do more is to sensationalize. Why else would a fundie(if he is one, as you say) use any means possible to deliver his point?

22979. angel-five - 8/6/2004 10:59:23 AM

to deliberately provoke a quick and powerful emotional or visceral response.

I'd agree with the usage in that sense.

22980. jayackroyd - 8/6/2004 4:20:10 PM

Maybe this is a good time for a recap.

This particular line of discussion began when I disputed Kuligan's claim (and similar claims in the media) that we are living in a very polarized time. I said that's not so--that most people are centrists primarily concerned about their economic future. I further said that to the degree there is polarization, it is happening among politicians, being driven particularly by republicans trying to use social issues as wedges.

Then I pointed out that even on those issues most people are moderate, and indifferent compared with other issues they see as more important. These points have gone unrefuted, as we've been led through the typical "I can't believe you are such heartless morons" rant.

The rant, of course, never dealt with the issues that were raised other than to say the equivalent of "An egg is a chicken, and only a fool thinks otherwise." Moreover, the instances where embryos are disposed of in pursuit of children for people with fertility problems was never discussed.

This is not about abortion.

22981. pelty - 8/6/2004 5:20:02 PM

"being driven particularly by republicans trying to use social issues as wedges."

This may go better in the Politics thread, but Jay, come on, you cannot be serious when you imply that the GOP is the primary party using social issues as wedges. The Dems have used race for decades, abortion in the other direction, environmental programs, gay rights, not to mention health care, social security, and all the other FDR/LBJ legacy programs that have transformed our society into one that looks to the govt. teat for anything and everything. No doubt the GOP does the same in some of these and other areas, but please don't stick your head in the sand and put this all on one party.

22982. kuliginthehooligan - 8/6/2004 5:30:06 PM

"I didn't look that closely at the picture."

Then you truly are a moron, judith. Because you said I knew full well that it wasn't a pic of a human fetus, that it was self-evident that it was not, and that despite that fact, I posted it anyway because is suited my purposes.

Now you admit that you didn't really look all that closely to the picture in the first place!

Only morons give short shrift to something, yet in kneejerk fashion accuse others of lying!

Here's your comment in full, creep:

"That first picture doesn't look human because human embryos have larger heads and eyes before they have fully formed hands and feet...and the sonagrams prove this out.

I'm sure Kuligin knows this but that picture makes a graphic statement so he went with it."

22983. kuliginthehooligan - 8/6/2004 5:31:01 PM

Also, posting pics of abortions is certainly acceptable, since many people who support abortion do so on the grounds that all it is is a mass or blob in the woman's womb. We even have some people claiming it is nothing more than a parasite. Well, looking at the human body therein might help some people realize their error. Perhaps not in this thread of people whose consciences have been seared, but it has certainly been the case with others in this country.

Those aren't undifferentiated cells being removed from the woman's body, folks. That's a human being, nothing less.

22984. kuliginthehooligan - 8/6/2004 5:34:39 PM

Lastly, I am truly amazed at how much deception is used by the pro-death people in this thread. For starters, whether or not that one picture I posted was an aborted fetus (and it clearly is), that doesn't affect the issue one bit. The fact remains, 1.2 million human beings are aborted each and every year in the US. But you guys, in an obvious attempt to skirt the issues, attempt to change the subject to me as a liar, or me as politically motivated, all the while ignoring the FACT of abortion.

Just go back up and take a gander at your posts. You guys consistently bury your heads in the sand on this issue. Or better yet, you claim you care about it, but oppose all efforts to stop it.

There is not one ounce of moral compunction among the whole of you. You simply do not care. And your kneejerk reactions to the pics proves that out. You don't really care at all about those human lives. Not one iota.

22985. kuliginthehooligan - 8/6/2004 5:37:19 PM

And here's the quintessential example:

"I didn't look that closely at the picture."

Yet, judith is very quick and willing to accuse me of lying, to state that the pic is clearly not a human fetus and that I knew it wasn't but claimed it was anyway.

And the whole while, she conveniently skirts the abortion issue.

This is very similar to those people in The Mote who are constantly accusing Bush of lying, yet when Clinton had an extra-marital affair, was caught, and lied about it on oath to the American people, these same people said that wasn't that big of a deal. Hypocrites, all of them.

22986. kuliginthehooligan - 8/6/2004 5:43:33 PM

Yet another example:

"This is not about abortion."

For seven years now, in The Fray and now here, I have spoken out against abortion. This isn't some new hot topic for me just during this election. It has been a consistent theme of mine the entire time I have been in this forum. In fact, it was the second topic I breeched when I first came to The Fray. The first was a theological matter.

But why waste the facts on people like jay? Or angel-five? Or judith? Or thoughtful? You all much prefer to make this issue something else, while conveniently ignoring the real facts: 1.2 million human beings are slaughtered each and every year via this heinous practice we call a woman's right to choose.

Naw, it isn't really about abortions at all. Naw, all those pictures are fake. Yep, Kuligin just cares about political power. Yep, he really doesn't care if we rip those human beings out with broken bottles, so long as the GOP wins.

So let's just go on our merry way, saying how much we wish there weren't so many abortions in this country, yet not doing a damn thing to stop them.

22987. kuliginthehooligan - 8/6/2004 5:45:16 PM

And now, judith, that you admit to not even looking too closely at that picture, and now that you recognize that it is a human fetus without its head, because its head was ripped off the torso during the abortion process...

and because you accused me of lying about it...

I expect an apology from you.

22988. kuliginthehooligan - 8/6/2004 5:46:22 PM

"Just because you drooled over it for hours on end, don't assume we all paid it that close attention."

Close enough to accuse me of lying about it. So please, I expect you to be a big person and apologize for your obvious kneejerk reaction and error in falsely accusing me of lying.

22989. kuliginthehooligan - 8/6/2004 5:49:48 PM

"A person should have the option to participate in the discussion without having to look at abortion photos."

tmesis, well, if we take judith's word on it, those photos weren't looked at much anyway.

However, as I noted above, showing those photos does confer some benefit upon the discussion, because, as you yourself noted in your chastisement of sakonige, some people attempt to make us believe that what is aborted is a parasite, or a mass of cells and nothing more. But as the photos intimately show us, those are human beings being scalded to death with a salt solution, or ripped to pieces by the implements of the abortion doctor.

Seeing the facts for what they truly are can never be harmful to a debate, can they?

22990. PelleNilsson - 8/6/2004 6:21:29 PM

So Judith is "a moron" and "a creep". You have developed into a hopeless boor, Kuligin.

22991. tmesis - 8/6/2004 8:34:52 PM

kuligin, you ghetto faggot, no one argued that fetuses are undifferentiated cell masses. Please learn to read before you tilt your dick at strawmen.

"Seeing the facts for what they truly are can never be harmful to a debate, can they?"

You're right. Since I, probably as you do, believe that homosexuality is a vile, vile disposition contrary to the kingdom of heaven, I will attempt to shed light on its disgusting nature every time it is discussed graphically, as you have. Here's a preview.

I hope this helps.

22992. arkymalarky - 8/6/2004 8:34:57 PM

At what stage of pregnancy were most of those abortion pictures?

22993. arkymalarky - 8/6/2004 8:35:21 PM

Not most--all

22994. judithathome - 8/6/2004 8:37:55 PM

Close enough to accuse me of lying about it. So please, I expect you to be a big person and apologize for your obvious kneejerk reaction and error in falsely accusing me of lying.

Fine...I aoplogize for "accusing" you of lying. I shouldn't have phrased it in those terms. You obviously feel very strongly about this subject and feel compelled to label anyone with a different view with names and slurs to their intellect.

Kuli, if you feel your God approves of this sort of behavior from you, then you are right to do those types of things. I personally don't think it's right but when I do something wrong, I admit it and I am apologizing for implying you lied.

But just so you know, and are very clear on where I stand, I support a woman's right to choose what happens in her body. If that means having an abortion, then so be it. I would prefer that people use birth control to prevent the abortion being necessary...and that includes men AND women...and I think it is deplorable to use abortion as a means of birth control but I still support the laws that make it legal for a woman to choose abortion.

I have a clear conscience about doing so, too. And no amount of bluster from you will change my mind.

22995. Magoseph - 8/6/2004 9:19:27 PM

tmesis, point well-taken.

22996. judithathome - 8/6/2004 9:43:07 PM

Yes, the door has swung open on what is deemed proper graphic depiction, has it not?

A picture is worth a thousand words, right, Kuligin?

22997. woden - 8/6/2004 10:28:47 PM

roughly 600 thousand human beings are slaughtered each and every year by women who just don't really care, and use abortion as another form of birth control.

Right there, is the problem with people like you. As long as you make this only the fault of women you will never, ever end abortion or even significantly reduce the numbers of abortions that occur.

If our child support, paternity, battery laws were very well-enforced, how many fewer abortions would there be? If pregnant women could absolutely count on a decent level of support from the fathers of their children, if there were no way for a man to welch on those responsibilities, and if the women did not fear being abused by those men, then there would be a significant reduction in the number of abortions every year. But, people who oppose abortion choose not to pursue legislation that would have the effect of actually reducing abortion, they want to put the problem entirely on the women, using polarizing, overtly religious crusade language.

I imagine that the reason why anti-abortion activists never seem to attack the problem from that angle (holding men responsible and pursuing legislation that would enforce that responsibility) are the following:

- It simply doesn't occur to them, they just aren't very good at strategizing to achieve their goals, they would rather make it a polarizing moral issue than pursuing legislation which most people could agree.

- They are more interested in controlling women's sexuality than in taking practical measures to prevent abortion.

- They want to uphold male privilege.

That is why I have zero respect for the pro-life movement as a whole and would never, ever support it, even though I do think abortion is morally wrong.

22998. PelleNilsson - 8/6/2004 10:34:49 PM

Good points, woden, and nice to see you here.

22999. woden - 8/6/2004 10:36:19 PM

Thanks, Pelle!

23000. Absensia - 8/6/2004 10:55:10 PM

Wodes, Very, very good to see you here! I hope you will be a regular. (It's Flam`)

23001. woden - 8/6/2004 11:18:47 PM

Flam! I hardly recognized ya!

23002. judithathome - 8/6/2004 11:23:53 PM

Welcome to the Mote, Woden! Good to see you here....

23003. woden - 8/6/2004 11:25:09 PM

Thanks, Judith!

23004. pelty - 8/6/2004 11:29:16 PM

Woden,

You make some good points, but I think you misjudge the motives of the pro-life "movement." I do not think that there is an assignment of blame as much as a reaction to the initial issue and the way it was presented. At its heart, the abortion rights movement was as much about women's rights and the feminist movement as it was about birth control, family planning and any of the other euphemisms thrown about today. Thus, when the battle lines were drawn, they primarily focused on the procedure versus advocating a more holistic approach. I do not believe that your point would be lost on or disagreed with by the pro-life side, but decades-old sclerosis has set in on both sides of the debate and other issues, such as that you mention, become peripheral. As someone who would place himself in the "pro-life" camp, I would absolutely agree with your points re: male responsibilty. OTOH, I have no interest in "upholding male privilege" (whatever you mean by that; a straw man in my mind) or in "controlling women's sexuality" (again, what do you mean by this?). I would venture to say that as many women as men, and possibly more women than men, are a part of the pro-life "movement" (by this, I mean those who would count themselves as pro-lifers, not just those actively involved in pro-life associations), so are you suggesting that they are interested in upholding male privilege and controlling other women's sexuality (and if so, what's to gain?) or are you simply going to stereotype them as vacuous, brainwashed, etc., at which point you discredit your argument?

23005. woden - 8/6/2004 11:55:07 PM

so are you suggesting that they are interested in upholding male privilege and controlling other women's sexuality

Virtually all pro-lifers are religious, usually Catholic or some type of fundie Protestant. I believe they are not interested in strengthening child-support and other legislation of that type because it would probably have the effect of encouraging or rewarding sex outside of marriage. Or, on the flip side, it would take the financial sting out of choosing not to marry or choosing to have sex outside of marriage.

23006. judithathome - 8/6/2004 11:56:38 PM

so are you suggesting that they are interested in upholding male privilege and controlling other women's sexuality (and if so, what's to gain?) or are you simply going to stereotype them as vacuous, brainwashed, etc., at which point you discredit your argument?

Much as others who portray people who support pro-choice as Pro Death supporters do?

23007. woden - 8/7/2004 12:05:16 AM

Good point, Judith.

To clarify what I just said, the religions I mentioned are overtly, explicitly concerned with controlling female sexuality and with upholding male privilege. Though the religious pro-lifers would say that their activity is primarily out of the religious principle of sanctity of life, it is not so neatly and cleanly separated from those other agendas prominent in their religions.

23008. pelty - 8/7/2004 12:34:07 AM

"Much as others who portray people who support pro-choice as Pro Death supporters do?"

I actually miss your point. There is nothing inherently wrong about this categorization, even if it is not one that sits well. Abortion of a fetus inevitably causes the premature death of a developing infant. Thus, if one is pro-abortion one is Pro-Death, in this particular instance. That does not mean they are for death in all areas of life, but in this case, if a=b and b=c, then a=c.

23009. pelty - 8/7/2004 12:43:13 AM

"To clarify what I just said, the religions I mentioned are overtly, explicitly concerned with controlling female sexuality and with upholding male privilege."

Again, define your terms. Are you saying that these religions are monolithic and thus all persons within them are interested in upholding male privilege (whatever it is you mean by this) and controlling female sexuality? Further, have you not noticed that these religions put just as much emphasis on male sexuality and the strict regulation thereof (confines of marriage, etc.) as they do on the women? They do not send them outside the camp during their menstrual periods these days, as far as I know.

If, by "upholding male privilege" you mean having the men in leadership positions, I think you would find that there are a number of "fundie Protestant" churches who do not take this position, or would certainly be open to discussing it. It appears as though you are applying a rather uninformed stereotype to groups who should probably not be seen as some monolithic structure in which there is no variation. You may have a slightly better argument w/ the Catholic church (although there is variation there as well, to a lesser extent), but there are too many groups, denominations, etc. under your umbrella of "fundie Protestant" churches to assume that they all think in one way on this issue.

23010. pelty - 8/7/2004 12:49:25 AM

"I believe they are not interested in strengthening child-support and other legislation of that type because it would probably have the effect of encouraging or rewarding sex outside of marriage."

What do you mean by "strengthening child support"? Do you mean that we should strengthen laws that would make the father of a child support the child monetarily throughout its childhood? Why on earth would someone be against that? That hardly rewards sex outside of marriage. If you mean that the government should support these people with our tax-dollars for 18 years (as opposed to a shorter period which might aid the family as they get their feet on the ground, the parent goes to college, etc.), then you would be right that some might be against this, but not for the reasons you state.

23011. woden - 8/7/2004 12:52:16 AM

The Catholic Church is monolithic. Either you buy the major points listed in the catechism or you can take a hike. It's also quite clear that the leadership of the Catholic church actively participates in the sexual exploitation of women and children by it's clergy.

All Christian churches are based on the New Testament, including the writings of St. Paul and other writings which explicitly repress women.

You can argue all day that your church makes various concessions, interpretations, has different rules, blah blah. I am familiar with the Bible and I think it's sexist. The burden is on the religious anti-abortion activists to present themselves as non-sexist. There is no burden on secular people who are happy with Roe v. Wade to convince themselves that Christianity is not sexist, concerned with upholding male privilege and controlling female sexuality.

23012. woden - 8/7/2004 12:57:54 AM

What do you mean by "strengthening child support"?

Child support laws should be well-enforced. A man should not be able to easily evade his obligation by moving away or concealing his income. He should be legally obligated to provide an amount of money that his kids can actually live on, and if he can't do that, heavier penalties should be levied than those that exist now.

That hardly rewards sex outside of marriage.

Sure it does. Who has more legal options and leverage for getting support, a wife or ex-wife or someone just suing for child support?

23013. pelty - 8/7/2004 6:19:28 AM

Woden,

You demonstrate a lack of sophistication on any number of levels in this regard.

You write this: "You can argue all day that your church makes various concessions, interpretations, has different rules, blah blah. I am familiar with the Bible and I think it's sexist."

This is, of course, not what you stated above. You stated that fundie Protestants are one of the two denominations involved in the movement that seeks to uphold the male power structure and whatever other blather you were spouting. Now you are dismissing the notion that all "fundie" churches cannot be lumped into your broad stereotype and now have decided to point to the Bible as your source of anger or whatever, thereby removing one of your legs upon which you stand.

Further, you never really addressed the fact that there are multitudes of women who consider themselves pro-life, "fundies", or whatever and do not seem to have the same negative feelings that you do nor do they see themselves as upholding the male power structure to their detriment. As I see it, you either have to concede this and deal with it or lump them into the other stereotypes that you have developed in your own mind in which they are naive, stupid, etc.

23014. Ulgine Barrows - 8/7/2004 8:46:43 AM

22967...Bunch of creeps the lot of you. Dead humans, that's what those pictures are.

Well, looking at pictures of dead humans just doesn't creep me out. We all end up that way. Some sooner, some later.

I could watch a bloodshot corpse in the rain, little rivulets of blood flowing, and I wouldn't throw up. I bet lots of cops wouldn't throw up, doctors, nurses, morgue attendants, pathologists, and many others would just do their job.

I could go into a house where there had been a suicide by gunshot wound, brains all over the wall, and clean up.

It's all in the design, kuliginthehooligan. Quit fighting death. Some people deal with it every day.

23015. Ulgine Barrows - 8/7/2004 8:48:27 AM

I cannot stifle it....

bring out yer dead!!!

But I'm not dead yet!

23016. Ulgine Barrows - 8/7/2004 9:15:48 AM

22948. kuliginthehooligan - 8/5/2004 10:42:41 PM.....

Why? Because it has been determined that these people don't know good enough for themselves. The laws are created, in essence, to protect people against themselves in many instances.

And as God is my justice, it is illegal for me to shoot off fireworks on the 4th of July, yet still I do.

And teenagers are having sex. Adults are having sex. The world is pretty normal, here, in my corner of it.

absolutely mind boggling how, with a wave of the hand, we can condone the death of 40 million Americans over the past 31 years, and then blithely call it a personal right and privilege.

Absolutely mind boggling how, with a wave of the hand, you adopted out those 40 million Americans into loving homes that you hold in your fantasy.

23017. Ulgine Barrows - 8/7/2004 10:12:53 AM

shriek hellfire at them

22970. sakonige - 8/6/2004 6:00:39 PM
unless you have hosted such a parasite in your own body, I think you should shut the fuck up about it, because you don't know what you are talking about.

Hey sakonige, good to see you, been a while. I read your screed about parasites years ago,but didn't understand. You don't know me, I'm sure, but your words stayed with me. You had the passion. Give me a few days and check back.

23018. Ulgine Barrows - 8/7/2004 10:15:44 AM

And I'm chagrined that it looks like you posted again.
I was just putting your original post in bold.

23019. jayackroyd - 8/7/2004 5:50:36 PM

"controlling women's sexuality" (again, what do you mean by this?).

FOr example, by insisting that chastity is the only acceptable form of birth control.

Still haven't heard about those fertility procedures. If it really were about abortion, then I'd have heard about them by now.

23020. woden - 8/7/2004 6:04:12 PM

Further, you never really addressed the fact that there are multitudes of women who consider themselves pro-life, "fundies", or whatever and do not seem to have the same negative feelings that you do nor do they see themselves as upholding the male power structure to their detriment. As I see it, you either have to concede this and deal with it or lump them into the other stereotypes that you have developed in your own mind in which they are naive, stupid, etc.

That is a ridiculously bad argument. Of course women have participated in institutions which are sexist. I don't have to lump them into a stereotype or think about them in any particular way. Why should I waste my time speculating as to why they would do this? It's not my problem. It is the problem of people like you who want to change the laws of the United States.

The fact that I pointed to the Bible as the source of the sexism doesn't take anything away from my argument. There is no logical reason why both the Bible and fundie churches can't both be sexist at the same time.

Pretty lame. There are probably a bunch of people like me, just kind of here in the center, who have secular arguments against abortion. If you could soft-pedal your dumb religions and engage the middle on their terms, you might end abortion. Your posts demonstrate that Roe v. Wade is perfectly safe from people like you.

23021. sakonige - 8/7/2004 6:34:44 PM

Ulgine Barrows -

That's just the way it works. Mammals begin life as parasites. A fetus is usually welcome in the host's body, but it is undeniably a parasite.

23022. woden - 8/7/2004 6:46:41 PM

(This is res being too lazy to log out) Actually, you got that idea from me. And I was wrong at the time, and knew it, and was just trying to rile some fundamentalists. Fetuses aren't parasites, even if you choose to use the terminology usually reserved for different species living in and on each other. They are symbiotes.

Pelty: What, exactly, is it that's confusing you about my girlfriend's posts? You seem horribly confused about something and I'm not sure what. Is it the sexism of prottie Christianity that you're objecting to? Or is it the overlap between that camp and the anti-abortion crowd that is losing you? Or is it the fact that you think she doesn't understand that fundamentalist protestant Christianity is more than one unit? Or are you just indiscriminately angry? Please feel free to let me know the answer so I can more constructively engage with you on this topic.

23023. tmesis - 8/7/2004 7:26:06 PM

Re: 22970

sakonige, don't be disingenuous. The only parasite you've ever hosted is your ignorance. If empiricism is the sole criterion guiding your speech, the only thing you're fit to wax flatulent about is your mental retardation.

Your claim is as ludicrous as a AIDS patient claiming that HIV, as a matter of fact, is a bacterium and not a retrovirus, and that anyone who hasn't been infected is unfit to speak on the nature of the pathogenesis of AIDS.

Don't be a dishonest trick.

23024. woden - 8/7/2004 7:33:25 PM

Be an honest trick.

23025. sakonige - 8/7/2004 8:03:46 PM

tmesis -

Here is the definition again:

parasite - An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

23026. tmesis - 8/7/2004 8:06:03 PM

That's an incomplete and inadequate definition. And I've already noted that the human fetus confers benefits to the carrier. Aren't you overdue for a 173rd trimester abortion?

23027. sakonige - 8/7/2004 8:08:57 PM

Actually, you got that idea from me.

Actually, I didn't get that idea from you, resonance. I got that idea directly from the experience of pregnancy. A fetus feels exactly like what it is, a parasite. Ones feelings may be extremely mixed about the sensation, but it is unmistakable. There is a living things inside your body feeding on you, pissing into your bloodstream.

23028. sakonige - 8/7/2004 8:20:16 PM

They are symbiotes.

No, they are not.

symbiosis - A close, prolonged association between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.

23029. sakonige - 8/7/2004 8:31:54 PM

There are sometimes benefits associated with overcoming the stress pregnancy puts on a woman's body, sort of like exposure to disease may build ones immunity, but that doesn't change the essential parameters of the physical relationship.

23030. sakonige - 8/7/2004 8:32:30 PM

And I've already noted that the human fetus confers benefits to the carrier.

Have you ever wondered why nutrition, healthcare, and hospitalization is so important to the process of childbirth?

Have you ever heard of maternal mortality?

You may wish you weren't a parasite inside your mother's body, but you were. That's just the way it works.

23031. sakonige - 8/7/2004 8:36:21 PM

"Maternal mortality is defined as the death of a woman while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management. Maternal morbidity is any illness or injury caused or aggravated by, or associated with, pregnancy or childbirth.

The majority of pregnancy-related deaths occur after delivery (61 percent), in comparison to 24 percent during pregnancy and 16 percent during delivery.

Forty-two percent of the 129 million women who give birth annually experience some complications during pregnancy. Approximately 15 percent of women worldwide develop potentially life-threatening complications, which include chronic pain, impaired mobility, damage to the reproductive system and infertility.

In developing countries, pregnancy and complications from childbirth account for 18 percent of disease among females..."

That's not symbiosis.

23032. tmesis - 8/7/2004 8:50:06 PM

"Have you ever wondered why nutrition, healthcare, and hospitalization is so important to the process of childbirth?"

You're an idiot. Please kill yourself immediately, or failing that, sew your anus shut lest you speak ever again. By and large, healthcare and hospitalizations do little for childbirth with the exception of a few in which complications or birth defects are a concern.

"Have you ever heard of maternal mortality?"

I go to a med school, so yes. Medicine does not regard fetuses as parasites, and no amount of squawking from you will change that.

There's good evidence that intelligence is largely inborn. I hope you don't have children.

23033. sakonige - 8/7/2004 9:12:11 PM

tmesis, you are very emotional about this stuff, aren't you?

You drop right down to the lowest level of ad hominem right away.

I go to a med school, so yes.

Since you insist on getting so personal, you said on another website you are flunking out of grad school. Is that the med school you refer to?

Also, I assume you are a male. Is that so?

23034. sakonige - 8/7/2004 9:17:49 PM

By and large, healthcare and hospitalizations do little for childbirth with the exception of a few in which complications or birth defects are a concern.

Statistics don't bear that out. Look at a comparison of mortality rates between developed and undeveloped nations.

23035. sakonige - 8/7/2004 9:25:36 PM

maternal mortality

"In many developing countries, complications of pregnancy and childbirth are the leading causes of death among women of reproductive age. More than one woman dies every minute from such causes; 585,000 women die every year.1 Less than one percent of these deaths occur in developed countries, demonstrating that they could be avoided if resources and services were available.

In addition to maternal death, women experience more than 50 million maternal health problems annually.2 As many as 300 million women – more than one-quarter of all adult women living in the developing world – currently suffer from short- or long-term illnesses and injuries related to pregnancy and childbirth."

23036. tmesis - 8/7/2004 9:28:00 PM

"You drop right down to the lowest level of ad hominem right away."

Please learn to distinguish ad hominems from insults.

"Since you insist on getting so personal, you said on another website you are flunking out of grad school. Is that the med school you refer to?"

You're a literal minded idiot. I'm neither emotionally involved in this nor failing out.

"Statistics don't bear that out. Look at a comparison of mortality rates between developed and undeveloped nations"

It's called confounding variables, you idiot.

23037. tmesis - 8/7/2004 9:35:46 PM

re 23035.

Stop. I didn't say that complications don't exist, or that there exist a fairly large number of them in absolute terms. In relation to the number of all pregnancies, however, hospitalizations add little to deliveries.

But that's neither here nor there. This has to do with your disingenuous use of the word parasite. Western medicine does not recognize fetuses to be parasites, nor does your being a cum depository qualify you to modify existing definitions.

23038. woden - 8/7/2004 9:50:24 PM

There is a living things inside your body feeding on you, pissing into your bloodstream.

Fetuses don't share a bloodstream with mothers, nor does amniotic fluid leach into the bloodstream. I'm sure you think now that this was all your idea, but it wasn't, and it's obvious that you're just being bitchy now.

For starters, the same definitional barriers apply between parasites and symbiotes -- the study of parasitology is the study of different species interacting with each other. Symbiotes and parasites are solely distinguished from one another based on whether the two organisms help one another or not. If they can be shown to help one another, regardless of any other issues, they can be described as symbiotic.

Secondly, the fetus in the womb never, ever comes into contact with the mother. It does not share the bloodstream, nutrients are passed via osmosis, there is an entire barrier of foreign tissue between the fetus and the mother known as the placenta. So strictly speaking, the placenta is a parasitical tissue (except that it can be shown to benefit the mother's health) and not the fetus, which is purely symbiotic.

But all this is just a poetic conceit anyway. Science recognizes parasitology and embryology separately primarily because scientists aren't as stupid and divisive as you are, and they use more stable and logical methods of deduction than your old standby schizophrenic 'I have direct knowledge of these sorts of thing and I understand it completely.

23039. sakonige - 8/7/2004 9:55:51 PM

tmesis -

You are obviously extremely emotional and irrational on this subject, practically out of control. You are a hateful asshole who will stoop to telling a complete stranger to commit suicide over a disagreement in an internet debate. You're going to make a lousy doctor.

You said:

By and large, healthcare and hospitalizations do little for childbirth with the exception of a few in which complications or birth defects are a concern.

And that's bullshit. Healthcare and hospitalization have a lot to do with childbirth.

For some reason, it is very important to you to believe pregnancy and childbirth have no negative impact on women's health.

23040. sakonige - 8/7/2004 9:57:07 PM

There's reality there you can't stand to look at.

23041. judithathome - 8/7/2004 10:01:24 PM

Healthcare and hospitalization have a lot to do with childbirth.

Women who use midwives do just fine, too. Assuming no complications, of course.

23042. sakonige - 8/7/2004 10:03:39 PM

23038. woden - 8/8/2004 11:50:24 AM

I didn't say I understand "it" completely. I said I understand what pregnancy feels like better than you do.

23043. sakonige - 8/7/2004 10:05:40 PM

Women who use midwives do just fine, too. Assuming no complications, of course.

There are plenty of midwives in the third world, where women are not all doing just fine. It's assinine to claim quality of healthcare has no impact on maternal mortality.

23044. woden - 8/7/2004 10:07:03 PM

Probably more than half of people born today wouldn't make it through their birth without modern medicine. Before modern medicine, it was incredibly common to die in childbirth.

23045. woden - 8/7/2004 10:07:28 PM

This is me now, btw.

23046. judithathome - 8/7/2004 10:10:11 PM

It's assinine to claim quality of healthcare has no impact on maternal mortality

What's assinine is you attributing that claim to me when all I did was point out midwives have success in helping women, too.

23047. sakonige - 8/7/2004 10:11:27 PM

Often, the way a woman first realizes she is pregnant is nausea. She can't stop puking. Some times she gets used to it, sometimes she just keeps on puking until she is no longer pregnant.

Any man who puked his guts out for months on end would realize something was wrong with his body. But the same man might insist that a woman going through that is benefiting from the experience.

23048. tmesis - 8/7/2004 10:13:09 PM

Irrational? Have you noticed that no one agrees with you? Ask any biologist or physician whether a fetus is parasitic and she'll laugh at you.

To sum it up, you're

1. dishonest

2. ignorant

3. stupid

4. literal minded

"For some reason, it is very important to you to believe pregnancy and childbirth have no negative impact on women's health."

I have never said this. I did say that pregnancy is not all detriment. It confers benefits, largely in endocrine regulation.

judithathome, you're absolutely correct. A respected obstetrician at school has told me that midwives are often better at deliveries except in managing obstetric emergencies.

23049. Jenerator - 8/7/2004 11:07:41 PM

I suspect that there is a direct link between child abuse and the parents who believe that their child/children are parasites.

23050. Jenerator - 8/7/2004 11:12:52 PM

All Christian churches are based on the New Testament, including the writings of St. Paul and other writings which explicitly repress women.

This is a pretty sweeping generalization, Woden. As pelty rightly pointed out, there are millions of us who do not fit into this - namely me. I am a Protestant (Southern Baptist, specifically) and I am anti-abortion and am NOT repressed by the church. Nor have I ever perceived or received any repression from any writings of Paul.

If you'd like to start discussing feminist theology versus orthodox Christianity, I'm all yours!

;-)

23051. tmesis - 8/7/2004 11:17:52 PM

re 23044.

That's true, but the decreased infant mortality is largely due to public health measures, not hospitalizations per se.

23052. Jenerator - 8/7/2004 11:18:40 PM

23053. Jenerator - 8/7/2004 11:20:05 PM

Abortion for the sake of convenience (which accounts for the majority of abortions) is wrong and immoral.

23054. Jenerator - 8/7/2004 11:21:33 PM

tmesis,

Welcome to the Mote.

23055. sakonige - 8/7/2004 11:27:32 PM

Have you noticed that no one agrees with you?

Plenty of people agree with me. That's why abortion is legal.

23056. Jenerator - 8/7/2004 11:30:46 PM

Sakonige,

Abortion is a very divisive topic, and you'd be in the minority down here in Texas. Also, virtually no one agrees with you that a fetus is a parasite.

23057. sakonige - 8/7/2004 11:31:46 PM

Are parasites exclusively detrimental to the host? People tend to think of them that way, but I doubt that is part of the formal definition.

23058. sakonige - 8/7/2004 11:36:12 PM

google on "beneficial parasite" brings up lots of examples.

23059. sakonige - 8/7/2004 11:39:24 PM

Jenerator -

I'll bet just about everyone who has had an abortion believed the fetus was a parasite.

You seem to think an organism can't be human and a parasite at the same time, but that's not true.

23060. Jenerator - 8/7/2004 11:40:04 PM

Google on cannibalism and you'll get lots of examples, so...?

23061. Jenerator - 8/7/2004 11:41:02 PM

Hey Sakonige, I just googled Heaven's Gate and got 118,000 responses!

23062. Jenerator - 8/7/2004 11:45:12 PM

I'll bet just about everyone who has had an abortion believed the fetus was a parasite

I'd agree with you in that this is the type of thinking Planned Parenthood or the Pro-Choice camp would like to have dominate the young female minds of today. What becomes a crisis is when the young women having these abortions of convenience realize that they voluntarily killed the life of their unborn. Abortion is much easier if it's terminating the life of a thing or of a parasaite. It becomes a burden on the heart when there's humanity involved.

23063. Jenerator - 8/7/2004 11:47:04 PM

You have a grown son, right Sakonige? If you had chosen abortion, your son (and subsequent grandkid/s) would not be alive. The people you know and love would not be alive because you would have voluntarily ended your son's life. Your son, the parasite.

23064. tmesis - 8/7/2004 11:59:39 PM

re 23058

google on "beneficial parasite" brings up lots of examples.

Idiot, I demonstrated that a fetus cannot be considered parasitical according to your definition.

while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

23065. judithathome - 8/8/2004 12:05:44 AM

I'd agree with you in that this is the type of thinking Planned Parenthood or the Pro-Choice camp would like to have dominate the young female minds of today

Have you heard them tell young women this? Do you honestly believe the people working in those clinics are like that?

23066. SnowOwl - 8/8/2004 12:28:44 AM

Btw, anyone who can look at the pictures that Kuligin posted and still defend abortion has something terribly wrong with them. What is even more sickening are the mothers who have had children and still defend abortion.

Sorry you find people like me sickening. I personally find the views held by people like you repugnant.

Why on earth would you think that the horror pictures posted by Kuligin would stop people from defending the right to abortion? Do you think we're all so stupid that we don't know what abortion entails? Do the pictures of dead and seriously wounded children stop you from supporting the invasion in Iraq, or the Israeli actions in the middle East?

23067. sakonige - 8/8/2004 1:03:30 AM

Idiot, I demonstrated that a fetus cannot be considered parasitical according to your definition.

Then pick a different definition, asshole. Communication cannot be achieved without some agreement on the definition of the terms involved. Of course, you aren't interested in communication. All you want to do is fling shit like the asshole you are.

Stay ignorant of the motivations behind abortion and the laws that support it, for all I care. Although I do feel sorry for anyone who ends up trying to talk about their health concerns with a bombastic, abusive, closed-minded prick like you.

23068. sakonige - 8/8/2004 1:07:24 AM

Jenerator -

My son is no longer a parasite, since he is self-supporting.

++++

Didn't you once say that you developed an "allergy" to sunlight as a result of pregnancy?

23069. tmesis - 8/8/2004 2:01:01 AM

sakonige, I have pointed out two things repeatedly:

1. That monospecies gestation, i.e. pregnancy, is not and cannot be considered parasitism, as parasitism involves two distinct species. This is a biological tenet not open to interpretation, least of all by a fuctionally illiterate semen depository.

2. More importantly, that your use of the word is dishonest in intent.

Communication cannot be achieved without some agreement on the definition of the terms involved.

Genuine communication is also impossible without honesty, which you're clearly incapable of.

23070. sakonige - 8/8/2004 6:19:58 PM

My use of the word is entirely honest in intent and you know it. And I know that's why you are reacting to it so emotionally.

23071. sakonige - 8/8/2004 6:25:27 PM

You don't want to know what it feels like to have something foreign growing inside your body. The thought scares the shit out of you. You hope beyond reason that the person who must the experience doesn't mind too much.

Well, sometimes they do. Everyone who has been through it knows. That's why abortion is legal.

23072. sakonige - 8/8/2004 6:29:12 PM

endure

the host must endure the experience of having a foreign body growing inside their own. Kind of like enduring the experience of being sexually penetrated, but far more invasive. Unsurprisingly, it's a love/hate relationship.

23073. alistairConnor - 8/8/2004 6:39:28 PM

Btw, anyone who can look at the pictures that Kuligin posted and still defend abortion has something terribly wrong with them.

Hey Jen, if I post some pictures of dead animals, will you give up eating meat?

23074. thoughtful - 8/8/2004 6:45:02 PM

Not to beat a dead fetus, but I did look carefully at that first picture, and if that's a torso, it's the first torso I've seen with a head, eye, ear and nose. But hey, what do I know? Clearly ktheh is much more familiar with aborted fetuses than I.

Regardless, chicken slaughtering is also something that would present a most distasteful picture, but it's not going to stop me from eating chicken. Clearly for some, such as PETA members, it is enough to get them to choose vegetarianism, but for many of us, it is not. The question then becomes do PETA members who charge us meat eaters with murder and the senseless slaughter of millions of lives have the right to impose their choice not to consume animals as food on the rest of us?

Those of you who declare there is something morally vacuous in me as I believe that the acquistion of human rights does not occur at conception, I'm also considering the rights of the human life that has fully acquired the right to that life and the considerations they must face when choosing to terminate a pregnancy, like how many children are already unfed in the household...like if the fetus is severely deformed and has little shot at anything like a normal life...like if carrying the fetus to term will impact the mother's ability to bear future children...and a myriad of other factors that go into that decision, of which I can only imagine and for which I have no right to impose my decision on another. Considerations like how do I feed my family, considerations like that woman who already suffers with her hemophiliac child and not wanting to put another child through it, are not considerations of "convenience" but of genuine economic, physical and emotional burdens with significant consequences on the rights and quality of life of extant humans. In my view, choosing termination can be pro-life, pro- existing human life.

23075. thoughtful - 8/8/2004 6:45:12 PM

To give you a sense of how serious these choices can be, remember the number of women dying from back-room abortions before they became legal...these women faced such choices as to risk their own life rather than bring another into the world. You don't take on such a thing without serious consideration. Many of these women were desperate. Many of these women ended up dead. How is providing them a safe and effective alternative not pro-life?

The only argument here to me seems to be whose life. Clearly some seem focused only on the life of the fetus at the expense of all other lives involved.

23076. alistairConnor - 8/8/2004 6:49:35 PM

The "pro-life" label actually makes me feel sick. It's a rare successful example of re-branding by a pressure group.

It's not actually meaningful, but it sounds so much nicer than "anti-abortion".

If the anti-abortion folks were in fact, in general, more "pro-life" than average, with respect to things other than abortion, then their chosen label would be less of a misnomer. But in my experience, the great majority of them are, for example, in favour of capital punishment.

23077. thoughtful - 8/8/2004 7:05:04 PM

I mentioned to a vegetarian I know asking is it just because lettuce and beans can't scream when they die that makes it ok to eat vegetables?

He told me of his grandmother who is strictly pro life. She would not eat anything that would mean the death of even a plant. She limited herself to things that could be picked and eaten without totally destroying the plant, so no root vegetables, but eating some leaves off the outside of a lettuce was ok. Picking beans were ok, as it left the bean plant in tact. I was stunned, but at least her philosophy was consistent.

23078. angel-five - 8/8/2004 7:38:41 PM

People are capable of making rational choices that involve something awful. It's just really that simple. And as a few people here have pointed out, I guess it's all what you're willing to put up with. Blowing people to smithereens for their oil and to change the politics of their region is fine for some folks, eating stockyard beef is fine for some folks, having a death penalty that accidently gets applied to innocent people all the time is fine for some folks. Traffic accidents can be pretty gory, but these folks still drive. Children are accidently shot in the home all the time for the sake of fewer restrictions on private firearms, but they still defend the second amendment to the fullest. It's all in what you choose to care about and what your politics are.

So, yeah, it's sort of the height of blindered factionalism for good old Jenerator to wax all morally superior about photos of abortion. But we don't really expect a whole lot more than that from her.

23079. pelty - 8/8/2004 7:49:03 PM

Woden:

"It is the problem of people like you who want to change the laws of the United States."

You say this as if this is some "evil" thing to do. Seriously, stop with these "zingers"; they hurt. Laws are changed almost every day, sister, so the fact that I, or anyone else is trying to do so, is part of the democratic process and, presumably, what this country is all about.

"The fact that I pointed to the Bible as the source of the sexism doesn't take anything away from my argument. There is no logical reason why both the Bible and fundie churches can't both be sexist at the same time."

Sure, there is no reason why this cannot be so, in your addled mind, but as I have tried to point out in two previous points, this ain't reality. Oh, but let me guess, you believe that "all them Jews are the same", right? How 'bout "them Muslims?" Blacks too? I mean, after all, they are all one group, so they all must think alike. Further, your stance vis a vis the Bible and women is much more complex than you seem to think, but again, that doesn't matter to you because you have made up your mind that "the Bible says X" and that is the way it is. No room for nuance there, either.

"There are probably a bunch of people like me, just kind of here in the center, who have secular arguments against abortion."

Good, because, in my opinion, that is the only way to win this debate. You have not heard me say Word One about "the Bible says abortion is wrong, so it should be stopped", have you? Let me answer that for you. No. So please stop lumping me into yet another of your categories. Of course, that requires that utterly foreign concept of "nuance", so I won't expect miracles.

Here's a thought. Define what you mean by "sexist." What is it that you see the fundies doing that is, in your eyes, sexist. Please provide examples.

23080. thoughtful - 8/8/2004 8:19:30 PM

It was several years back where pat schroeder wrote up her personal story, making it clear that pro-choice and pro-life are not opposites. (This was quite awhile ago, so I'm recalling the article with imperfect human memory.) She had an abortion because had that fetus gone to term it would have been risky for her and would have put her future fertility at risk. Rather, she chose termination so that she could bear more children in the future. She did go on to have more children after that abortion. She said that each situation was unique and no one could choose what was best for her and her family. She considered herself to be both pro-life and pro-choice. They are not mutually exclusive.

23081. jayackroyd - 8/8/2004 8:49:08 PM

We're back to where we started. This is not a black and white issue for most people. It's a complex and nuanced issue. There's no logical position in support of the anti-choicers. If the blastocyst is a citizen, then it has no right to command another citizen to provide life support. If it is not a citizen, then it isn't murder.

And even the most radical--like KtH--will make an exception for mothers whose lives are endangered, or for rape victims. Or, apparently, for embryos destroyed in modern fertility clinics.

Safe, legal and rare. Its appalling to see those who claim that abortion is murder working so hard to keep them from becoming rare.

23082. Jenerator - 8/8/2004 9:27:15 PM

Angel-five,

Message # 23078 As usual, you've managed to say nothing, except this time you did so in less than 500 words. I'm impressed!

23083. wonkers2 - 8/8/2004 10:05:00 PM

Pelty, you warned me not to quote Bishop Spong if I expected credibility, but you never responded to my questions as to why you said that or what you disagreed with in the Spong quotes that I posted in #22838 above.

23084. Jenerator - 8/8/2004 10:17:07 PM

Wonkers,

I know that you asked this of pelty, but allow me to answer also. I agree that Spong is not a name you want to drop if you want credibility. He is, from what I have seen and read, a very sloppy "scholar". He oftentimes states ideas and then searches for material to rip out of context to support his views. He also likes to be "for" things that are unbiblical because of his feelings on the issue rather than any serious study or proof.

Here is one review written by a colleage of Spong's. I will post some snippets.

"The criticisms of Bishop Spong's scholarship are really quite devastating. In almost every area in which he claims competence, and from which he draws his conclusions that Christianity is an outmoded proposition, he is shown to be either shallow or inaccurate, and often both. This is not surprising because the faith that Geering, Veitch and Spong expound is as much a faith as that of any other worshipper. The difference is that they have transferred their allegiance from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the faith of Our Lord Jesus Christ to the worship of humanity. Such worship is hard to justify.

The exposition of the mind of Bishop Spong reveals, I think, an attitude that a writer on Utopias, in a recent Time magazine, describes: "The Utopian state of mind indicates a yearning to be released from history, to shed the burdens of free will, failure and improvisation. Basically Utopia is for authoritarians and weaklings." Bishop Spong is among the authoritarians undoubtedly."

23085. Jenerator - 8/8/2004 10:20:58 PM

SnowOwl,

Why on earth would you think that the horror pictures posted by Kuligin would stop people from defending the right to abortion?

Oh I don't know. I guess I just thought that seeing a mutilated fetus might stop some people from having an abortion. Kinda like those pictures of black lungs that discourage people from smoking - the whole cause-effect relationship thing. Why would you want to defend the "right" to murder your unborn?? What kind of right is that? Certainly not a civilized one.

Do you think we're all so stupid that we don't know what abortion entails?

Obviously so, or you just don't care. Which is it in your case? Do you not know what an abortion actually does, or do you just not care?

23086. Jenerator - 8/8/2004 10:24:22 PM

JayAckroyd,

How is abortion becoming rare? I read something along the lines of 50 % of teenaged girls between the ages of 14 and 19 have had at least one abortion,(?) but that the highest percentage of abortions is in young white women. And aren't multiple abortions on the rise...something about women getting more than one these days.

23087. jayackroyd - 8/8/2004 10:48:37 PM

It's not becoming as rare as it should because people like KtH make it difficult to adopt effective public health policies to make it rare. That's at the heart of my point. This is not about abortion. If this were about preventing abortions, every evangelical church would have contraception teach-ins, and condom fund drives.

And here is absolutely no possibility that half of all teenage girls have had an abortion. Citing ridiculous numbers like that undermines any credibility you have on this issue.

23088. jayackroyd - 8/8/2004 10:53:34 PM

Facts about abortion rates

Excerpts:

• Each year, 2 out of every 100 women aged 15-44 have an abortion; 48% of them have had at least one previous abortion and 61% have had a previous birth.3

Abortions per 1000 women 15-44

• 54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using the methods inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use.11

• 8% of women having abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or poorly educated.12

• 49% of the 6.3 million pregnancies that occur each year are unplanned;14 47% of these occur among the 7% of women at risk of unintended pregnancy who do not practice contraception.15

• As much as 43% of the decline in abortion between 1994 and 2000 can be attributed to the use of emergency contraception.16

23089. pelty - 8/8/2004 11:08:07 PM

Wonkers,

I should have been more specific and asked what it was you were trying to say and to whom your message was addressed. Was your point a theological one or a textual one? If the latter, Spong is simply not a rigorous scholar, at least not in the practice of his exegesis, and thus is of little use to your argument. He allows his presuppositions to get the better of him (esp. in the areas of homosexuality; there are few in the mainstream of scholarship who do not agree that Paul condemned homosexuality. They may not agree with Paul's view, but they do not try to veer away from it).

"The Bible is being used against homosexuals the same way it has beeen used in the past in support of slavery and the subjugation of women."

This is true, perhaps, but the ambiguity on this position versus slavery and women is a difference btwn night and day. He argues not from a position of biblical authority, which is what those in the theologically conservative Xian camp would accept, but rather from the perspective of emotion and "science" which tells us that "a homosexual orientation is a natural and normal, albeit minority, aspect of the human sexual experience, that it is not something one chooses, or is conditioned into, but something one is." Again, this may be true, but science has certainly not proven this as of yet. And even if this were the case, it would not be acceptable, to the TC Xian, for a homosexual to engage in sexual activity anymore than it would be OK for a man or woman to do the same in a relationship outside of the marriage contract. Volition still plays a role in the lives of all people.

Thus, for the sake of what I (admittedly knee-jerkedly, and for that I apologize) assumed to be an argument against a TC Xian on the Mote, I stated that Spong would not be credible to them. That said, you may have been arguing w/a like-minded fellow in which case Spong would be perfectly acceptable.

23090. judithathome - 8/8/2004 11:08:10 PM

Oh I don't know. I guess I just thought that seeing a mutilated fetus might stop some people from having an abortion. Kinda like those pictures of black lungs that discourage people from smoking - the whole cause-effect relationship thing

Well, how about the picture Tmesis posted...did it change your mind about anything? (#22991, in case you missed it.)

23091. pelty - 8/8/2004 11:09:33 PM

BTW, the knee-jerk reaction was not to his views (although I do disagree w/him), but to his categorization of him as some type of biblical scholar.

23092. wonkers2 - 8/8/2004 11:29:47 PM

Well, Spong must have a following within the Episcopal church, because the debate there on homosexuality has not been one sided. Also, in today's and yesterday's paper I read that an increasing number of Episcopal priests are blessing gay unions. That would seem to me to indicate that they don't agree with the belief that St. Paul condemned homosexuality. Or they believe he was in error if he did??

23093. pelty - 8/8/2004 11:44:54 PM

"Well, Spong must have a following within the Episcopal church, because the debate there on homosexuality has not been one sided. Also, in today's and yesterday's paper I read that an increasing number of Episcopal priests are blessing gay unions. That would seem to me to indicate that they don't agree with the belief that St. Paul condemned homosexuality. Or they believe he was in error if he did??"

Sure, he absolutely has a following, but the cart has been put before the horse, so to speak when it comes to the exegetical tactics utilized by those in favor of a biblical-sanctioning of homosexuality. They have made a conclusion and then seek to justify it through biblical means. OTOH, you have the majority of scholarship, a majority of those who would likely *agree* w/ Spong from a social standpoint, who would still state that there is not a biblical sanction for homosexuality.

To your last point, I think the priests would seek to place Paul's comments as coming from one who is in a social context quite different than ours and who would likely be much more welcoming of such practices if he had lived in a more "enlightened" period. I don't suppose we will ever know for sure, but being as he lived in an "enlightened time" in which prostitution was rampant and expected of males, his blatant condemnation of the practice would have no fit in with the social norms of the period. Might this speak to us today about what Paul may have thought re: homosexuality? Maybe. Maybe not.

23094. pelty - 8/8/2004 11:45:35 PM

"would have NOT fit in..."

23095. thoughtful - 8/8/2004 11:55:45 PM

Actually, the parallel with smoking is kind of interesting. Though we know smoking kills, we keep it legal because we recognize that it can't realistically be eliminated...certainly not in the short term. At least if it's legal we can keep it relatively safe (make sure mfrs don't add cocaine to the ciggies, add appropriate labeling, etc) by regulating it. Further we educate people and children about the dangers of smoking and give smokers alternatives such as rx drugs and gum and other programs to help wean them from it. In a sense it's trying to keep smoking legal, as safe for everyone (nonsmokers too) as possible and as rare as possible.

Only difference with abortion is that anti-choice types lie about the dangers of abortion, attempt to keep people from gaining access to safer alternatives including contraception, morning after pills, ru-486, etc, and try to stop all education about sex and contraception arguing that it will encourage it. The net result is more unwanted pregnancies, ultimately leading to even more abortions.

23096. alistairconnor - 8/9/2004 12:28:40 AM

Pelty:
He argues not from a position of biblical authority, which is what those in the theologically conservative Xian camp would accept, but rather from the perspective of emotion and "science" which tells us that "a homosexual orientation is a natural and normal, albeit minority, aspect of the human sexual experience, that it is not something one chooses, or is conditioned into, but something one is." Again, this may be true, but science has certainly not proven this as of yet.

So (according to you), the anti-homosexual Christian position is neither stronger nor weaker than the pro-slavery Christian position in the 19th century. At the time, it was held as scientific truth that blacks were inferior to whites; and biblical interpretation made blacks the sons of Cain, doubly justifying their subservient position (this interpretation has since proven to be mistaken).

Thus, the way you frame the issue, there is ample hope that the church's position on homosexuality will evolve.

And even if this were the case, it would not be acceptable, to the TC Xian, for a homosexual to engage in sexual activity anymore than it would be OK for a man or woman to do the same in a relationship outside of the marriage contract. Volition still plays a role in the lives of all people.

Once same-sex marriage is widely accepted, this last objection dissolves, of course.

23097. alistairconnor - 8/9/2004 12:31:27 AM

(bugger.)

He argues not from a position of biblical authority, which is what those in the theologically conservative Xian camp would accept, but rather from the perspective of emotion and "science" which tells us that "a homosexual orientation is a natural and normal, albeit minority, aspect of the human sexual experience, that it is not something one chooses, or is conditioned into, but something one is." Again, this may be true, but science has certainly not proven this as of yet.

So (according to you), the anti-homosexual Christian position is neither stronger nor weaker than the pro-slavery Christian position in the 19th century. At the time, it was held as scientific truth that blacks were inferior to whites; and biblical interpretation made blacks the sons of Cain, doubly justifying their subservient position (this interpretation has since proven to be mistaken).

Thus, the way you frame the issue, there is ample hope that the church's position on homosexuality will evolve.

And even if this were the case, it would not be acceptable, to the TC Xian, for a homosexual to engage in sexual activity anymore than it would be OK for a man or woman to do the same in a relationship outside of the marriage contract. Volition still plays a role in the lives of all people.

Once same-sex marriage is widely accepted, this last objection dissolves, of course.

23098. pelty - 8/9/2004 12:44:50 AM

"Once same-sex marriage is widely accepted, this last objection dissolves, of course."

Not for those who hold to a biblical definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. For T-C Xians, authority lies not in what the culture says on an issue, but what the Bible says. Naturally, that makes any real, substantive dialogue next to impossible. If one group gets its values from consensus and another from a source considered to be from God and the two are at odds in many/most areas, then both groups are simply talking past one another because they start from two diametrically-opposed sets of presuppositions.

"Thus, the way you frame the issue, there is ample hope that the church's position on homosexuality will evolve."

Sure, I think we see that to some degree in certain denominations, but in light of the above, one man's evolution is another's devolution. You will never see a time when there is not a group that elevates biblical authority over that of the culture. Even if the majority of the church says homosexuality is OK (and we are not even close to that yet), there will be those who say otherwise, but they will be marginalized into another fringe element. This is all theoretical, of course; I do not see your vision happening anytime in the near (or distant future). In the Episcopal church, America is on the fringes in this area as the promotion of Robinson has led to some heated feelings from congregations both here in America and worldwide (esp in the African nations, from what I understand).

23099. alistairconnor - 8/9/2004 12:50:05 AM

Sure, I think we see that to some degree in certain denominations, but in light of the above, one man's evolution is another's devolution.

Undoubtedly, there were many devout Christians who were deeply shocked when the church changed its position on slavery.

Those people are dead now.

For T-C Xians, authority lies not in what the culture says on an issue, but what the Bible says. Naturally, that makes any real, substantive dialogue next to impossible.

But thanks for playing!

23100. SnowOwl - 8/9/2004 1:28:28 AM

Oh I don't know. I guess I just thought that seeing a mutilated fetus might stop some people from having an abortion. Kinda like those pictures of black lungs that discourage people from smoking - the whole cause-effect relationship thing. Why would you want to defend the "right" to murder your unborn?? What kind of right is that? Certainly not a civilized one.

It's at least as civilised as the "right" to drop bombs or fire shells that kill innocent kids but I don't hear you opposing the US actions in Afghanistan or Iraq or marching to protest the Israeli actions against the Palestinians.

Why are living children less worthy of life than a foetus, Jen?

23101. jayackroyd - 8/9/2004 2:39:15 AM

Spong is simply not a rigorous scholar, at least not in the practice of his exegesis, and thus is of little use to your argument.

This is not an uncontroversial view. Can you make this case?

23102. The Summer Woman - 8/9/2004 7:39:11 AM

This is an interesting discussion. I hope no one minds if I kind of join in in the middle.

I am against governments, at any level, passing laws concerning abortion: either to make it illegal, or to specifically protect it as a right. Decisions about abortion are complex, involving questions of health, faith, and a host of other factors. I believe that the subject of abortion does not belong in the political or legislative realms. People should, of course, be able to express their opinions. But these opinions should not be enacted into laws. Unfortunately, laws already on the books resulted in the US Supreme court decision affirming a woman's right to an abortion if she so choses. Wouldn't it have been better if the Court had simply declared that no law could stand which either prohibited or defended abortion?

About the pictures of the fetuses: Most humans have an aversion to any kind of image of butchery. They don't even want to know what happens to their meat before it shows up in the supermarket. There is an automatic aversion to blood, tissues, organs, limbs that have been mutilated or detached or are diseased beyond recognition. I suspect if one were shown photos of bodies blown apart, cadavers that had been dissected, bodies of Ebola patients, bodies burned and mutilated in automobile accidents interspersed with photos of fetuses, the photos of the fetuses would not have as great an effect.

23103. thoughtful - 8/9/2004 4:31:06 PM

Law or no law, there's no such thing. Presence or absence of laws impacts any industry. No laws regulating abortions? Then what's to prevent nonlicensened medical people from performing them resulting in botches and death? Laws prohibiting abortion, then what's to prevent illegal abortions as we had pre roe v wade? Seems too naive an approach for me.

ktheh, I went back to that abortiontv web site where you pulled your pics from and my take is there is sufficient reason to doubt the validity of those pictures. They include things like edges of coins or pencils to try to illustrate size, yet the proportions from one pic to the next relative to the objects given the stated ages of the fetuses are simply wrong. Also, these pics were clearly assembled in such a way as to intentionally shock the viewer...showing assemblages of fetal arms and legs as a backdrop for a single fetus. I simply can't imagine what efforts one would have to go through to create such an image, especially when bloody medical waste is treated with such care including specially marked plastic bags of a certain density, and considering medical wastes are frequently incinerated. They must have had to mutilate and assemble those fetuses themselves in that way to create that image. Else it's just done virtually and isn't real. Regardless, it is, IMO, propaganda, not reality.

23104. judithathome - 8/9/2004 5:31:40 PM

Speaking as a woman who had a miscarriage at home at 8 weeks, I am highly skeptical as well that those pictures are real. I won't go into it in detail but suffice to say, I've see the real.

(I wasn't going to mention this because even after 38 years, it is painful but I was called a moron by Kuligin for doubting the pictures and admitting I hadn't looked that closely at them. I've thought about this for days and decided to speak up.)

23105. pelty - 8/9/2004 5:42:08 PM

Jay,

"Spong is simply not a rigorous scholar, at least not in the practice of his exegesis, and thus is of little use to your argument.

This is not an uncontroversial view. Can you make this case?"

Actually, it is not a terribly difficult argument to make. If you peruse his CV for the articles that he has written, you will see that none of them were published in some of the standard journals in which one finds biblical scholars. I am working off of memory here, but I saw nothing from the Journal of Biblical Literature, Journal for the Study of the NT, New Testament Studies, etc. In a recent post, I tried to differentiate between theological studies and biblical studies as he would likely fit in the former, but most certainly not the latter. Thus, his arguments of textual issues hold very little weight. Theological issues may be a different story, but in the context of this conversation, he was quoted as making comments that I took to fall in the realm of biblical studies, and thus my reaction to his use as an authority in these matters.

23106. pelty - 8/9/2004 5:43:52 PM

judithathome:

Thank you for being transparent, especially on such a personal issue. I am sorry for your loss, no matter how far in the past it may have been.

23107. judithathome - 8/9/2004 5:47:57 PM

Thank you, Pelty.

23108. thoughtful - 8/9/2004 6:33:12 PM

J@h, I'm so sorry for your loss and understand how painful and horrible that must have been for you. Thanks for your courage in speaking up.

23109. alistairconnor - 8/9/2004 6:41:18 PM

Earlier, Gen quoted this, about "progressive" theologists :

The difference is that they have transferred their allegiance from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the faith of Our Lord Jesus Christ to the worship of humanity. Such worship is hard to justify.

This is another way of making your point of Message # 23098, Pelty.

Though I find, of course, that they've got it backwards.

23110. pelty - 8/9/2004 7:08:41 PM

Yes, Alistair, you are exactly right. I wasn't sure if you were being "snarky" in 23099 when you said, "Thanks for playing," but the totality of this post makes the point yet again that there is no common ground and thus no real hope of making progress in these areas when one's view of the world is hopelessly different. Before changing one's ideas (on issues such as those discussed in this forum), one first has to undergo a radical shift in worldview *or* be able to make the case for one's point of view in terms that are acceptable to the "other side." That is why earlier I was happy to hear that Woden had reasons to oppose abortion (although I am not sure that this is her stance, overall) on purely secular grounds. If she (or anyone) could mount such a case and be effective in its presentation, then it may sway hearts and minds to those who could not care a wit for what the Bible may have to say (tangentially) on such an issue.

23111. woden - 8/9/2004 7:29:58 PM

Laws are changed almost every day, sister,

"Sister"? What are you, 90 years old?

23112. woden - 8/9/2004 7:34:39 PM

Sure, there is no reason why this cannot be so, in your addled mind, but as I have tried to point out in two previous points, this ain't reality.

You have given no evidence whatsoever that fundie churches are not sexist, you have merely asserted that they are not.

Oh, but let me guess, you believe that "all them Jews are the same", right? How 'bout "them Muslims?" Blacks too? I mean, after all, they are all one group, so they all must think alike.

Now you are calling me a racist? What a cheap straw man argument.

You are a jackass, Pelty. I have not been insulting to you, yet you have devolved into straw men and gratuitous insults. Because of jackasses like you, I don't attend church or believe in Jesus. You are the kind of fucking asshole that opposes abortion and that's why I want no part of your fight. I don't engage with people who are needlessly insulting, so now that I have answered you in your own style of communication, I won't be posting to you anymore, because I don't enjoy communicating with assholes.

23113. woden - 8/9/2004 7:38:37 PM

Oh but thanks for proving my point that the type of people who oppose abortion are generally hypocritical pieces of crap.

23114. pelty - 8/9/2004 7:49:22 PM

"You have given no evidence whatsoever that fundie churches are not sexist, you have merely asserted that they are not."

It is not my responsibility to do so, actually. You claimed that fundies were sexist, wanted to uphold male status, etc. If you make the first claim, I will expect you to back it up. I merely stated that you seem to view the world as being made up of groups to whom all the stereotypes that you have drawn up in your head can be applied. I am waiting for evidence to prove otherwise.

"Oh, but let me guess, you believe that "all them Jews are the same", right? How 'bout "them Muslims?" Blacks too? I mean, after all, they are all one group, so they all must think alike.

Now you are calling me a racist? What a cheap straw man argument."

Not at all a straw man. I apologize for and will withdraw the "blacks" portion of the argument and simply ask you to comment on Muslims and Jews (as a religion, not an ethnicity as some tend to do). In your view, are they also one large bloc to which you can assign a stereotype?

You wrote: "I have not been insulting to you..."

and then:

"If you could soft-pedal your dumb religions and engage the middle on their terms, you might end abortion. Your posts demonstrate that Roe v. Wade is perfectly safe from people like you."

Yeah, you are all sweetness and light, Woden.

"You are the kind of fucking asshole that opposes abortion and that's why I want no part of your fight. I don't engage with people who are needlessly insulting, so now that I have answered you in your own style of communication, I won't be posting to you anymore, because I don't enjoy communicating with assholes."

That's good; pick up your ball and go home. Fortunately, I do continue to communicate w/ people who are needlessly insulting, so feel free to continue to post when you are finished sulking...

23115. angel-five - 8/9/2004 7:51:11 PM

Actually, it is not a terribly difficult argument to make.

Then why don't you stop telling us about it and do it? Or was your argument that because he isn't published in certain journals which you claim are the sorts one finds biblical scholars publishing in, that he isn't a rigorous scholar???

I'll answer the question and save you the waffling -- you are more interested in saying the man's not creditable than you are in actually proving it. That's either lazy or dishonest.

23116. pelty - 8/9/2004 7:53:53 PM

"Oh but thanks for proving my point that the type of people who oppose abortion are generally hypocritical pieces of crap."

Those stereotypes rearing their ugly heads again. You don't know me at all, but because I am against abortion, I must be think X,Y, and Z. A rather simplistic approach to life, but if it gets you through it, then it is not my concern; just do not apply your stereotypes to me. Please.

23117. angel-five - 8/9/2004 7:57:38 PM

It is not my responsibility to do so, actually.

That's nice. Then don't imply you've tried to prove something, demonstrate something, etc. that you've merely asserted, and then say 'not my job' when someone points out that you didn't prove it. That's kinda dishonest, too.

I merely stated that you seem to view the world as being made up of groups to whom all the stereotypes that you have drawn up in your head can be applied. I am waiting for evidence to prove otherwise.

This is slanderous nonsense. Did you think it something other, i.e. a clever point? You can speak of entire groups in general terms without believing that every single person in a group exemplifies those terms. You can also speak of a trend within a group without needing to line-item every single exception. And in fact, Woden didn't use any language which demands a monolithic point of view on Prottie fundamentalism. I invite you to make your case otherwise.

23118. angel-five - 8/9/2004 7:59:46 PM

Those stereotypes rearing their ugly heads again. You don't know me at all, but because I am against abortion, I must be think X,Y, and Z. A rather simplistic approach to life, but if it gets you through it, then it is not my concern; just do not apply your stereotypes to me. Please.

Whyever should she not? Do you wish me to go through and catalogue the posts in which you made assumptions about her, her stances, what she knows and does not know, what she would say about 'blacks' and Jews and Muslims? It'll be a long list and I'd be happy to crucify you with it. And you have, indeed, just proven the point about hypocrisy. Did you mean to do it twice in a row?

23119. pelty - 8/9/2004 8:00:50 PM

"Then why don't you stop telling us about it and do it? Or was your argument that because he isn't published in certain journals which you claim are the sorts one finds biblical scholars publishing in, that he isn't a rigorous scholar???"

That is exactly the point. But do not divorce this from the context of my post. He may well be a rigorous scholar in his field of theology, but he has NO pedigree in the area of biblical studies. That is my point. If you want to use him as your theologian du jour, go to it. Others will contend against him in that arena, if they feel the need. That said, he has shown no scholastic aptitude in biblical studies, if his publishing record is any indication of this, and thus he should not be used as an authority *in this arena*.

And spare me the "you claim..." nonsense. Do a little research and you will see that these are universally acknowledged as major journals in the field. That is not to say that others do not exist, but they are the main players (some may throw in HTR).

23120. angel-five - 8/9/2004 8:02:26 PM

Tell you what. I'm gonna go lay by the pool for a while and enjoy some sun. How about you sit there and decide what you want to say, and when I get back, maybe I'll read it if it's interesting.

23121. angel-five - 8/9/2004 8:07:05 PM

That is exactly the point. But do not divorce this from the context of my post. He may well be a rigorous scholar in his field of theology, but he has NO pedigree in the area of biblical studies.

So? Do you not know what 'rigorous scholar' means? You are moving the goalposts and changing the argument -- why is that? Whether or not someone publishes in journals which you claim are the ones that serious biblical scholars posts in (and by the way, insisting that it is so a second time doesn't demonstrate jack) has got nothing to do with how good of a scholar they are, how well they check it, how well they test it, how well they review it, and so on.

The basic fact of the matter is that you seem hell-bent on discrediting Spong, but so far the thrust of your arguments is this retarded third-rate 'he doesn't post in the holy journal of bible scholars, so he can't be rigorous!' God help us if that's really the best argument you can field -- go cut and paste a better, would you?

Now I am off to the pool.

23122. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 8:07:31 PM

Only difference with abortion is that anti-choice types lie about the dangers of abortion,

When have I lied? Abortion terminates the life of the unborn.

.. attempt to keep people from gaining access to safer alternatives including contraception,

I haven't stopped anyone from contraceptives. If anything, it would be nice if people would start using them instead of relying on $300 abortions. Condoms are free, everywhere!

morning after pills, ru-486, etc,

Isn't there a difference between the morning after pill and ru-486? Doesn't ru-486 induce an abortion?

and try to stop all education about sex and contraception arguing that it will encourage it.

Pure phooey. I am all for sex-ed. Again, I'd just like for people to apply what they know, especially when they're taught.

The net result is more unwanted pregnancies, ultimately leading to even more abortions

Unwanted pregnancies are caused by all kinds of things, I don't think that it's a lack of knowledge about sex or of conception. I think it's from sheer laziness and lack of contraceptives. Guys don't want to use condoms because they don't feel good, and girls don't think that once will get them pregnant. Also, the teens getting pregnant are immature and unrealistic when it comes to the responsibility of parenthood. They take the classes and know how sperm fertilizes eggs, and that condoms can prevent pregnancies, BUT, having a baby will give them someone to love...

23123. pelty - 8/9/2004 8:08:04 PM

"It is not my responsibility to do so, actually.

That's nice. Then don't imply you've tried to prove something, demonstrate something, etc. that you've merely asserted, and then say 'not my job' when someone points out that you didn't prove it. That's kinda dishonest, too."

I will happily do this, but in my view it should be done in the order received. She can go first, then I will follow...

"Whyever should she not? Do you wish me to go through and catalogue the posts in which you made assumptions about her, her stances, what she knows and does not know, what she would say about 'blacks' and Jews and Muslims?"

Do not be obtuse. I did this merely to make a point, although I am interested in her views on the latter two groups.

You wrote: "And in fact, Woden didn't use any language which demands a monolithic point of view on Prottie fundamentalism. I invite you to make your case otherwise."

Woden wrote: "I imagine that the reason why anti-abortion activists never seem to attack the problem from that angle (holding men responsible and pursuing legislation that would enforce that responsibility) are the following:

- It simply doesn't occur to them, they just aren't very good at strategizing to achieve their goals, they would rather make it a polarizing moral issue than pursuing legislation which most people could agree.

- They are more interested in controlling women's sexuality than in taking practical measures to prevent abortion.

- They want to uphold male privilege."

and then:

"Virtually all pro-lifers are religious, usually Catholic or some type of fundie Protestant."

You are right, angel-five, it was not "All fundies are this and that," just "*virtually* all. My mistake.

23124. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 8:09:17 PM

Woden,

The worship and belief in Jesus are about Jesus, not man. Us Christians are just as disappointing as you nonbelievers, the difference is what we put our faith in.

23125. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 8:13:08 PM

Angel-five,

While you're attempting to bronze your pasty white frame (shudder), consider this, Spong doesn't even accept the basic tenets of the Christian faith!!

If someone is claiming to be an adherent of a particular faith, it kind of goes without saying that the person should at least ADHERE to the basic tenets! Heck, even understanding the basic tenets of the faith would be a plus for Spong.

He [Spong] is just another fly by night pluralist who wants to create his own version of Christianity based on his social prefences and practices. He's not a scholar, he's an apologist for humanism.

23126. angel-five - 8/9/2004 8:16:04 PM

This is Woden.

I stated that the Catholic church is sexist. They are the main supporters of the anti-abortion movement, the fundies are just riding on their coattails, so if somehow you could prove that fundie churches are non-sexist, that still doesn't affect my argument.

The second compelling reason I provided for Christianity being sexist were the writings of St. Paul. Saying he's not sexist is like saying Al Qaeda is an organization concerned with the well-being of the United States. With some really weird rhetorical tricks you could do it, but why would you?

The main compelling reason I provided for the anti-abortion movement being sexist is the way they fight the problem, only focusing on the woman's role in the problem and doing nothing about male behavior which contributes to the problem.

You have done nothing resembling refuting ANY of this, merely devolved into needless insults. This makes you a loser and a jerk, and typical.

Oh hi Jenerator!

23127. pelty - 8/9/2004 8:20:52 PM

"So? Do you not know what 'rigorous scholar' means?

Nope, not a clue.

You are moving the goalposts and changing the argument -- why is that? Whether or not someone publishes in journals which you claim are the ones that serious biblical scholars posts in (and by the way, insisting that it is so a second time doesn't demonstrate jack)

...and refusing to at least investigate my claim puts us at an impasse. How else would you check out whether someone is academically qualified in a particular field as he nears the end of his career than by checking his publishing record. If his record is silent in this particular arena in most (I am being generous here; he may have some of which I am unaware, i.e., not listed on his CV) of the major journals, then the conclusion would have to lean in the general direction of not accepting the person as credible in the particular field.

"...has got nothing to do with how good of a scholar they are, how well they check it, how well they test it, how well they review it, and so on."

Granted. That is why I say he may well be a fine theologian; just do not try to sell him to me as a biblical authority. His publishing record speaks otherwise. Further, go look at the titles in his resume and I would venture to say that *he* wouldn't call himself a biblical authority.

23128. PelleNilsson - 8/9/2004 8:24:08 PM

This constant mixing up of monikers leads one to believe that A5 and woden live a life in sin.

23129. thoughtful - 8/9/2004 8:29:34 PM

First of all, I didn't say you specifically Jen, but surely you are aware of the activities of some of those in the anti-choice movement. And as with taking any position on any issue, while you may not be a subscriber to all the specifics, it's likely you will be brushed with the same broad brush of views and characteristics common to those representing the main thrust of the cause. For example, I am for capital punishment but only in those rare instances where there is absolutely no doubt and where the person is so dangerous to society at large that it cannot risk even a potential escape or mistaken release. That is far more limited than the mainstream view of capital punishment, but I have to expect that others may incorrectly attribute characteristics to me because of my general stance being pro capital punishment.

23130. thoughtful - 8/9/2004 8:29:42 PM

So it may be that you personally are in favor of teaching children about contraception and making contraception readily available. However, surely you are aware that there are those in the anti-abortion group that are not and have been effective in blocking access to such products and information and the result is evident in teenage birth rates. From here:

As of May 1 [2004], only 14 states required contraception to be covered in sex education, and 21 states required that abstinence be stressed, according to SIECUS, a nonprofit that promotes education about contraceptives.

The numbers put out by SIECUS indicate that of the 14 states that mandate contraception be covered, nine of the five have teen birth rates that fall below the national average. The national teen birth rate is 45 per 1,000 women ages 15-19. Maine, with one of the most comprehensive sex education programs in the nation, has a birth rate of 27 per 1,000, whereas it is 66 per 1,000 in Texas. Delaware, which mandates that both abstinence and contraceptives be covered if sex education has been taught, has a birth rate of 44 per 1,000.In Maryland, which mandates that sex education cover contraceptives, the birth rate is 38 per 1000 women.

23131. pelty - 8/9/2004 8:30:49 PM

"The second compelling reason I provided for Christianity being sexist were the writings of St. Paul. Saying he's not sexist is like saying Al Qaeda is an organization concerned with the well-being of the United States. With some really weird rhetorical tricks you could do it, but why would you?"

Ok, I think that you would find, if you really read Paul, that there is, at the very least, some ambiguity. This gets into issues about which I simply do not have time to write at the moment, but a simple glance at Romans 16 should inform you of the role played by women in the early church. Further, have you considered cultural factors when looking at Paul's writings (both as they regard women during that time, generally, and re: specific actions taken by women in Greco-Roman religions of the day that Paul may want to counter in an effort to distinguish Xianity from the other religions of the day)? There is much to be accounted for in this regard.

"The main compelling reason I provided for the anti-abortion movement being sexist is the way they fight the problem, only focusing on the woman's role in the problem and doing nothing about male behavior which contributes to the problem."

On this, you and I agree. What do you see as some useful steps forward in this regard?

And please clarify, does angel-five = woden? a-5 knows woden? I only ask so I know w/ whom I am conversing in the future. Enjoy the pool.

23132. thoughtful - 8/9/2004 8:37:10 PM

Isn't there a difference between the morning after pill and ru-486? Doesn't ru-486 induce an abortion?

Not according to those who believe life begins at conception. Since the morning after pill does nothing to stop conception, many view it as the equivalent of an abortion. Same thing with IUD which also does not prevent conception, only pregnancy.

Re Only difference with abortion is that anti-choice types lie about the dangers of abortion... again I wasn't targeting you personally, but surely you're aware of the actions taken by the bushies to quell the anti-choice movement including (site selected only because it succinctly made my point)

Information affecting women in crucial areas ranging from pay equity, to breast cancer to HIV has been distorted on governmental web sites and publications during Bush's term - even worse, data has sometimes disappeared altogether. The list is extensive, but includes:

- The National Cancer Institute changed its web site to suggest that abortion and breast cancer were linked, even though studies had found they weren't. The web site was changed back only when Congress insisted.

- The Department of Health and Human Services altered information on its web site to make "abstinence-only" programs seem more effective than evidence indicates.

23133. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 8:38:01 PM

thoughtful,

I have the same views as you regarding the death penalty.

Also, is it really the pro-choicers pov to reduce the number of abortions to as small a number as possible? If so, that is not the message received. What I primarily get from that bunch is that the abortion itself is not the issue. The killing of human life isn't important, it's the "right" to kill the human life that's important.

What I don't understand is why anyone would want to defend the indefensible? What you're defending is the right to kill your unborn. How is that defensible!!!???? I just don't get it. How can anyone defend termininating the life of a fetus???

We live in the most advanced society during an age of incredible opportunity. There are scores of methods better than abortion.

23134. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 8:39:50 PM

People who dismiss Paul as sexist are usually people who have not bothered to even read Paul.

Resonance,

That sure was a quick trip to the pool. I take it you burn easily? No pun intended.

23135. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 8:41:03 PM

One last thing thoughtful,

We pro-lifers are dealing with the issue of abortion, not the issue of choice. If it's one thing I am against, it is the killing of the fetus.

23136. judithathome - 8/9/2004 8:43:49 PM

There are scores of methods better than abortion.

Yes, Jen, and that is the whole point of this back-and-forth; the position of Planned Parenthood is to prevent abortions by showing women how to avoid pregnancy. Abortion is only a last resort.

Why cant you get that? Those stats that Thoughtful provided clearly show that the states with the most public sex education have the lowest teen pregnancy rates.

23137. judithathome - 8/9/2004 8:46:09 PM

Jen, if you'd read closely, you know that Angel 5 is at the pool and Woden is posting on his computer, using his log-on.

I knw you're distressed that Woden snagged him but no need to be snotty about it. (JOKE JOKE JOKE!!!)

23138. pelty - 8/9/2004 8:48:12 PM

SO who is Resonance and how does he/she fit into the A-5/Woden group?

23139. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 8:48:22 PM

I shall wear black.

23140. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 8:49:52 PM

Judith,

Planned Parenthood is not considered about preventing abortion.

Doctors performm abortions because it makes them rich, and they're easy to do. Abortion clinics are like cattle-calls, and the patients are just numbers.

23141. jayackroyd - 8/9/2004 8:50:08 PM

We pro-lifers are dealing with the issue of abortion, not the issue of choice. If it's one thing I am against, it is the killing of the fetus.

So I ask for the umpteenth time, why aren't you picketing fertility clinics?

23142. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 8:51:05 PM

PP is not CONCERNED about preventing abortions...

23143. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 8:51:46 PM

Jay,

Fertility clinics perform abortions?? That's news to me.

23144. jayackroyd - 8/9/2004 8:52:53 PM

They routinely destroy excess embryos.

23145. jayackroyd - 8/9/2004 8:53:36 PM

Planned Parenthood's Mission Statement:

A Reason for Being
Planned Parenthood believes in the fundamental right of each individual, throughout the world, to manage his or her fertility, regardless of the individual's income, marital status, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, national origin, or residence. We believe that respect and value for diversity in all aspects of our organization are essential to our well-being. We believe that reproductive self-determination must be voluntary and preserve the individual's right to privacy. We further believe that such self-determination will contribute to an enhancement of the quality of life, strong family relationships, and population stability.

Based on these beliefs, and reflecting the diverse communities within which we operate, the mission of Planned Parenthood is:

to provide comprehensive reproductive and complementary health care services in settings which preserve and protect the essential privacy and rights of each individual;
to advocate public policies which guarantee these rights and ensure access to such services;
to provide educational programs which enhance understanding of individual and societal implications of human sexuality;
to promote research and the advancement of technology in reproductive health care and encourage understanding of their inherent bioethical, behavioral, and social implications.

23146. judithathome - 8/9/2004 8:53:41 PM

Planned Parenthood is not considered about preventing abortion

Did you mean "concerned"? Then why do they hand out condoms and birth control pills? Why counsel teens on sex-ed? Why help women with family planning?

Why show your ingorance with statements like the above?

Have you ever even talked to a doctor who performs abortions? Do you honestly think they are in it for the MONEY?

23147. judithathome - 8/9/2004 8:55:23 PM

Pelty, Resonance is the same poster as Angel 5. He uses Res at Random International. Woden is his girlfriend.

23148. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 8:57:36 PM

Woden and Resonance are TOGETHER!!???

The last time I remember, she was accusing him of sexism/mysogyny back at RI!

23149. pelty - 8/9/2004 8:58:02 PM

Thank you, judith@home. The clouds are parting now...

23150. pelty - 8/9/2004 8:59:07 PM

OK, what is Random Int'l. Is this something I sould be aware of? Another forum?

23151. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 8:59:52 PM

Judith,

I have spoken to doctors as well as nurses at abortion clinics. They're chop-shops. I'm not kidding. If I believed for one second that they were concerned about the women or the number of unwanted pregnancies that they terminate, I wouldn't despise what they do as much. I'd still know that it's wrong, but I wouldn't believe that they are the monsters that they are.

23152. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 9:00:17 PM

Pelty,

Yes, it's another forum.

23153. thoughtful - 8/9/2004 9:01:57 PM

What you're defending is the right to kill your unborn.

No, what I'm defending is the right to choose not to bring a potential human life to full term.

"If it's one thing I am against, it is the killing of the fetus."

Jen, Are there any circumstances under which you would feel it appropriate or morally justifiable to abort? If the mother's life is at risk? If the child is severely deformed and unlikely to survive outside the womb? Rape? Incest?

is it really the pro-choicers pov to reduce the number of abortions to as small a number as possible? I've never heard any pro-choicers argue in favor of more abortions. I've never heard of abortion clinics that encourage abortions. Rather, I've heard of clinics refusing patients if they seemed any way in doubt about what they were doing, and encouraging them to explore alternatives such as adoption, as well as teaching them about appropriate contraception. But the reality is there is such a thing as unintended pregnancy. The reality is that in some cases the physical, emotional, and economic costs of carrying a child to full term and raising it is severely detrimental to extant human life, that we can't know what those problems and costs are as they are unique in each individual situation, and as such it is important that women have access to the alternative to bringing a potential human life to full term, and that's called abortion.

23154. judithathome - 8/9/2004 9:07:02 PM

Well said, Thoughtful, and I agree.

23155. judithathome - 8/9/2004 9:08:23 PM

Jen, if the doctors and nurses you've spoken with actually think of their surroundings as chop shops, the abotions they do aren't their only problems.

23156. thoughtful - 8/9/2004 9:08:30 PM

Jen, considering how few doctors are even left performing abortions, and how many live under death threats to themselves and their families because of their practice, I find it hard to believe they are in it for the money.

Most of the doctors who perform abortions are older doctors. Most of them do it because they are old enough to remember how many women who'd had botched abortions they'd attempted, yet failed, to save. They too are pro-life, but pro-extant life, not potential, unborn life.

And given your extreme stance on the subject, I tend to doubt a conversation with you would encourage an honest reaction from those who perform abortions.

23157. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 9:09:20 PM

Judith,

Let me tell you about one of the clinics here in Dallas. It is considered one of the best places in Dallas to get an abortion. You make an appointment and then you are seen. Walk-ins are always welcome. You're directed back to an office where a nurse or assistant asks you basic questions like, "How far along are you? Do you have any allergies to medications." and so forth. The nurse also tells you that an abortion is just a minor medical procedure that stops the growth of a group of cells in your womb.

You're then interviewed by a "counselor". The counselor asks you upfront why you're having an abortion. Your answer can be as curt as, "Because I don't want to be pregnant", or "Because I like abortions" and your answer is simply cataolgued. If, however, you show any type of remorse or regret, you are asked to leave. Only persons 100% sure they want an abortion are welcome there. I am being totally serious.

When it's time for your abortion, say you choose to be anesthetized, you will be lead into a room, made to sign a waiver that allows the facility of a purchaser to do experiments on the dead fetus, and then you're hooked up to an iv, and the abortion will be performed and you wake up.

When you wake up, you are then moved to a waiting room with about 20 or so other women equally as groggy as you, waiting for their rides home.

23158. judithathome - 8/9/2004 9:11:33 PM

So, Jen, you'd prefer it be a table in a seedy apartment with a rusty coat-hanger and a bottle of Jack Daniels?

23159. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 9:13:25 PM

Judith,

I'd prefer it to not be done at all except for those rare cases in which the mother's life is endangered.

23160. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 9:15:39 PM

thoughtful,

Adoption is always available. Those women who fear their parents' or boyfriends' (or husbands') disapproval can always give their babies life by adopting them out to other people.

I don't see how killing the fetus is somehow better than giving it a life with someone else.

23161. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 9:16:18 PM

please move apostrophes where necessary.

23162. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 9:24:00 PM

And given your extreme stance on the subject, I tend to doubt a conversation with you would encourage an honest reaction from those who perform abortions

I wasn't always pro-life. In fact, I can remember shocking a psychology teacher because I defended fetal research. She was disgusted (and even kicked me out of the program) because I had defended abortions because of the wealth of scientific opportunity the unwanted fetuses could provide to researchers.

23163. thoughtful - 8/9/2004 9:48:43 PM

except for those rare cases in which the mother's life is endangered. So you've answered your own question as to how can you kill your own unborn child. To you, this is an acceptable exception. To others, the list of acceptable exceptions would be different. Some include rape/incest. Some include instances where the mother's health, though not necessarily her life, is endangered. Some include where conception has taken place, but not pregnancy. Some include a child who will be born with a painful, limiting, and severe defect. These are very personal decisions made by people who will be responsible for the outcome of their choice, one way or another. How can you presume to decide for them?

23164. thoughtful - 8/9/2004 9:55:18 PM

And I'm with jay...what is the response to IVF and fertility clinics?

23165. judithathome - 8/9/2004 10:05:33 PM

Yes, I'd be very interested in what you think about the extra fertilized eggs being discarded...or does it only count if the result comes from sex between a man and a woman and the eggs are fertilized inside a woman?

23166. angel-five - 8/9/2004 10:06:56 PM

So, in other words, yes. You don't know what a rigorous scholar is and your means of saying one is or isn't a rigorous scholar is that they aren't published in the magazines you choose to find important. Pelty, you do recognize that this is completely ridiculous, right? If you don't like what Spong has to say, then, say why it's bad. Don't say that it's bad just because Spong isn't credible! It makes you look really silly.

Do not be obtuse. I did this merely to make a point, although I am interested in her views on the latter two groups.

Then it was a straw man point, as we've established that Woden didn't make categorical statements and your criticism seems to be that she was making them. Moreover, they were so obviously off base that I have to wonder what you were thinking when you made them. Then you go on to accuse other people of hypocritical thinking! Do you need to have the cite read back to you again?

And we see the same thing happening where you cite Woden.

When I say that she has made no categorical statements about Prottie thumpers, you make two cites where... she makes no categorical statements about Prottie thumpers! And then, to boot, you say the following!

"Virtually all pro-lifers are religious, usually Catholic or some type of fundie Protestant."

You are right, angel-five, it was not "All fundies are this and that," just "*virtually* all. My mistake.

23167. angel-five - 8/9/2004 10:07:15 PM

Now, I'm sitting here, scratching my fuckin' head, Pelty. How do you get from 'virtually all pro-lifers' to 'not all fundies are this and that,", just "*virtually* all.' Where is your malfunction, Pelty? You're the one roaring about the difference between pro-lifers and fundies and whatnot. You're the one trying to bullyingly discredit Woden by insisting that she is lumping all of your protestant fundamentalists into one large ugly mass and saying that it's all the same. And you not only can't even keep the fuckin' terms straight in a simple short sentence, but you post the cite that proves you were wrong as you do it!

So, once again, what is your issue with what she's said about abortion and anti-abortionist activism? Because the complete picture is pointing at... you just not liking her stance and wishing to insultingly discredit it on the cheap.

23168. jayackroyd - 8/9/2004 10:07:31 PM

The joke in that position is who is gonna decide if a woman's life is endangered? Presumably the doctor and the woman.

Maternal mortality was 8.4 per 100,000 live births in 1997. Is that enough danger? For black women it was over 20. Is that enough?

23169. jayackroyd - 8/9/2004 10:10:15 PM

sex between a man and a woman and the eggs are fertilized inside a woman?

It's still the same question. Fertility drugs often generate dangerously many embryos. The excess are aborted. And sometimes people taking the drugs don't want triplets or twins.

23170. angel-five - 8/9/2004 10:15:38 PM

While you're attempting to bronze your pasty white frame (shudder), consider this, Spong doesn't even accept the basic tenets of the Christian faith!!

That sure was a quick trip to the pool.

Trick, when I see you post stuff like this it reminds me of South Seas natives and cargo cults. You're no good at it, but you try it because you've seen others do it.

You aren't an authority on the Christian faith. You aren't even likely an authority on your own little backwater variant of it. The only reason you know the name of Spong is that it was probably printed up in some Baptist flyer. So spare us your second-rate analysis of what Spong does or doesn't believe in, what he does and does not adhere to, unless you want someone to sit down with a checklist of the ten commandments and your behavior the last several years and compile a compelling list of why your Tejano-slut-for-Jesus-and-Bush act is about as Biblically rooted as hydroponic pot and much less saleable.

Now, run along, post something about how worldly you are, maybe a few anecdotes about people you just happen to know who have had abortions which just happen to perfectly exemplify the arguments you make about them, tell us a bit more about clinics in Dallas that you probably haven't been in since you were still doing coke and hanging out with lesbian porn stars, and try a few lame insults. Someone'll believe them.

23171. angel-five - 8/9/2004 10:17:48 PM

Uncle Pelle:

We aren't living in sin, but we are on holiday there for a week. Send you a postcard?

BTW, you know you were delirious with envy over the lighthouse pictures and meatballs.

23172. pelty - 8/9/2004 10:23:51 PM

A-5,

"So, in other words, yes. You don't know what a rigorous scholar is and your means of saying one is or isn't a rigorous scholar is that they aren't published in the magazines you choose to find important. Pelty, you do recognize that this is completely ridiculous, right?"

That is right. I have no idea what a rigorous scholar is. Fortunately, I have you here to tell me all about it.

This is at the point where it is not even worth arguing. Seriously, don't waste your time on worrying your head on Spong. It is very clear that you do not have any training in these fields (which is fine, but don't speak out of your ignorance), so I will let you continue to think what you like about the guy. Have at it; he is omniscient.

"When I say that she has made no categorical statements about Prottie thumpers, you make two cites where... she makes no categorical statements about Prottie thumpers!"

Honestly, if you cannot see that she is equating the pro-life groups who hold the positions of supporting male dominance, blah, blah, blah with her further definition of these pro-lifers as Catholic or fundie Protestant who thereby hold the views of said pro-life groups, then that is fine. I am truly past caring. Cheers.

23173. woden - 8/9/2004 10:25:42 PM

People who dismiss Paul as sexist are usually people who have not bothered to even read Paul.

Jen, I went to religious school from grade school through college. I am not unfamiliar with the Bible.

23174. jayackroyd - 8/9/2004 10:36:24 PM

Spong on Paul and sexuality

23175. woden - 8/9/2004 10:39:26 PM

I don't see it? It isn't there, Pelty. You know that, and you can't prove it, and you know that too, and that is why you are suddenly 'past caring'. You have been demonstrated to be dead wrong, suddenly you wish to go do something else!

Is that, er, picking up your ball and leaving the sandbox?

Anyway the moral of this story is, I believe, 'do not fuck with my girlfriend.'

23176. woden - 8/9/2004 10:40:03 PM

grumble. That should have been under angel-five. Silly logins.

23177. judithathome - 8/9/2004 10:42:23 PM

It's still the same question.

Jay, I know that, I was trying to get Jen to answer.

23178. pelty - 8/9/2004 11:04:47 PM

Actually, this is not picking up the ball, it is realizing when a person cannot be reasoned with and, further, is not interested in speaking rationally. If you cannot see this, then it is because you have no desire to see this, which is fine. Let me spell it out. First, you have Pro-lifers (x) who want to support the male structure, blah, blah, blah (y). Then you have pro-lifers (x) who are Catholics and fundie protestants (z). Using simple math, you cross out the "x's" and lo and behold, y=z. Then I say she should not stereotype, to which she flies off the handle and runs home to her boyfriend. That's a strong woman you have there, slick.

I certainly have not been demonstrated to be wrong in anything, but the fact that you think I have further illustrates the futility of the challenge before me and thus I choose to seek a conversation w/ people who are capable of putting two thoughts together.

BTW, you are kidding with the "fuck w/ my girlfriend," right? Please tell me you are. Or are we now all in junior high? Is your dad going to kick my dad's ass? Please.

23179. woden - 8/9/2004 11:27:05 PM

First, you have Pro-lifers (x) who want to support the male structure, blah, blah, blah (y). Then you have pro-lifers (x) who are Catholics and fundie protestants (z). Using simple math, you cross out the "x's" and lo and behold, y=z. Then I say she should not stereotype, to which she flies off the handle and runs home to her boyfriend. That's a strong woman you have there, slick.

Why do people lie about things that are posted, when all it takes is for someone to page back and see what I wrote? Do you think anyone is convinced by that? You look like a pathetic loser. And not only are you a liar, but you simply can't lay off the ad hominems when you're being bested.

I certainly have not been demonstrated to be wrong in anything,

Not only have you been proven wrong, but you can't stop digging. You can't even read my posts. You're and idiot and you should stop posting. When I said I was through with you, you cravenly took that as an opportunity to continue with your needless insults, hoping that you wouldn't be answered, coward.

23180. woden - 8/9/2004 11:27:49 PM

Only the first and third paragraphs should be italicized, my mistake.

23181. pelty - 8/9/2004 11:28:30 PM

To be fair, I pre-supposed that xy=xz. It may be more fair to say x=y and x=z and thus y=z.

23182. pelty - 8/9/2004 11:29:13 PM

OK, Woden.

23183. judithathome - 8/9/2004 11:30:37 PM

hmmmmmm?

23184. angel-five - 8/9/2004 11:44:02 PM

Actually, this is not picking up the ball, it is realizing when a person cannot be reasoned with and, further, is not interested in speaking rationally.

But both of us have put down rational arguments on the table. You're the one being irrational, and you demonstrated it succinctly here:

If you cannot see this, then it is because you have no desire to see this, which is fine. Let me spell it out. First, you have Pro-lifers (x) who want to support the male structure, blah, blah, blah (y). Then you have pro-lifers (x) who are Catholics and fundie protestants (z).Using simple math, you cross out the "x's" and lo and behold, y=z.

Using simple math incorrectly. Logically and rationally you do this using a Venn diagram. X are mostly Y and Z, X believe in A and B. Does it follow that Y and Z all monolithically believe in A and B?

Let's see. 'The Ohio State football team is mostly made up of males age 18-22. The Ohio State football team plays football. Does it follow that all males age 18-22 play football?'

No, Pelty, it does not. But that's precisely what you were shrieking about! 'How dare she think that all fundamentalists are the same!' The logic doesn't get you there; if you used it, you'd know it. Instead you just whinged about how unfair it is to lump all fundamentalists together and when called on how you were wrong, you suddenly want to stop talking.

23185. angel-five - 8/9/2004 11:44:14 PM

Then I say she should not stereotype, to which she flies off the handle and runs home to her boyfriend. That's a strong woman you have there, slick.

And here we see you doing a whole lot more of what you were just shrieking about! First off, you shouldn't stereotype if you're gonna whine about it when you think others have done it to you. Second off, you have no idea what happened. For the record your stereotype posts came up when I was at the computer. I answered them.

For the record; you have been proven wrong in a) whether you can demonstrate easily that Spong is a good and methodical scholar b) how you would prove that c) whether Woden made definite and categorical statements about all thumpers d) whether or not your racist allegations are fair comparison to discussions about the anti-abortion lobby e) whether or not Woden knows much about that lobby and f)what does constitute logic.

BTW, you are kidding with the "fuck w/ my girlfriend," right? Please tell me you are. Or are we now all in junior high?

You're certainly acting like it.

23186. pelty - 8/9/2004 11:46:59 PM

OK, A-5. Thanks for playing.

23187. Absensia - 8/9/2004 11:50:54 PM

A completely different view of why marriage laws should be left to the states. Polygomy anyone? http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20040729.html

23188. angel-five - 8/9/2004 11:51:16 PM

I mean, really, if you're going to be a persnickety jackass it does help if you have some semblance of facts upon which to be persnickety, there, Malvolio. Have you even had any formal training in logic? Do people really stump you with 'All housecats are pets, my dog is a pet, therefore my dog is a housecat?'

Or, once again, are you just propagandizing? The cargo cult of polemicism seems to be alive and well.

23189. angel-five - 8/9/2004 11:53:24 PM

Are you sure you don't want to talk about this some more, Pelty? Sure you're sure?

23190. pelty - 8/9/2004 11:54:11 PM

Yep, you are on to me, A-5. Good show.

23191. Jenerator - 8/10/2004 12:36:20 AM

Angel five,

Wonkers asked pelty why Rev. Spong wasn't deemed as credible. I posted a small bit in agreement with pelty, citing one link of thousands that discuss why Spong is a sham scholar. I then went on to explain the very basic explanation to you that Spong claims to be a Christian, but he rejects the basic tenets of the Christian faith. Spong is about as Christian as you are.

You then go on Resonance-rant mode and insult me in your predictable way. (Although I do appreciate your new found fervor undoubtedly gained by having a real life and online girlfriend around.)

The only reason you know the name of Spong is that it was probably printed up in some Baptist flyer.

Hahahahahahaha! Get a clue, Angel-five. We don't just huddle around in prayer circles with our heads in the sand. Shelby Spong is just as familiar a name as John Dominic Crossan. And before you do a google search on the name, allow me to remind you that they're both part of the infamous Jesus Seminar. Do you know how often I had to read about them? Do you have anyidea how many dialogues we have had regarding their shoddy tactics? I guess not. No, in Resonance world, Christians don't know anything.

So spare us your second-rate analysis of what Spong does or doesn't believe in, what he does and does not adhere to

I haven't even begun to share an analysis with you, but the more you speak, the more I am inclined to!

unless you want someone to sit down with a checklist of the ten commandments and your behavior the last several years and compile a compelling list of why your Tejano-slut-for-Jesus-and-Bush act is about as Biblically rooted as hydroponic pot and much less saleable.

Do I get to pick the person? Will they be coming to my house? Maybe it could be Rev. Spong himself and we could televise the whole thing!

23192. alistairConnor - 8/10/2004 12:54:25 AM

Message # 23131 Pelty! So we are expected to accept your cultural excuses for Paul's sexism... while still treating him as authoritative on, for example, homosexuality?

Surely, with a bit of effort, you could find some cultural excuses for him there, too.

... And by the way, did he have anything to say about abortion?

I'm rather puzzled as to why that should be a specifically Christian issue. Is there some scriptural basis for that? I thought it was just some infallible pope's opinion.

23193. Jenerator - 8/10/2004 12:56:14 AM

You might be on to something!

versus

23194. angel-five - 8/10/2004 4:02:58 AM

I then went on to explain the very basic explanation to you that Spong claims to be a Christian, but he rejects the basic tenets of the Christian faith. Spong is about as Christian as you are.

You explained the explanation?

No, you just asserted the, ah, assertion. Twice now. Despite what you may think, the plural of assertion is not 'logic' just as the plural of anecdote is not data. And I'll repeat that snake-handling Baptists don't get to decide what's Christian and what isn't. We might have let you, except you always do such a bad job of it.

Hahahahahahaha! Get a clue, Angel-five. We don't just huddle around in prayer circles with our heads in the sand. Shelby Spong is just as familiar a name as John Dominic Crossan.

And I'll reiterate that you never would have heard either name if it weren't for the propagandists of your faith and their screed sheets. Certainly you never seem to have a basic grasp of what liberal theologians actually say -- instead you usually spout what can be found on Baptist broadsides, which is why, of course, one suspects that your 'discussions' of them amount to little more than 'Here, read this, it says why Spong and Crossan and Pagels and Allegro are all wrong, turn in your answers tomorrow'.

Interestingly enough, I didn't say you have your head in the sand, but... you do.

I haven't even begun to share an analysis with you, but the more you speak, the more I am inclined to!

Figured out cut and pasting, then?

By the way, if you're going to post a pic of a cheerleader as you, find one that looks a little more cute and a little less ratlike and vacuous.

23195. angel-five - 8/10/2004 4:06:21 AM

Wait! Let me guess. That's the flower of texas beauty, just like those horribly made up plastic looking trailer dolls you posted before? I mean, the legs aren't bad, but it's a shame about the face. I thought the Cowboys hired hotties.

23196. rdbrewer - 8/10/2004 4:13:00 AM

I wouldn't kick her out of bed for eating crackers.

23197. angel-five - 8/10/2004 4:30:41 AM

RDB:

Well, that's hardly saying much. If you were any easier you'd be free.

23198. angel-five - 8/10/2004 4:31:39 AM

Besides, no one mentioned cannibalism.

23199. SnowOwl - 8/10/2004 4:38:54 AM

I thought whoever it was is displaying a bit of 5-o'clock shadow. Maybe it's just a bad photo.

23200. SnowOwl - 8/10/2004 4:38:55 AM

I thought whoever it was is displaying a bit of 5-o'clock shadow. Maybe it's just a bad photo.

23201. rdbrewer - 8/10/2004 5:06:30 AM

Was that "5-o'clock shadow"?

23202. rdbrewer - 8/10/2004 5:07:08 AM

Jen, post some pictures of yourself, please.

23203. rdbrewer - 8/10/2004 5:09:25 AM

Hey, A-4. Married yet? ("A-4" ever since you blew that 10,000 post I was hoping to get.)

23204. angel-five - 8/10/2004 5:21:46 AM

Next July, RD.

And, yeah. That picture being of a guy in drag would totally explain a few things.

23205. wonkers2 - 8/10/2004 6:06:57 AM

Jenerator: "Spong is a sham scholar. Spong rejects the basic tenets of the Christian faith."

I would be curious to know what basic Christian tenets Spong rejects.

And Spong's resume hardly indicates he is a sham scholar:

AB U. of N.C.--philosophy, Phi Beta Kappa

M. Divinity--Virginia Theological Seminary

Special Study
St. Luke's School of Theology
Union Seminary
Harvard Divinity School
Magdalen College Oxford
Fellow, Emmanuel College, Cambridge
University of Edinburgh
Christ Church, Oxford

Honorary Degrees
Doctor of Divinity, St Paul's College
Docotor of Divinity Virginia Theological Seminary
Doctor of Humane Letters, Muhlenberg College

Publications: 16 Books, 100+ articles

Spong appears to have devoted his life to Christianity. He is a retired Episcopal Bishop and a member of the governing board of the church. It appears to me that he has studied Christian theology and reached different conclusions from other theologians on the origin, meaning and significance of the scriptures. Seems to me this would be a more accurate and civil way to characterize him rather than as a "sham scholar" and "about as Christian as you are." Many Christians find his views more sensible, humane and helpful in today's world than those of the fundamentalists.

23206. The Summer Woman - 8/10/2004 6:24:04 AM

Thoughtful: Law or no law, there's no such thing. Presence or absence of laws impacts any industry. No laws regulating abortions? Then what's to prevent nonlicensened medical people from performing them resulting in botches and death? Laws prohibiting abortion, then what's to prevent illegal abortions as we had pre roe v wade? Seems too naive an approach for me.

I did not say that there should be no laws regulating abortion! I said that there should be no law that states that an abortion is either legal or illegal. That one may or may not have one. Laws that regulate who may peform an abortion are entirely separate, and how abortions may or may not be done would be handled just as they are now - by licensing and medical boards. The goal here is to de-politicize abortion. To return the decision to the individual.

People who feel that it is wrong to have an abortion will not feel that their government is condoning murder. People who feel that it is an option that should not be denied to a woman by government would probably be satisfied with this solution also.

I sometimes wonder if people realize that the procedures that are used to perform abortions - dilatation and curretage, dilatation and vaccum extraction - are not procedures performed by physicians everyday for purposes
b other than abortion.
Examples are: for the diagnosis of endometriosis and other abnormal bleeding problems; removal of polyps and other abnormal growths from the uterus; removal of any remains of placenta after a live-birth or a miscarriage which could result in a fatal hemorrage.

At any rate, I know that the no-law idea seems strange - especially as we have come to see this as an either/or issue.

23207. arkymalarky - 8/10/2004 6:36:40 AM

Besides, no one mentioned cannibalism.

Oooh, that was cold.

23208. tmesis - 8/10/2004 9:08:23 AM

sakonige,

As I've said ad nauseam, parasitism takes between two species, not one. If you can't reconcile yourself to a basic biological fact, there's no help for you.

23209. alistairconnor - 8/10/2004 10:43:24 AM

TM : as you noted yourself, it was a poetic construct, not a scientific assertion. She has an original point of view and often comes up with interesting ideas. Take her literally at your peril.

Sakonige enjoys outraging people. You made her day.

23210. alistairconnor - 8/10/2004 1:23:13 PM

Summer, your no-law idea is an interesting approach, an attempt at breaking down the fortified camps that everyone seems forced into on this issue.

But I fear that it won't help.

(FOOLISH) ATTEMPT AT SYNTHESIS FOLLOWS :

So, why is abortion a religious issue?

I see two elements :

* The first element is, as outlined by both Pelty and Jen, the fact that the Christians (the real ones!) love Jesus far more than they love their fellow humans. They worship and obey Jesus, and this has much higher standing than any human concensus, social contract, convention, or law. This ultimately brooks no discussion; it's just the way it is.

The result of this element is to remove the issue of abortion from the purview of the individual. A woman has no more right to abort, than two men to contract a marriage. Jesus said it's wrong to kill blastocysts (voluntary anachronism), and that's the end of the matter.

(In terms of human politics, this looks like an awfully authoritarian position. But human politics are irrelevant when you are serving God's will.)

23211. alistairconnor - 8/10/2004 1:36:59 PM

* The second element that I see, that makes abortion a religious issue, is the question of the soul.

I guess this is what Jay is getting at with his questions on fertility clinics, and I understand why none of the religious participants have taken the bait.

A theologian will resist getting into technical detail about when the soul of a foetus starts. End of first trimester? Four weeks? Implantation? Fertilisation? Ejaculation?... Of course, with assisted fertility, all these lines are blurred. (Do people born from in-vitro fertilisation have a soul?)

* There is a third element : some brands of Christian are against all forms of contraception as well (except for the rhythm method, which is OK because it doesn't work). This gives them an additional argument against abortion. (Though there might be two justifications for such a position: non-interference with God's will, in which case I would expect them to be against all assisted-fertility parenting; or filling the earth with one's fruits, in which case they would be in favour).
So, the only coherent position is :

23212. alistairconnor - 8/10/2004 1:37:49 PM

(Strike that last line. There is no coherent position.)

(sorry to disappoint)

23213. pelty - 8/10/2004 3:54:36 PM

"So we are expected to accept your cultural excuses for Paul's sexism... while still treating him as authoritative on, for example, homosexuality?"

Actually, you are not "expected" to do anything. The problem is that you are starting w/ a presupposition that I do not accept. I do not think that Paul demonstrates sexist behavior in the first place; that is not to say that *some* people have not taken a certain passage and run with it, but the weight of the evidence suggests that Paul had a pretty radical view of the role of women.

WRT homosexuality, I certainly do not expect you to accept Paul's authority on this (or any other) issue.

"... And by the way, did he have anything to say about abortion?"

No.

"I'm rather puzzled as to why that should be a specifically Christian issue. Is there some scriptural basis for that? I thought it was just some infallible pope's opinion."

I do not believe that it is a "specifically Christian" idea, although there is no denying that many Christians oppose abortion. I think it has to do w/ the sanction against murder and thus, if you take life as beginning at the moment of conception, abortion would be murder. I am not certain that non-Catholics would feel too comfortable taking their marching orders from a pope.

23214. thoughtful - 8/10/2004 3:56:22 PM

Jesus said it's wrong to kill blastocysts

Q for the bible scholars around here, where in the bible does Jesus say abortion is wrong?

23215. PelleNilsson - 8/10/2004 4:44:18 PM

On whose authority is it claimed that life begins at conception?

23216. jayackroyd - 8/10/2004 4:54:29 PM

None. But it is an obvious point to choose, less blurry than "viability" or "quickening".

23217. PelleNilsson - 8/10/2004 5:18:06 PM

Arbitrary then. Is it really that simple?

23218. alistairconnor - 8/10/2004 5:23:24 PM

Pelty : Actually, you are not "expected" to do anything. OK, true enough, I'm not actually looking for spiritual guidance from you. However, you are an articulate advocate of your cause, and I find your explanations quite illuminating with respect to the past and the present, given the huge Christian influence on our culture.

In Message # 23131 you seem to claim that when Paul seems to be anti-woman, he is really aiming to denigrate rival religions which happened to give important roles to women... fine... I certainly wouldn't call that "really weird rhetorical tricks" or anything. However, centuries of oppression of women, often justified by an apparently too-literal reading of Paul, have left their traces. So I can certainly see value in examining other elements of his teachings, to see whether there's other stuff that has been taken too literally.

Spong thinks he may have been gay, which would cast an interesting light on his ardently anti-homosexual teachings. On the other hand, perhaps this was merely a coded criticism of socio-educational practices of the Graeco-Roman world.

23219. pelty - 8/10/2004 5:31:45 PM

thoughtful:

"Q for the bible scholars around here, where in the bible does Jesus say abortion is wrong?"

Nowhere. That said, there are many things that Jesus did not touch on, so it is not an entirely useful avenue to go down. Most of those who argue against abortion would likely, as I mention above, go down the route of murder, life beginning at conception, etc.

23220. woden - 8/10/2004 5:52:43 PM

In Message # 23131 you seem to claim that when Paul seems to be anti-woman, he is really aiming to denigrate rival religions which happened to give important roles to women... fine... I certainly wouldn't call that "really weird rhetorical tricks" or anything.

Okay, let's say for argument's sake that your interpretation of Paul is the only 'right' one and that it is somehow wrong to take him at the letter of his words. If the reason he oppresses women is that rival Christian churches don't oppress them as much, by what rhetorical trick is that not still sexism?

23221. woden - 8/10/2004 5:58:39 PM

Jen, I have heard that "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven" type of line many times. It's clear from reading the Gospel that Jesus calls his followers to a high standard of behavior. It's also crystal clear that for Jesus, clinging to forms, formulas and institutions is totally wrong, what's in your heart is what's important. There's no way I can reconcile reading the Gospel with the behavior of his followers, to wit, in this thread, you and Pelty go off with totally unprovoked insults. I can understand that Christians aren't perfect but when time and time again, they seem to not care one single shred for the heart of Jesus's message, well, it's not really too beneficial to the eternal membership drive, now is it?

23222. PelleNilsson - 8/10/2004 5:58:50 PM

I don't think - if we buy Pelty's argumment - that it was a question of rival Christian churches but rather of the Greek mystery cults (Dionysos, etc) in which women were prominent.

23223. woden - 8/10/2004 6:02:37 PM

I think at various junctures he's fulminating against pagan sects, but at others he is against Gnostics and other Christian sects which were ultimately branded heretical.

23224. woden - 8/10/2004 6:07:22 PM

I used to be an apologist for religion in general. I grew up in a very liberal area and it's rare to find people who are zealous about their religion. It wasn't until I started interacting with many different stripes of Christianity online that I started to understand where the real religion-haters are coming from. I always thought that people who hated religion were crypto-classists and had authority mommy/daddy issues.

23225. pelty - 8/10/2004 6:14:26 PM

"So I can certainly see value in examining other elements of his teachings, to see whether there's other stuff that has been taken too literally."

OK, agreed.

"Spong thinks he may have been gay, which would cast an interesting light on his ardently anti-homosexual teachings. On the other hand, perhaps this was merely a coded criticism of socio-educational practices of the Graeco-Roman world."

First of all, to judge by his writings, I would not consider Paul an "ardent" adversary of homosexuality. The tendency in our culture (and in previous cultures as well) is to begin with the hot-button issue of the day and then to locate biblical support (or lack thereof) for the issue. This has been the case w/ homosexuality as well. "The Culture" has concluded that Paul constantly railed against. This is simply not the case. Was Paul against homosexuality? Yes. Was he against murder, envy, strife, witchcraft, etc.? Yes, and likely on a more "ardent" basis than the former, if the number of times such sins were mentioned are ang guide. The point is, this is not a topic upon which Paul was fixated. It is usually included in vice lists or in a condemnation of the greater culture around him (Rom. 1). Thus, I want to see if we can agree that this issue was not a burning one w/ him, although it certainly would be one that he would categorize as sinful.

23226. pelty - 8/10/2004 6:15:12 PM

Re: Spong's article, we obviously cannot walk through it line-by-line, but let's start w/ his intro and see if we can reach any kind of consensus on it...

"Nothing about Paul was moderate. He was tightly drawn, passionately emotional, filled with enormous feelings of self-negativity, seeking to deal with those feelings in the timehonored way of external controls, unflagging religious zeal, and rigid discipline."

Right here, we run into elements that Spong takes as "givens" but which are difficult to prove. "Nothing about Paul was moderate." What does he mean by that? If he is thinking of Paul's zeal to spread the gospel, then he is correct; yet within Paul's letters we see much in the way of moderation (1 Cor 8; 12-14) as Paul attempts to negotiate internal ecclesiastical matters. Thus, it would be nice if Spong was a tad more careful in his choice of wording. "Tightly drawn" in the second sentence is really reading into the letters a bit to much. These are but snapshots into the larger picture of a human being. It so happens that these are issues (the gospel, church order, etc) about which he has the most passion and thus is very intense in his writings about them. When you or I are discussing that which we are most passionate about, I would venture to say that we seem more "tightly drawn" than we might be when discussing upcoming travels or something of that ilk.

23227. pelty - 8/10/2004 6:16:02 PM

As for "feelings of self-negativity," Spong again presumes alot. I would like to see what he means by this, what evience he is using to reach this conclusion.

Spong then writes, "seeking to deal with those feelings in the timehonored way of external controls, unflagging religious zeal, and rigid discipline." The underlying assumption here is that these feelings (which he simply assumes as noted above) are borne out of a psychological deficiency of some type and that the actions of Paul as viewed in his letters are based not on any actual experience that he may have had with Jesus, but rather on these deficiencies. As a scholar, he should not simply throw out the possibility that Paul was genuinely motivated either by a real experience w/ Jesus, or certainly something that *Paul* considered real and thus drove him (even if mistakenly) to spread his message. I would argue that this explains the passion Paul puts into his letters and travels (and I am leaving aside the issue of the *reality* of his experience w/ Jesus; in this case, it makes no difference as long as *he* thought it was real) far better than a psychological deficiency of another sort (if we assume that Paul had some sort of psychological malfunction if his Jesus experience was not real).

23228. pelty - 8/10/2004 6:16:12 PM

"He could not, however, master the passions that consumed him. What were these passions? There is no doubt in my mind that they were sexual in nature, but what kind of sexual passions were they?"

Ok, did we just skip from A to Z here? He simply states, "There is no doubt in my mind that they were sexual in nature" without offering any real evidence in this regard. Given Paul's extant writings, how can we possibly know this? There is nothing to suggest this at all. He later points to the section in 1 Cor 7 and mishandles badly. A quick for example would be that he see 1 Cor 7.1 as Paul stating that it is best for a man not to touch a woman. Most scholars would agree that this is not Paul talking but rather the Corinthian church's question to Paul that serves as the launch pad for his discussion. Anyway, we can spend time discussing this article, but I am in no way ready to concede Spong's argument re: Paul's sexuality, an argument that even he calls "speculative."

23229. pelty - 8/10/2004 6:17:14 PM

"I don't think - if we buy Pelty's argumment - that it was a question of rival Christian churches but rather of the Greek mystery cults (Dionysos, etc) in which women were prominent."

You don't have to buy it, but this is indeed what I mean.

23230. pelty - 8/10/2004 6:24:15 PM

"I think at various junctures he's fulminating against pagan sects, but at others he is against Gnostics and other Christian sects which were ultimately branded heretical."

I would differ with you in a couple of ways. First, I do not think he was actively fulminating against "pagan" sects, only that he was interested in ensuring that the actions of the members of the church were not going to be confused (by those both inside and outside the congregation) as another Bacchic-type ritual. Church order was very important to Paul as he spends a great deal of time on it in 1 Cor.

Second, it does not appear that Paul argued against gnostics (and this brings up so many other issues that I do not know how to begin; suffice it to say there is little to indicate a form of Christian gnosticism before the early second-century (at the earliest). Full-blown Xian gnosticism does not become a real problem for the proto-orthodox church until the mid - 2nd cent.

Paul was, it seems, more interested in contesting those who argued that observance of Jewish laws was an integral facet of membership in the Jesus movement.

23231. woden - 8/10/2004 6:25:20 PM

You are a joke and I don't care what you think about Paul.

23232. thoughtful - 8/10/2004 6:27:38 PM

So the results of the stand of xtian right moral certitude against abortion is that it is based on an arbitrary decision by each fallible human xtian as jesus was mute on the issue.

So how on earth can you presume to judge what is right for everyone else? How can you be so arrogant in the eyes of god and the eyes of man as to presume you are taking the correct stance and no other stance is possible? Is it not possible that jesus was mute on the issue precisely because he felt it was an issue to be decided on circumstance (just as a for instance)? Especially when even on this issue, there are so many variables making each individual situation unique? Especially when there is human pain, suffering and death on either side of the issue?

If you recognize that even serious biblical and xtian scholars have different views on the morality of the issue, how can you claim to be right, so right that you feel justified in enforcing your views on others?

That i find amazing. that i will never understand.

23233. pelty - 8/10/2004 6:39:30 PM

OK, Woden.

23234. PelleNilsson - 8/10/2004 6:47:52 PM

This Spong thing is very tiresome and seems peripheral to the issue at hand.

23235. pelty - 8/10/2004 6:51:43 PM

"So how on earth can you presume to judge what is right for everyone else?"

How are you not doing the same type of thing? You are presuming that your position is correct and thus the "right" thing to do for society although there are clearly sizeable numbers who disagree w/your stance. It is the right of every American to fight for a cause through culturally acceptable channels (the legislative and judicial branches).

"How can you be so arrogant in the eyes of god and the eyes of man as to presume you are taking the correct stance and no other stance is possible?"

How can you be so arrogant to do the same? Clearly, in your eyes, my stance is not possible. I actually believe that other stances are possible; this is painfully obvious given the laws of the land. That said, there is no reason why I or anyone else could not attempt to change the law. That is how it works in our country. If a side gets enough people to vote their way on an issue, they win. It is a pretty good system.

"Is it not possible that jesus was mute on the issue precisely because he felt it was an issue to be decided on circumstance (just as a for instance)?"

Yes, it is possible.

"If you recognize that even serious biblical and xtian scholars have different views on the morality of the issue, how can you claim to be right, so right that you feel justified in enforcing your views on others?"

I do not claim to be "right," I just claim to believe that abortion is not something that I would like to see as the law of the land. Given that it is, though, I accept it and move on. But it seems to me that you are just as interested in enforcing your view on me as I am of my view on you. But again, that is how it works in the good ol'US of A.

23236. pelty - 8/10/2004 6:52:16 PM

"This Spong thing is very tiresome and seems peripheral to the issue at hand."

Which is?

23237. thoughtful - 8/10/2004 7:19:54 PM

No, pelty, I am not doing the same thing.

This is the same point I've argued before about freedom of religion...requiring that the state not establish a state religion is very different from the state establishing atheism as the state religion. One allows individuals to choose how/when/if to practice religion. The other bans individuals rights to practice any religion.

Making abortion legal allows individuals to choose how/when/if to carry a pregnancy to term. Making it illegal bans everyone from the right to terminate a pregnancy.

Making abortion legal does not REQUIRE that anyone get one. Making it illegal REQUIRES no one get one.

In the former, the choice is yours based on your own moral belief system. In the latter, there is no choice.

Those are two very different things.

23238. PelleNilsson - 8/10/2004 7:21:27 PM

If you don't know I cannot explain it to you.

23239. pelty - 8/10/2004 7:26:03 PM

"If you don't know I cannot explain it to you."

What I mean is, are you talking about homosexuality, abortion? I am not sure what you have in mind. Obviously, Alistair and I are interested in talking about Spong and it may be that we do not see him as peripheral at all. So if you have something else to bring up, have at it. I have not been following your mode of thought of late as we have not been in a discussion and given a limited quantity of time, I only deal w/ discussions in which I am active. Therefore, I may have missed your particular subject of interest.

23240. woden - 8/10/2004 7:29:51 PM

There is no equivalency at all between thoughtful's and pelty's stances on abortion. Thoughtful believes in choice, which does not obviate pelty's stance but accepts it. Pelty doesn't believe in choice, which does obviate thoughtful's stance. One is 'I know what is right for me, and will let everyone else decide for themselves' and the other is 'I know what is right for you, and if I get my way, you won't get to choose'.

23241. pelty - 8/10/2004 7:36:04 PM

"Making it illegal bans everyone from the right to terminate a pregnancy."

But this hints at the bigger issue of whether it is a morally acceptable act. If, for the sake of argument, it is not a morally acceptable act (not from a religious point of view, but a societal one), then the society would presumably no longer view it as a right. Now, I would argue that there are a decent number of those who are against abortion not on religious grounds but on the grounds that they see abortion as a form of infanticide. Good people can disagree on when life begins, etc. w/out bringing a religious element into it (in fact, I would prefer that the religious element be left out altogether). Thus, it is the responsibility of the anti-abortion crowd to make a solid, persuasive case against abortion on "secular" rather than religious grounds. I actually agree with you that what Jesus did or did not say on the issue is irrelevant. The question, in my mind, is abortion a moral act? To me, it is not; thus my opposition to it.

But is it possible that you do not like talking in terms of morality or do you just have a different set of idea about what morality entails?

23242. woden - 8/10/2004 7:39:13 PM

And Paul is writing railing letters to Christians, is he not -- as he sees it, correcting their errors? Is pelty now saying that Paul's statements about women aren't aimed at problems he saw with the Corinthians', etc., practice of the nascent religion?

That's not even adequate apologism, it's big-lie.

Gnostic beliefs predate Christianity by quite some time. There's people who argue that Paul himself was heavily influenced by gnostic thought, and point to his weird statements about predestination etc. to make their case. But more importantly, Paul wasn't himself really preaching to a well-established church so much as he was part of establishing a church, and he was fulminating against heretical 'errors' in that nascent church. So it's meaningless, you see, to talk about whether or not a 'rival' church had to be well organized and burgeoning in order for them to merit Paul's attention.

23243. woden - 8/10/2004 7:40:14 PM

Looks like I forgot to log out and back in again.

23244. pelty - 8/10/2004 7:42:25 PM

Woden,

You are correct on that. I do not disagree. But as I mention above to thoughtful, I think this is one level up from the base issue: Is abortion a moral act (from a secular standpoint, not a religious one)? If the majority of the population can be persuaded that this is an act that is the equivalent of murder, then it would be an issue of socially agreed-upon morality (similar to how murder is generally viewed today in the US).

Admittedly, I have very little hope that this will ever be the majority point of view, but there is no reason that someone should be banned for making their case. For what it is worth, I think that religious arguments in this arena are pointless.

23245. pelty - 8/10/2004 7:54:35 PM

"And Paul is writing railing letters to Christians, is he not -- as he sees it, correcting their errors? Is pelty now saying that Paul's statements about women aren't aimed at problems he saw with the Corinthians', etc., practice of the nascent religion?"

Sure he is, but why don't you tell me what you see as the major statements against women in 1 Cor. Let's get a feel for what you view as these awful statements, because I may well be missing what you have in mind here.

"Gnostic beliefs predate Christianity by quite some time. There's people who argue that Paul himself was heavily influenced by gnostic thought, and point to his weird statements about predestination etc. to make their case."

This was part and parcel of the things I did not want to get into, but there are very few scholars of whom I am aware that would hold that Paul was "heavily influenced by Gnostic thought." These days, Paul is seen first and foremost as a Jew.

23246. pelty - 8/10/2004 7:54:44 PM

"But more importantly, Paul wasn't himself really preaching to a well-established church so much as he was part of establishing a church, and he was fulminating against heretical 'errors' in that nascent church."

I would not say he was fulminating against "heretical" errors, at least, not to the Corinthians, as much as he was correcting bad practice in that particular congregation. Galatians may support your point, but even this may not be the case as Paul was clearly aware of and did not outright condemn Jews practicing Jewish ritual alongside belief in Messiah; his concern was the foisting of these practices upon Gentiles, so even in this letter the focus is more on practice than belief.

"So it's meaningless, you see, to talk about whether or not a 'rival' church had to be well organized and burgeoning in order for them to merit Paul's attention."

Not entirely true if we are talking about "Gnosticism" as a developing form of Xianity. There is no real evidence to suggest its existence (in its Xianized form; its form before the advent of Christianity, if indeed existed prior to Xianity, is virtually unknowable, although some have taken stabs at it) prior to the end of the 1st century, so therefore it would be unlikely that Paul would be addressing it in his letters.

23247. angel-five - 8/10/2004 8:40:05 PM

Sure he is, but why don't you tell me what you see as the major statements against women in 1 Cor.

The fact that you admit that he is doing so is all I need. If he is writing to correct practice, it isn't about what he dislikes in other belief systems (which was a really weak apology anyway) but what he dislikes in what his audience was doing. Cut and dried, that is it.

But you want to take specific statements in 1 Corinthians? That's fine. Is the first half of 11 and the relevant cite near the end of 14 specific enough for you, or do you require me to cut and paste them specifically?

This was part and parcel of the things I did not want to get into, but there are very few scholars of whom I am aware that would hold that Paul was "heavily influenced by Gnostic thought."

You mean, there are very few scholars, if any, other than the liberal theologians that you dislike so much, who will level such arguments at Pauline apologists. I already know it isn't a part of the party line, but that's no more meaningful to me than 'We know Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.'

I would not say he was fulminating against "heretical" errors, at least, not to the Corinthians, as much as he was correcting bad practice in that particular congregation.

Call it whatever you like. He's telling people what not to do, and that makes his sexism more relevant and immediate than your vague 'Oh, he was just talking about those other religions'. So what if he was? How on earth can you make that anything other than a sexist diatribe?

What smarter people do (at least, ones that don't try to cling to the belief that Paul is the first religious egalitarian) is say 'that's how it was in those times' and move on. You don't want to do that, though. Why?

23248. angel-five - 8/10/2004 8:43:11 PM

Not entirely true if we are talking about "Gnosticism" as a developing form of Xianity.

XIANITY was developing at that time! The Church, which was dominated by the early theology of your boy Paul and his circumcision issues, was not yet in the form we know it. That is to say, Paul was in the process of overhauling it.

Yet Paul is clearly addressing someone! In fact the entire point is that he's addressing a nascent group. This is where early Christianity was hammered out.

So why are you insisting that Paul couldn't have any gnostic thought in mind, because you say you can find no evidence that the Christian Gnostic church was established until later on? By those standards, Paul can't really be addressing Christians either.

Pop quiz, Pelty -- what's the evidence you're citing anyway, aside from letters from early Church fathers?

23249. angel-five - 8/10/2004 8:45:55 PM

You are correct on that. I do not disagree.

BTW, you do this a lot. Well, if you don't disagree, then why are you in your own words accusing Thoughtful of equivalent arrogance, etc. because she's doing just what you're doing?

You make these weird-ass baseless statements and then later go 'I don't disagree with that' as if it DIDN'T just contradict what you had been saying. It would be admirable if you were acknowledging the error so freely instead of blandly ignoring it and moving on.

23250. pelty - 8/10/2004 8:56:13 PM

A-5,

"The fact that you admit that he is doing so is all I need. If he is writing to correct practice, it isn't about what he dislikes in other belief systems (which was a really weak apology anyway) but what he dislikes in what his audience was doing. Cut and dried, that is it."

You miss the point. I was not saying that he was decrying other belief systems. I agree that he was talking about inner-church practices, but what I said was that he did not want his churches to look like/be confused as holding similar views to those religions for whom ecstatic ritual by women played a role.

"But you want to take specific statements in 1 Corinthians? That's fine. Is the first half of 11 and the relevant cite near the end of 14 specific enough for you, or do you require me to cut and paste them specifically?"

Sure. Tell me what you know of the textual history of 1 Cor. 14, please, and how that may or may not effect this issue.

23251. pelty - 8/10/2004 8:56:22 PM

"You mean, there are very few scholars, if any, other than the liberal theologians that you dislike so much, who will level such arguments at Pauline apologists."

Listen, I deal w/ this stuff on a daily basis and deal w/ scholars of every stripe. I love the work of many who the conservative branch of scholarship would call "liberal," so please stop w/ unfounded assertions. Before discussing this, why not investigate whether what I say is true or not? Look at people like John Gager, E.P. Sanders, etc. and see what they have to say about Paul' ethnicity and the heart of his belief system.

"What smarter people do (at least, ones that don't try to cling to the belief that Paul is the first religious egalitarian) is say 'that's how it was in those times' and move on. You don't want to do that, though. Why?"

Because that is the easier answer. I would rather pay close attention to his letters and see what they have to say for themselves. You may be right, you may not be, but at least I think due attention should be paid to areas that may demonstrate that women played a larger role than you may think in the spread of the gospel message.

23252. pelty - 8/10/2004 9:02:45 PM

"Pop quiz, Pelty -- what's the evidence you're citing anyway, aside from letters from early Church fathers?"

Regarding what? "Gnosticism."

"So why are you insisting that Paul couldn't have any gnostic thought in mind, because you say you can find no evidence that the Christian Gnostic church was established until later on?"

I am not saying it is impossible; there is evidence, if one wishes to interpret it in such a way, of a dualistic system (God vs. the god of this world, for example) that some took to be "gnostic", or in the case of Marcion, to represent a dualistic system that many would not categorize as "gnostic," but as I have stated, the pendulum has shifted towards thinking of Paul as a Jew above all else.

23253. Jenerator - 8/10/2004 11:05:06 PM

There's no way I can reconcile reading the Gospel with the behavior of his followers, to wit, in this thread, you and Pelty go off with totally unprovoked insults.

Excuse me? Your boyfriend is the one who freaked out, and rather easily too. In fact, he seems poised and ready to pounce on anyone about anything. Also, you, yourself, need to practice that what you preach, unless, you being a nonbeliever entitles you to go off on people??

Case in point, I think you called pelty a fucking prick something like 3 times in one post and then you say stuff like this:

23231. woden - 8/11/2004 4:25:20 PM

You are a joke and I don't care what you think about Paul.

I think that in all honesty, you don't need a reason to not follow Christ, you just use the actions of believers and the human condition as your excuse. All of mankind is hypocritical, not just Christians. So, if you need perfect adherents to believe in Almighty God, you might as well get comfortable with atheism.

That said, I don't really want to argue with you. I think highly of you, and if this kind of exchange is going to bring out the fangs in us both, I am not interested.

23254. Jenerator - 8/10/2004 11:13:18 PM

Pelty,

From what I've read, gnosticism didn't really become a major issue unto the 2nd century. In fact, I have seen repeatedly that the oldest manuscripts from gnostics sources are from late 2nd - 3rd century sources, suggesting that they were not at all the cohesive force so many believed them to be.

23255. Jenerator - 8/10/2004 11:20:28 PM

XIANITY was developing at that time! The Church, which was dominated by the early theology of your boy Paul and his circumcision issues, was not yet in the form we know it. That is to say, Paul was in the process of overhauling it.

The early community of believers was already in existence before Paul was converted. Paul was trained by the other apostles! If he had been preaching any gospel other than Christ, he would have been rebuked by the original apostles and eyewitnesses. The fact is and was, his theology was sound and it echoed what the others were already preaching.

23256. Jenerator - 8/10/2004 11:30:08 PM

Here you go SnowOwl:

23257. pelty - 8/10/2004 11:33:25 PM

"From what I've read, gnosticism didn't really become a major issue unto the 2nd century. In fact, I have seen repeatedly that the oldest manuscripts from gnostics sources are from late 2nd - 3rd century sources, suggesting that they were not at all the cohesive force so many believed them to be."

Well, this really gets into a question of "what is 'Gnosticism'?" Or, if you like, "What is Christian Gnosticism?" Some see it in the docetic (Jesus only appeared to be a man) tendencies that Ignatius tries to oppose in his letters and are also found in the Nag Hammadi texts.

Further, the Platonic elements are clearly from an earlier period. That said, you would be correct to say that we do not start seeing a campaign against people who we associate w/ "gnosticism" until the last half of the 2nd century and beyond. If pressed, I would argue that the mid-2nd cent is when these people (Valentinus, Cerinthus, etc) became threatening to the church as it sought to consolidate its authority (as seen in the works of Clement of Rome and Ignatius). Also, what to do w/Cerinthus? Is he a "gnostic?" If so, he is likely an early example.

I am not at all sure that the gnostics were "a cohesive force." They may well have believed themselves to be in the mainstream of Christianity; it is possible that a proto-orthodox person could be sitting next to a gnostic in a worship service. I would also want to be careful when assigning numbers to the various "gnostic" groups; I am not at all sure that they were very large, despite the attention given them by Irenaeus, et al. That said, I am not sure what effect a later dating of the Nag Hammadi Corpus would have on the cohesiveness of a given group. Would you elaborate, please?

23258. Jenerator - 8/10/2004 11:52:37 PM

Well, I think that the primary significance to a later dating of the gnostic inlfuence (specifically the Christian-era gnostics) shows that they were not an important factor in the earliest Christian church. Rather, as gnostics started to group together and form their own corpus of literature, the Christian believers had already gathered an informal canon of literature, and the living apostles and witnesses were still alive.

So, I guess what I am saying is that while mystical practices and/or ideas have always been around, they were not influencing the original canon of scripture (or the orginial Christian gosepl that we have today). It was only until later that the gnostics and other heretics were making claims that their texts and beliefs were authentic, and by then, Christian tradition had already been established.

23259. Jenerator - 8/10/2004 11:56:36 PM

Gnostic texts are newer than NT manuscripts.

23260. Jenerator - 8/10/2004 11:59:18 PM

Here's an interesting link.

Another question regarding Gnostic texts is their date of origin. The documents found at Nag Hammadi are quite old, probably dating from A.D. 350-400. The original writings are even older, but not prior to the second century A. D. Thus, the consensus of most scholars is that they appeared after the New Testament had been completed. The Gospel of Truth, which is attributed to Valentinus, actually quotes the New Testament at length. It would be odd to accept its authority over the New Testament.

23261. Jenerator - 8/11/2004 12:05:20 AM

Pelty,

An excellent analysis of Paul and Onesimus.

23262. pelty - 8/11/2004 12:08:49 AM

I guess we need to define "earliest Christian church." If you mean up to 100 CE or so, then I would agree, although others have contended otherwise. If you mean 2nd century, then I would disagree for reasons stated. That Irenaeus felt the need to expend the amount of effort that he did on "Against Heresies" suggests that the influence of the various groups were felt enough that he believed they needed to be refuted.

"Rather, as gnostics started to group together and form their own corpus of literature, the Christian believers had already gathered an informal canon of literature, and the living apostles and witnesses were still alive."

Their is no real evidence of a "gnostic corpus" as such. Yes, the Nag Hammadi Corpus (NHC) represents, possibly, books that were important to the person or group who put them together, but even that is dicey as we find bits of Plato's Republic and some Hermetic tractates in there as well making it all the more challenging to understand the beliefs of the collator or his community.

By the time we start seeing "gnostic" works, the apostles are dead. The aforementioned Cerinthus is alleged to have contact w/ John in Ephesus, but the first extant "gnostic" tractates are thought originally to have been written ~150 or so. The NHC represents copies of these in Coptic. But you are certainly correct that by this period there is evidence of authoritative status being given to the canonical gospels, the Pauline epistles (except for the Pastorals, I believe), and Hebrews, amongst others.

23263. judithathome - 8/11/2004 12:09:48 AM

Jen, you should just post a picture of yourself instead of those plastic-boobed cheerleaders. You are much prettier than they and I doubt your aim is to compare yourself to exhibitionistic, air-headed, vacuous show-offs of the type that are Dallas cheerleaders.

(and please, don't tell me they are lovely girls seeking their degrees or paying for their mother's nursing home bills....)

23264. pelty - 8/11/2004 12:11:03 AM

Ah yes, Jen. The Gospel of Truth is what I had in mind for the ~150 date.

I will try to get to the Paul and Onesimus stuff at a later time!

23265. Jenerator - 8/11/2004 12:22:54 AM

Judith,

I googled "Tejano-slut-for-Bush" and couldn't find any pictures, and since I have been compared to a DCC, I chose that picture instead.;-)

Thank you for the compliment, too!

23266. Jenerator - 8/11/2004 12:24:59 AM

Pelty,

I am talking about the earlist church that Acts records.

Btw, I always find it interesting that Athanasius listed the Christian canon (roughly 325?) and the Nag Texts are still younger than those.

Come back when you have time.;-)

23267. judithathome - 8/11/2004 12:53:07 AM

"Tejano-slut-for-Bush"

Ah, but you are better looking than Kay Bailey Hutchinson, too. ;-)

23268. Jenerator - 8/11/2004 1:03:44 AM

You're bad!

23269. woden - 8/11/2004 1:31:45 AM

Why must you divide everything up into these strict binaries, Jen? I said nothing about atheism nor about execting Christians to be perfect. I expect Christians to be slightly better than 8 year olds, not perfect, how's that? Without the benefit of belonging to a church, I still manage to get through a discussion like this one without a) being the first to throw an insult and b) lying. It's not anything to get excited about and not difficult to do those simple things.

Also, you, yourself, need to practice that what you preach, unless, you being a nonbeliever entitles you to go off on people??

Read carefully Jen: when throw out the first insult, do not whine about what comes next, i.e, people 'going off' on you. At the very least, you don't see Pelty indulging in that kind of behavior, not that it's anything special take credit for. I haven't preached anything, but if you want to know my opinion, I think one should return civility with civility and rudeness with rudeness. This is completely consistent with what I've done.

23270. judithathome - 8/11/2004 3:08:41 AM

Also, you, yourself, need to practice that what you preach, unless, you being a nonbeliever entitles you to go off on people??

What does being a non-believer have to do with being civil or not? Kuligin is a mega-believer and he never ceases to call names and insult people but gets huffy as hell when it is returned to him in kind. And even when it is not, he sees it where none is meant.

23271. rdbrewer - 8/11/2004 3:45:06 AM

Here you go SnowOwl

Hey, I asked for the pictures.

23272. pelty - 8/11/2004 4:19:59 AM

"I am talking about the earlist church that Acts records.

Btw, I always find it interesting that Athanasius listed the Christian canon (roughly 325?) and the Nag Texts are still younger than those."

Athanasius' list is from about 367 or so, but be aware that it is only authoritative for his area of control, so we cannot be 100% certain that his list would have been acceptable for the church universal at that point. Truthfully, it probably was close, but even in 325 or so, Eusebius records disputes over certain books that we now call canonical.

23273. SnowOwl - 8/11/2004 5:39:44 AM

Well, I'm very glad that that plastic looking person isn't Jen. I was finding it hard to say anything complimentary about it.

Interesting discussion of Gnostic influences, Pelty and Jen. This is the sort of discussion I really like to see here. Thanks.

23274. Jenerator - 8/11/2004 4:31:35 PM

Rd,

I don't have any pictures of myself readily available. But if I get some, I'll post 'em for you.;-) I do have a couple of my cute son, but I'd have to load them unto shutterfly first.

23275. Jenerator - 8/11/2004 4:34:06 PM

Pelty,

I have been reading a lot about the formation of the Christian canon. It's a subject of personal interest to me. I'm with Snowowl, I love this kind of discussion!

23276. alistairconnor - 8/11/2004 5:26:09 PM

I do have a couple of my cute son, but I'd have to load them unto shutterfly first.

King James influencing your speech?

Suffer the little children to be loaded unto shutterfly.

23277. alistairconnor - 8/11/2004 5:39:54 PM

I love this kind of discussion too, and never let my ignorance stop me from having opinions.

I've just been reading Corinthians, and it's something of a revelation to me (har) :

1Cor.11
[3] But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
[4] Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
[5] But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
[8] For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

Now there's not much one can do to spin this. Man is a god to woman.

Pelty, it may well be that the more egalitarian tendencies that Paul was criticising in the Corinthians' religious practices came from non-Christian sources. This in no way attenuates the force of his rigid hierarchy.

Actually, I imagine that "liberal" theologians contend that Paul goes a great deal further than Jesus in this respect. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't remember anything from the Gospels that puts women so explicitly in their place.

In which case, the practices of the Corinthians might have been more authentically Christian than Paul was prepared to countenance...

23278. Jenerator - 8/11/2004 5:58:26 PM

Alistair, Alistair, Alistair!! You really don't think that these scriptures are claiming that man is a God to woman?? Do you?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't remember anything from the Gospels that puts women so explicitly in their place.

Go back further than the Gospels and start in Genesis.

In which case, the practices of the Corinthians might have been more authentically Christian than Paul was prepared to countenance...

This is ludicrous. The Corinthians were Greek and their practices were pagan. The Christian faith was radically different in belief and practice.

23279. PelleNilsson - 8/11/2004 6:04:41 PM

Alistair abviously refers to the Christian congregation in Corinth. Paul wasn't writing to the pagans, was he?

23280. PelleNilsson - 8/11/2004 6:05:01 PM

... obviously ...

23281. alistairconnor - 8/11/2004 6:05:32 PM

Yes, yes, yes Jen. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Hardly a radical interpretation.

Go back further than the Gospels and start in Genesis.

Well, yes. Exactly. Perhaps Paul, as a Jew, was seeking to temper the excessive liberalism of Jesus.

23282. alistairconnor - 8/11/2004 6:19:26 PM

As Pelty mentions, there were (at least) two types of Christians in Paul's time : Jews who accepted Christ as the prophesied Messiah, and who might or might not still conform to the Jewish rites; and gentiles (pagans) who were converted by the message of Jesus.

This second group, who would have had no grounding in the Old Testament and whose faith was nourished by the Gospels and/or oral tradition, apparently needed Paul's admonishments about a whole lot of subjects.

Including the proper place of women.

23283. judithathome - 8/11/2004 6:19:52 PM

You really don't think that these scriptures are claiming that man is a God to woman?? Do you?

No, they are claiming that woman is subsurvient to man, which proves Woden's point quite nicely.

23284. angel-five - 8/11/2004 6:25:41 PM

I agree that he was talking about inner-church practices, but what I said was that he did not want his churches to look like/be confused as holding similar views to those religions for whom ecstatic ritual by women played a role.

You are saying that, er, Paul's diatribe about how women should sit down and shut up is because he was worried they might be thought to be like other churches where women weren't forced to sit down and shut up?

I have two responses to that, and the first is 'please'.

The second is, how on earth would that exculpate Paul's sexism?

Sure. Tell me what you know of the textual history of 1 Cor. 14, please, and how that may or may not effect this issue.

Oh, how wonderfully boring of a tactic this is.

Tell you what, I'll answer you this time, but if you expect to defend your points by dragging things out in this fashion instead of, you know, actually being able to defend your points, this will be an unprofitable conversation.

The Corinthians had apparently taken Paul's new age Judaism ideas and run with them. Blending Greek-style prophesy and ecstatic union into the mix would have been very predictable, and in fact that is what happened. But Paul was deeply concerned over the fact that the Corinthians were individualizing their religious experiences --choosing to interact with their God in a more gnostic, distributed fashion rather than through the patriarchal model of Paul's ideal church. This, of course, represents a supreme threat to central authority, so Paul came to lay down the Law with his ideas of the body of Christ, and came to bitch about what the Corinthians were doing.

23285. angel-five - 8/11/2004 6:26:14 PM

Is it your opinion that Paul's aim to cohere the Corinthian movement back into a patriarchal model exculpates his sexism to any degree whatsoever? Because it doesn't. It would have been perfectly easy for him to speak against those scary women giving voice to their prophesies without resorting to sexist social engineering.

And, really, sexist is a weak word for it.

Listen, I deal w/ this stuff on a daily basis and deal w/scholars of every stripe. I love the work of many who the conservative branch of scholarship would call "liberal," so please stop w/ unfounded assertions.

The conservative branch of scholarship calls anyone liberal if they don't toe the exact party line, so that doesn't much move me. You claim to like some 'liberal' bible scholars, but your earlier statements don't support that open mindset. Instead it's all 'hrm hrm hrm, Spong isn't credible, he isn't published in the right journals'. So you'll have to forgive me for not believing that one.

You may be right, you may not be, but at least I think due attention should be paid to areas that may demonstrate that women played a larger role than you may think in the spread of the gospel message.

And that would most definitely not be, because, you know, it'd be a very convenient talking point! What, you're talking down, down, down, Paul's sexism, which is overt, front-and-center, policy oriented and endemic, and scouring the NT for evidence that it was possible that women played 'a larger role than I may think' in the spread of the Gospel? Isn't that wonderfully selective of you, Pelty, and completely in keeping with someone who's less worried about the truth and more worried about building a happy little case for Pauline egalitarianism!

23286. angel-five - 8/11/2004 6:26:37 PM

By the way, women spreading the Gospel is not at all equivalent to women not being denigrated and assigned sexist roles for sexist reasons because of sexist values. Is the fact that slaves built the White House proof that slaves weren't mistreated in the antebellum South, or that people felt they were equal beings?

I am not saying it is impossible;

Then stop acting like you are.

23287. angel-five - 8/11/2004 6:31:06 PM

Excuse me? Your boyfriend is the one who freaked out, and rather easily too.

Do you really think that saying stuff like this makes it so, Jenerator?

Precisely what happened was that you came into a conversation that didn't involve or concern you and said a few rude things and suggested I wasn't actually doing what I was saying I was doing. Then you got slapped around a bit, which seems to be what you expect and crave, in the midst of some sound textual evidence, and rather than address it you just said 'Resonance is ranting!' (Which you do a lot, and people do notice it). Are you believing your own press releases now?

So, if you need perfect adherents to believe in Almighty God, you might as well get comfortable with atheism.

I think few if any people need 'perfect adherents' as their example if they wish to believe in your god. I do, however, think that they'd prefer to see people whose actions are a tad bit more in keeping with their statements than, say, you. You do realize that you're your own worst enemy when it comes to your proselytizing, right?

23288. angel-five - 8/11/2004 6:34:38 PM

The early community of believers was already in existence before Paul was converted. Paul was trained by the other apostles! If he had been preaching any gospel other than Christ, he would have been rebuked by the original apostles and eyewitnesses. The fact is and was, his theology was sound and it echoed what the others were already preaching.

Thankfully there is nothing in the Bible asking its adherents to be bright!

The entire existence of the epistles proves that you are wrong. Their entire thrust is to correct. Paul at various points is forced to talk himself up as an authority, because while he's been away others have come in who sounded better! And even the most conservative scholars will acknowledge that the Church changed shape under Paul. So, please, enough with the lackwit fluffery.

23289. angel-five - 8/11/2004 6:40:13 PM

Well, yes. Exactly. Perhaps Paul, as a Jew, was seeking to temper the excessive liberalism of Jesus...

...This second group, who would have had no grounding in the Old Testament and whose faith was nourished by the Gospels and/or oral tradition, apparently needed Paul's admonishments about a whole lot of subjects.

Including the proper place of women.

That is precisely it. I mean, you really can't fluff away what Paul says. 'Don't let them speak up in Church. Let them go home and be told by their husbands what's right.' You cannot adequately discuss that without admitting that it is, on the face of it, sexist.

23290. pelty - 8/11/2004 6:42:21 PM

Alistair:

"Pelty, it may well be that the more egalitarian tendencies that Paul was criticising in the Corinthians' religious practices came from non-Christian sources. This in no way attenuates the force of his rigid hierarchy."

In this case, I do not think that Paul is necessarily attempting to differentiate btwn the non-Christian and the Christian. That is more often a possible (and I stress possible; very little can be stated as a surety in these matters) explanation for the command that women should be silent in 1 Cor 14, assuming that this particular section is even legitimately from Paul, but we can wait for A-5 to get back to us on the variants of this passage.

23291. pelty - 8/11/2004 6:42:42 PM

The problem is, over all, that it is not easy to know the exact regard that Paul had for women. Again, we are dealing w/ bits and pieces of his views that offer only the briefest of glimpses into his thought processes. In Romans 16, which in some ways is quite instructive because it gives us insight into his social activities and interactions, women play a prominent role. To me, that says that Paul may not have had quite the misogynistic view that has been attributed to him over the ages. In 1 Cor 11, his interest is in making an argument about women's dress in the worship services. Now, there is no denying that Paul states that the head of woman is man, just as the head of every man is Christ. Some have argued that the Greek for "head" here can also be translated as "source," but I think most would reject that view. I think it is likely that Paul indeed did see an order to the creation that flowed from God->Man->Woman, but what should not be lost in this is that Paul also allowed/acknowledged that women would pray and prophesy in church, a rather liberating fact in and of itself when one understands that the Pauline churches were based in no small degree on a Jewish model in which women were, more often than not, separated from the men and certainly not allowed to pray aloud, teach, etc.

23292. pelty - 8/11/2004 6:42:51 PM

I won't get into it for the sake of space, but 1 Cor 7 is also relatively freeing as well. What one must recognize is that Paul had little interest in "liberation theology;" he saw his mission as urgent and important. The end was near and it was his job to spread the gospel message to as many as would hear it and to shepherd as many as would accept it. If maintaining the status quo would bring people into the fold, that was a worthwhile, temporary sacrifice to make for the greater good of spreading the message and the eventual reward of being w/ Christ. Thus, in 1 Cor 7 he is urging people to remain in the state in which they find themselves; being troublemakers will not advance the gospel.

Given the paucity and mixed nature of the evidence (breeze through Rom 16 and you will see that Phoebe is a "deacon", Junias, a woman called an "apostle" and imprisoned w/ Paul, not to mention several women who work hard in the Lord), I am very wary of assigning a misogynistic motivation to Paul. That is not to say that he definitely wasn't, but the evidence does not show that he definitely *was* either. I would argue that he probably was not.

As a sidenote, most would agree from the even more scant evidence that Jesus was very good to women (and they were good to him in return). It seems as though they supported him, were his disciples (and thus learned from him - gasp!), were portrayed as loyal when others were not, and they were, of course, the first witnesses of the resurrection.

23293. angel-five - 8/11/2004 6:48:35 PM

If Paul is some kind of egalitarian (instead of just using it rhetorically whenever it supports his point and ditching it when it isn't) then you just have to think, 'hmmm. Here he comes to a congregation where women feel empowered to speak up and take their place alongside men. Now, back home this will never fly, but he secretly digs the idea. Why wouldn't he go "Let's see what I can accomplish working with the local strengths of these people?'

Instead what we see out of Paul -- sit down, shut up, ask your husband if you have some questions. Where's the attempt to find the middle ground? Where's the attempt to direct women toward the 'proper' channeling of their fervor, where's the constructive use of their place in society? It isn't there.

Why? Because Paul was a sexist, and because Paul's place was threatened by the distributed model of egalitarian Christianity.

23294. pelty - 8/11/2004 6:54:16 PM

"But Paul was deeply concerned over the fact that the Corinthians were individualizing their religious experiences -- choosing to interact with their God in a more gnostic, distributed fashion rather than through the patriarchal model of Paul's ideal church."

Really? Then why not shut down prophecy altogether? Further, there is no indication of a tripartite ministry at this time; indeed, there is little in the way of leaders vs. followers. Order in worship is Paul's aim.

If you want to assign "gnosticism" in the developed form that you insinuate here, please provide evidence. I think your estimation of the effect of "gnosticism" is probably close to correct, but this notion of the "patriarchal model of Paul's ideal church" is difficult to find in the letters themselves. If you import your assumptions, then that is a different matter.

23295. woden - 8/11/2004 6:57:37 PM

Note the strawman: Paul's alleged misogyny, which is not the topic at hand. Sexism =/= misogyny.

23296. Jenerator - 8/11/2004 7:02:19 PM

Angel-five

The early community of believers was already in existence before Paul was converted. Paul was trained by the other apostles! If he had been preaching any gospel other than Christ, he would have been rebuked by the original apostles and eyewitnesses. The fact is and was, his theology was sound and it echoed what the others were already preaching.

The entire existence of the epistles proves that you are wrong.
No it doesn’t.

Their entire thrust is to correct.

No, that’s overly simplified. The thrust is to encourage, to equip, and to correct when necessary.
Paul at various points is forced to talk himself up as an authority, because while he's been away others have come in who sounded better!
Explain why you think this.
And even the most conservative scholars will acknowledge that the Church changed shape under Paul. So, please, enough with the lackwit fluffery

Of course it was changed by Paul, but you insinuate that he, alone, shaped it according to his own agenda. What you repeatedly fail to acknowledge is that he was trained by the other apostles after encountering Jesus personally! They were accountable to one another, and if their teaching was not sound, they were rebuked and/or sent away.

23297. pelty - 8/11/2004 7:02:36 PM

"Instead what we see out of Paul -- sit down, shut up, ask your husband if you have some questions. Where's the attempt to find the middle ground? Where's the attempt to direct women toward the 'proper' channeling of their fervor, where's the constructive use of their place in society? It isn't there."

Hmm, this is so interesting. Wasn't it three chapters earlier that Paul was seemingly accepting of the women praying and prophesying in church? Could there be something else going on in 1 Cor 14?

Which reminds me, I was not interested in the cultural history of the text, but in the textual variants or in this case, the placement of the passage in 1 Cor 14. In ancient manuscripts it is found in a couple of places. The first is between vss 33-36 and the other is after v 40. This has led some to question whether this text was even in the original or if it may not have been a later gloss. We cannot know for sure, but it again advises one to proceed w/ caution.

23298. pelty - 8/11/2004 7:07:31 PM

"Note the strawman: Paul's alleged misogyny, which is not the topic at hand. Sexism =/= misogyny."

Not intentional. Feel free to substitue "sexist," I suppose. The point still stands, if Paul is such a sexist, why is he greeting women who are fellow workers (wouldn't he seek to marginalize them?), urging the church in Rome to help Phoebe out in what could possibly be missionary activity of her own (let her make it on her own! She'll inevitably fail), etc.?

23299. pelty - 8/11/2004 7:08:34 PM

"I think your estimation of the effect of "gnosticism" is probably close to correct"

I meant to put "for the second century church" here. Sorry.

23300. woden - 8/11/2004 7:27:51 PM

Um, why would I substitute one word for another when they mean two different things? Nice try, and I see that some people here might buy it.

Maybe you should consult a dictionary and look up 'misogyny' and 'sexism' and see for yourself. Look up 'straw man' while you're at it.

23301. pelty - 8/11/2004 7:30:18 PM

OK, Woden. Maybe I will. Thanks for the advice.

23302. woden - 8/11/2004 7:31:58 PM

Your examples are meaningless. The fact that Paul did not demonstrate sexism at every possible opportunity or to the greatest possible degree does not refute the demonstrated sexism in his writings.

Refuting your points is like shooting fish in a barrel. Your 'logic' resembles that of Raul on RI.

The only challenge here is recalling the latin names for the fallacies you are spewing.

23303. pelty - 8/11/2004 7:34:39 PM

Great, Woden. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

23304. angel-five - 8/11/2004 7:47:41 PM

Really? Then why not shut down prophecy altogether?

Tell me how he could have sold that.

Further, there is no indication of a tripartite ministry at this time; indeed, there is little in the way of leaders vs. followers. Order in worship is Paul's aim.

??

There's 'little in the way of leaders vs. followers' except for Paul's bloody statements about the organization of the body of Christ and the fact that he's doing what he's doing! First Paul's sexism isn't sexism and now Paul's authoritarianism isn't authoritarian?

If you want to assign "gnosticism" in the developed form that you insinuate here, please provide evidence. I think your estimation of the effect of "gnosticism" is probably close to correct, but this notion of the "patriarchal model of Paul's ideal church" is difficult to find in the letters themselves.

I'm not 'insinuating' anything. I'm glad you will graciously concede that the metaphor is apt. And how hard is it to find patriarchy in Paul's letters? How about the very cite we've been discussing, Pelty? Woman is subservient to man, the body of Christ has a head, listen to me, not those other people -- and do you really want to argue that apostolic authority isn't part and parcel of Paul's approach? You have, I am sure, read 1 Corinthians. How's it open?

No, that’s overly simplified. The thrust is to encourage, to equip, and to correct when necessary.

The fact that the Corinthians, among others, had taken Paul's letters and run with them to the point that he had to write these letters proves they needed no encouragement nor equipping. What Paul wanted to do was encourage and equip his own message and correct 'when necessary' i.e. whenever he felt they had fallen into error.

23305. angel-five - 8/11/2004 7:48:43 PM

Paul at various points is forced to talk himself up as an authority, because while he's been away others have come in who sounded better!

Explain why you think this.

2 Corinthians 11.

1: Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.
2: For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
3: But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4: For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
5: For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles....

...But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.
13: For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14: And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15: Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
16: I say again, Let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little.
17: That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.
18: Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also...

23306. angel-five - 8/11/2004 7:49:27 PM

...Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I.
23: Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.
24: Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.
25: Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;
26: In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;
27: In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.
28: Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.
29: Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not?
30: If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities.
31: The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not...

Of course it was changed by Paul, but you insinuate that he, alone, shaped it according to his own agenda.

Again with that word. No, I don't insinuate any such thing. Once again, the fact that these letters exist is proof of that. It is, nevertheless, undeniable that Paul shaped Christianity and that his personal ministry was a force that shaped it. You can, of course, say that it was nothing but what he'd been taught by the apostles, but that's inference. You have, what, Paul claiming it in his own letters?

Wasn't it three chapters earlier that Paul was seemingly accepting of the women praying and prophesying in church? No.

23307. angel-five - 8/11/2004 7:53:54 PM

The point still stands, if Paul is such a sexist, why is he greeting women who are fellow workers (wouldn't he seek to marginalize them?), urging the church in Rome to help Phoebe out in what could possibly be missionary activity of her own (let her make it on her own! She'll inevitably fail), etc.?

As Woden noted, if this was all it took to exculpate sexism, then virtually nobody would be a sexist. You don't like the passages we're citing, fine, but other passages don't change them. They are what they are. If I were to say on one day 'Black people are lazy and inferior and should let white people run things for them' and on the next 'This black person seems to be trying hard, bravo' would that make me not a racist? Of course it wouldn't.

23308. pelty - 8/11/2004 7:59:26 PM

"There's 'little in the way of leaders vs. followers' except for Paul's bloody statements about the organization of the body of Christ and the fact that he's doing what he's doing! First Paul's sexism isn't sexism and now Paul's authoritarianism isn't authoritarian?"

Yes, I should have been more precise. Clearly, Paul envisions himself as having authority over the church, often from a distance. I should have said "local leadership" vs. followers. Surely, there was local leadership (although it is not clear what role the teacher had vs the administrator, the worker of miracles, etc.), but what is not clear is the degree of authority that these folks had over the congregation. I would hesitate to assign the authority later found in the bishops. Later authors envisioned Paul as playing the bishop role, but is it clear that the congregants of the 50s would have seen him this way? The evidence is mixed. (See 1 Cor 1)

"Woman is subservient to man, the body of Christ has a head, listen to me, not those other people -- and do you really want to argue that apostolic authority isn't part and parcel of Paul's approach?"

I had been thinking on the local level, as indicated above, which is more ambiguous. I would agree that Paul played the "apostolic authority card."

23309. angel-five - 8/11/2004 8:08:31 PM

This has led some to question whether this text was even in the original or if it may not have been a later gloss. We cannot know for sure, but it again advises one to proceed w/ caution.

There's a bit of difference between accepting what you have said and being duly cautious -- which I do accept -- and just 'proceeding with caution' when it suits your rhetorical purposes. Proceeding with caution works both ways. It can't just be a cover for doing away with some parts of the Bible that don't fit your schema.

What's more, in the letters of Paul you have an extremely apt example of argumentative writing. You have his considered rhetorical responses to non-extant arguments and writings. You have, in essence, one side of the story, carefully framed and presented. It was presented about two thousand years ago. Almost all the context that exists is elicited from them and similar works. That is much more reason to 'proceed with caution' in and of itself than the fact that at least some, if not all, of the letters were edited and recompiled at some point by someone else, more than once!

23310. pelty - 8/11/2004 8:16:17 PM

"As Woden noted, if this was all it took to exculpate sexism, then virtually nobody would be a sexist. You don't like the passages we're citing, fine, but other passages don't change them. They are what they are. If I were to say on one day 'Black people are lazy and inferior and should let white people run things for them' and on the next 'This black person seems to be trying hard, bravo' would that make me not a racist? Of course it wouldn't."

Ok, the passages you have cited are 1 Cor 14.33-35, which may or may not even be authentically Pauline, which may or may not be attempting to draw a distinction between G-R worship and that of the fledgling church. Further, you are flat out wrong when you say that Paul has trouble w/ the fact that women pray or prophecy in the service three chapters earlier. His issue is garb at such times.

Further, in 1 Cor 7 there is every indication of an equitable relationship btwn men and women in marriage. The point is, the evidence does not unilaterally point to a sexist Paul. We are working off of scant evidence, there is evidence that women may well have played a large role in his ministry and/or alongside his ministry, and therefore, it is absurd to assume that he must be a sexist.

23311. angel-five - 8/11/2004 8:16:31 PM

I would hesitate to assign the authority later found in the bishops. Later authors envisioned Paul as playing the bishop role, but is it clear that the congregants of the 50s would have seen him this way?

I think Paul envisions himself as playing the bishop role, Pelty. Whether or not the issue of apostolic authority per se was front and center at this time, framed in those terms, is one thing. Certainly it came into more dramatic focus later on, when the battle lines were more clearly drawn. But it's really inarguable that the same basic principles are at work. Paul is telling people to listen up and do what he's saying, because he's the authority, or he'll come by and discipline them himself. He's telling them not to listen to some other people who have 'false' authority. He's trying to compile and codify central authority under the apostles, which is another way of saying that he's trying to compile it under himself, since he places himself at the forefront of the apostles.

And if his own writings are to be believed, many among the Corinthians were saying that Paul was making so much of himself as an authority figure that he had to backpedal off and make it explicit that he wasn't baptizing people in his own name.

The same memetic structure is at work. I'm sure you'll agree with that.

23312. pelty - 8/11/2004 8:18:08 PM

"What's more, in the letters of Paul you have an extremely apt example of argumentative writing. You have his considered rhetorical responses to non-extant arguments and writings. You have, in essence, one side of the story, carefully framed and presented. It was presented about two thousand years ago. Almost all the context that exists is elicited from them and similar works. That is much more reason to 'proceed with caution' in and of itself than the fact that at least some, if not all, of the letters were edited and recompiled at some point by someone else, more than once!"

Agreed.

23313. angel-five - 8/11/2004 8:21:15 PM

Further, you are flat out wrong when you say that Paul has trouble w/ the fact that women pray or prophecy in the service three chapters earlier. His issue is garb at such times.

This is a clumsy red herring, Pelty. Tell me precisely where I said that Paul has trouble w/ the fact that women pray or prophesy in the service. You can't, because I didn't. What I said was that what you were saying isn't true, and I did it with one word -- No.

Further, in 1 Cor 7 there is every indication of an equitable relationship btwn men and women in marriage. The point is, the evidence does not unilaterally point to a sexist Paul. We are working off of scant evidence, there is evidence that women may well have played a large role in his ministry and/or alongside his ministry, and therefore, it is absurd to assume that he must be a sexist.

What is this, a false duality? The world isn't broken down into people who believe that women are fully equal to men and people who believe that women have no value whatsoever or can have no role whatsoever. Sexism just means that you show prejudice toward one gender at some point to some degree. You simply cannot sit there and say the equivalent of 'Well, Paul wasn't advocating that they be chained to their beds, so he can't be a sexist!'

23314. pelty - 8/11/2004 8:21:26 PM

"And if his own writings are to be believed, many among the Corinthians were saying that Paul was making so much of himself as an authority figure that he had to backpedal off and make it explicit that he wasn't baptizing people in his own name."

I would argue that this is not what we see going on her at all. Verse 10 is, in my opinion, the subject sentence here: "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought."

He then says that the congregation should not be divided by whom they see as their "spiritual father," but rather should be united under the banner of Jesus.

23315. pelty - 8/11/2004 8:22:33 PM

"Wasn't it three chapters earlier that Paul was seemingly accepting of the women praying and prophesying in church? No."

OK, I may not be fully comprehending what you mean by this. Please explain.

23316. angel-five - 8/11/2004 8:23:09 PM

I'm off for the day and will respond to anything else when I can.

23317. PelleNilsson - 8/11/2004 8:29:55 PM

To accuse Paul of sexism and/or misogeny is to scale stratospheric heights of anachronism. He was a child of his time and his background in a pathernalistic religion. The question is rather why Paul's views on the matter continues to influence much of the church today.

Even our fundamentlist Kuligin doesn't hold the view the every word of the scriptures contain the eternal truth as written. He places great emphasis on context for arriving at the proper interpretation. If I understand him right, which is far from sure, he maintains that there are elements of the scipture which do indeed contain the truth for all time while other elements are bound to the contemporary Zeitgeist.

The doctrinal development of the church since the middle ages has largely involved transferring stuff from the former to latter category. You may, for examlple, think of the church's views on usury and the Copernican system. The question then remains why this has not happened with Paul's views on the proper role of women. One reason, I think, that the lead times are generally very long when it comes to doctrinal change. But the second and more important reason is that the chúrch, to its disadvantage, is socially conservative and Paul fits well into the patriarchal structures that still dominate western society.

23318. pelty - 8/11/2004 8:41:45 PM

"What is this, a false duality? The world isn't broken down into people who believe that women are fully equal to men and people who believe that women have no value whatsoever or can have no role whatsoever. Sexism just means that you show prejudice toward one gender at some point to some degree. You simply cannot sit there and say the equivalent of 'Well, Paul wasn't advocating that they be chained to their beds, so he can't be a sexist!'"

I guess we are at odds at what is meant by "sexism." To your mind, the fact that Paul envisions an order within creation necessitates that there be some type of prejudice, some feeling that a woman is qualitatively inferior to a man. Frankly, I do not read it that way because of other indications within his letters that suggest a basic equality in character between the sexes. Galatians 3.28 may well speak to this. If I am wrong in my reading, then I will concede to you that Paul was sexist in some way on the spectrum you allude to above; I just happen to think that the order of creation Paul has in mind is meant to reinforce to the congregation the notion that there is to be order in the church. Just as there is a certain order within creation, so also let there be order within the church. Women may well have taken a libertine approach to worship, to a degree that Paul was uncomfortable with (either because 1-he does not want women to be free [which would be closer to your view, I would imagine] or 2-he desires that there be a modicum of propriety in the churches, that women wear veils on their heads as this is the proper means of worshipping God, praying, and prophesying). I am curious, could the fact that these women had been going "overboard" suggest that Paul had really loosened the reins on them with his message in the first place, but that they took it too far?

23319. woden - 8/11/2004 10:25:05 PM

Pelle -
Even our fundamentlist Kuligin doesn't hold the view the every word of the scriptures
contain the eternal truth as written. He places great emphasis on context for arriving at
the proper interpretation. If I understand him right, which is far from sure, he maintains
that there are elements of the scipture which do indeed contain the truth for all time
while other elements are bound to the contemporary Zeitgeist.

While it's possible that Kulgin both calls himself a Fundamentalist and holds the above views on interpretation of scripture, if he does, he is misusing the term. The commonly accepted usage of the word 'fundamentalist' is the exact opposite of one who does what you describe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist

When you consider the actual usage of the term, it renders the latest illogical ramblings even more irrelevant to my point.

23320. woden - 8/11/2004 10:27:02 PM

Just to be clear, I was not classifying your post as rambling, Pelle. Strange not to be able to edit.

23321. wonkers2 - 8/11/2004 10:46:36 PM

"Women may have taken a LIBERTINE? approach to worship???

23322. Jenerator - 8/11/2004 10:50:06 PM

Pelty,

Just rememer that if Christ can heal the crippled in front of the Pharisees and they still don't believe, then...

23323. wonkers2 - 8/11/2004 10:51:14 PM

Woden, good point re Pelle's comment on K-man's fundamentalism. Moreover, I haven't noticed K's willingness to concede that much of the scripture is "bound to the contemporary zeitgeist."

23324. wonkers2 - 8/11/2004 10:54:27 PM

Pelle hits the nail on the head with "The question is why Paul's view on the matter continues to influence much of the church today." [As you can see, I am reading the posts backward starting from the most recent.]

23325. wonkers2 - 8/11/2004 11:01:15 PM

Good Christians should be free to adopt what they find useful from the Scriptures and discard what is pernicious or obsolete in light of current knowledge and social needs.

23326. Jenerator - 8/11/2004 11:41:24 PM

Wonkers,

You have captured Spong's outlook completely.

23327. judithathome - 8/12/2004 1:23:16 AM

Well, not to be sarcastic but since no one has come back from the beyond and refuted that view, how do you know he's not on the right track in doing it that way?

According to you, God gave us brains...do you think he meant us not to use them?

23328. angel-five - 8/12/2004 5:29:54 AM

To accuse Paul of sexism and/or misogeny is to scale stratospheric heights of anachronism. He was a child of his time and his background in a pathernalistic religion.

That it was largely part and parcel of the times, I will not contest. That doesn't change what it was, though. No one is saying that Paul was aware of modern feminist theory and made his statements anyway, but that knowledge isn't necessary in order to be sexist. It is what it is.

When the Spanish colonized Latin America their clergy had impassioned debates as to whether the natives had actual souls or whether they were just spawn of Satan. That was par for the thinking of the times, but it was still bigoted thinking, no? The same holds true of Paul, assuming that the NT paints anywhere close to an accurate picture.

Pelty:

OK, I may not be fully comprehending what you mean by this. Please explain.

I meant 'No.' As in, no, I don't think your statement bears on the point, for reasons subsequently explained. Paul's statements 'three chapters earlier' doesn't obviate 11 and 14. It just paints a larger picture.

I guess we are at odds at what is meant by "sexism." To your mind, the fact that Paul envisions an order within creation necessitates that there be some type of prejudice, some feeling that a woman is qualitatively inferior to a man.

No, Pelty. In my mind, the fact that Paul envisions an order within creation in which the woman is subservient to the man, in nature, in the home, in the church, means that Paul envisions a sexist order. Does that help? It doesn't matter that that was the business of the day where he came from, or that it made sense to him.

23329. angel-five - 8/12/2004 5:30:12 AM

It doesn't matter whether Paul rubbed his hands together and cackled at the thought of oppressing women, which I doubt he did as I doubt it occurred to him at all. All that matters is that Paul believes in an immanentized order to creation laid down by his god in which women occupy a subservient position. That's a sexist system, by any definition you like.

Pelle does indeed hit the nail on the head when he says that the question is why we still stick to Pauline thought today. After all, we know better by now, at least most of us do. Paul's thinking may well reflect the best wisdom of his time, but it is simply oppressive and wrong by any modern standard.

And no, I don't find reasons to weave gossamer fantasies about whether this 'feminine libertine excess' might have been encouraged by some initial and unrecorded laissez-faire statement by Paul. As many scholars point out, the answer is as simple as the prevailing culture which the Corinthians found themselves in.

I am glad that you take the point about being cautious when caution is due, but I do wonder whether you take it seriously, or just take it whenever it's convenient to reinterpret something in the Bible to more closely match modern wisdom.

23330. angel-five - 8/12/2004 5:33:11 AM

And the problem with fundamentalism is that it's based on the idea that the bible is inerrant, the divinely inspired holy word of god, completely true and in no way false, BUT so many people read so much into the text and then take that too to be inerrant -- the revealed wisdom! Guess what? It doesn't work like that. You don't get to just infer what you like and excise what you don't and still stand upon an inerrant rock.

23331. angel-five - 8/12/2004 10:13:37 AM

I expect Kuligin to jump in at any moment, I should add. He might post something about how hermeneutics is an exact science that doesn't obviate fundamentalism -- rather, it is the simple act of determining exactly what the author intended with his words, such determination being arrived at by close and careful study of the words. Kuligin thinks that this reading into the words isn't reading into the words, and doesn't think much of the fact that he reads into the words things which generally already support his notions, because for him it's just illuminated truth and he's uncovering more of it.

Leave aside the obvious literary criticisms of this technique, for the moment. Forget about the fact that word meanings have so much play, even when nailed to the page as best as the author can, that hermeneutics even with the best of wills and the most exacting of comparisons can only transform a straight reading of the text into a Tarot reading of the words in sequence. We're still faced with the fact that for the reader the words are still a stratified, quantized inkblot, and throughout history people who have gone 'back to the text' and championed what they have read into it as the text itself.

Is it accidental that Christians who favor, say, the state application of violence whether it be in war, in policing, or in punishing criminals by executing them, tend to favor the NIV 'thou shalt not murder' over the KJV 'thou shalt not kill?' No. Do they favor it because they have exhaustively researched Greek, Aramaic, Coptic, etc source documents themselves and subjected their findings to the most stringent and objective analyses and social-context evaluations they can derive? No. They favor it because they like it better and it better fits their inkblot. For every scholar for whom this might be an unfair summation, there are likely a hundred thousand right-wing Christians for whom it is dead accurate.

23332. angel-five - 8/12/2004 10:13:51 AM

The point of being cautious about a two-thousand-year-old argumentative, socio-politically engineering text trying to sell people on an idea that is meant to convert them to a specific religious philosophy isn't that we can't know what it says. We can. We can read it, after all. It says what it says. The point of being cautious about it is that this isn't a frickin' manual on how to weave a basket or some other objective and non-psychologically-involved task, but a text which is primarily discussed by, and of importance to, people who have a strong vested interest in their own interpretation as to what it means.

There are few things more psychologically compelling to people than whether or not their primal beliefs are accurate and coherent and reflect well on them. The rule in these situations, as Pelle once had as a tagline, properly ought to be 'be most slow to believe that which you most wish to be true'. In practice the rule seems to be 'Know what you want to believe and go find things that support it so your religious stance seems the stronger for your research'. That is what people need to be cautious of when they start wandering away from literal interpretations of the text of Paul's letters, and, for that matter, the entire Bible or any similarly important text.

News flash -- it isn't going to be seamless. It isn't going to be completely coherent. It isn't going to necessarily speak to modern wisdom. It was written by fallible humans with right and wrong ideas, and no amount of theological spackle-pasting can change that unless you already think it's infallible, in which case you aren't honestly analyzing the text.

23333. PelleNilsson - 8/12/2004 11:18:23 AM

The concise history of doctrinal development

Early days = First we decide what we believe, then we pick the appropriate texts.

Later on = Our belief has changed, we must tweak the texts a bit.

23334. Jenerator - 8/12/2004 3:46:07 PM

Resonance,

What is frustrating about all of this is that you seem incapable of recognizing that women in the role of marriage are seen as PARTNERS with their husbands! It's not - "Women are subserviant to men, period." You repeatedly fail to acknowledge the scriptures that usually preceed the ones you claim to be sexist.

23335. judithathome - 8/12/2004 4:12:46 PM

Can you quote a line from the Bible saying that women are partners in a marriage, Jen? Just for future reference?

23336. wonkers2 - 8/12/2004 4:38:37 PM

Jen: "Wonkers, you have captured Spong's outlook completely."

Precisely. I might start going back to church if our local pastor were Spong or a Spongite! [I was the one who introduced Spong, most recently, to the Religion thread.)

My impression is that most of the things you get so steamed up about have little or nothing to do with the core tenets of Christianity. You remind me of my sister-in-law, a fervid recent RC convert who came back from services at our local Catholic church muttering "That's not a Catholic church" because it didn't have kneelers an because of a few other minor objections to their ritual. [She is a fundamentalist Catholic whose church observes the mass only in Latin. She didn't have a good answer to my question "What difference does the language make?"

23337. wonkers2 - 8/12/2004 4:53:23 PM

Vatican Shuts Child Porn Seminary

23338. pelty - 8/12/2004 5:22:40 PM

A-5,

"And no, I don't find reasons to weave gossamer fantasies about whether this 'feminine libertine excess' might have been encouraged by some initial and unrecorded laissez-faire statement by Paul. As many scholars point out, the answer is as simple as the prevailing culture which the Corinthians found themselves in."

I must disagree on this. The fact is, we have every indication that people of all stripes mistook the freedom offered by Paul, or at the very least, Paul recognized that the possibility was there. This is evident from a large chunk of Romans. That there may have been an excess of freedom expressed in the Corinthian congregation by the women is by no means "pie in the sky;" it is not an ironclad lock and I do not mean to suggest that it is, but it is also no fantasy.

" I am glad that you take the point about being cautious when caution is due, but I do wonder whether you take it seriously, or just take it whenever it's convenient to reinterpret something in the Bible to more closely match modern wisdom."

In the same way, I wonder whether you prefer to proof-text your assumption rather than legitmately consider other factors that may speak to a more complex scenario than you have outlined for us here. I am not saying and have not said that Paul is 100% for sure NOT sexist (although I think Pelle is correct to resist importing a modern designation into antiquity); I have said that there is room for discussion on this matter. This goes back to my first statement on this topic to Woden in which I said, "I think that you would find, if you really read Paul, that there is, at the very least, some ambiguity." I still believe this to be the case.

23339. Jenerator - 8/12/2004 5:42:15 PM

Wonkers,

To be honest, I don't think you have clue as to the core tenets of the Christian faith.

My "philosophy" is to agree on the essentials and debate the nonessentials. Latin mass versus English mass is a nonessential. That Christ died on the third day and was resurrected from the dead is an essential.
Judith,

Do you really want to talk about the role of women in marriage as partners? If so, I'd be glad to.

23340. wonkers2 - 8/12/2004 6:31:26 PM

Jen, I guess you are entitled to your opinion on whether I "have a clue as to the core tenets of Christianity." I guess my knowledge is about average or a bit above the average Christian whose knowledge is based on attending Sunday school as a child, church sporadically and a fair amount of miscellaneous related reading. Most of my irritation with organized religion arises from what I consider non-core ridiculous or incorrect positions on sex--e.g., masturbation, birth control, abortion, homosexuality--on science--e.g., stem cell research--and the like. I am also troubled by most of organized religion's "we are right and everybody else is wrong" attitude and their failure to take what I believe would be a Christian position against capital punishment and needless wars as in Iraq. Am I wrong that none of the above are core, obligatory tenets of Christianity?

23341. angel-five - 8/12/2004 6:55:50 PM

It's not - "Women are subserviant to men, period." You repeatedly fail to acknowledge the scriptures that usually preceed the ones you claim to be sexist.

No, what's frustrating for you about this is that you don't like being wrong at all. There's very little that's frustrating for me about this, but the fact that you can't get a simple argument through your head -- or, more likely, you aren't willing to publicly acknowledge having done so -- would be close to the mark.

First of all, the chapter of Corinthians you are speaking about does not speak of the woman not being subservient to man. Does the fact that it doesn't specifically address this issue mean that Paul found married people to be equal partners? No more than the fact that I have not, in this passage, denounced Marx means that I am now a Communist.

You keep harping about the 'other things' that have been said. Well, where do they speak about equality? They don't. What do the passages that speak about the relationship between a man and a woman actually say? They say God is the head of man and man is the head of woman. Grasp that.

You, like Pelty was doing, keep on doing the equivalent of saying 'Look, Paul, in this passage, isn't suggesting that women be chained to their beds! He's not a sexist!' And the only reason you aren't willing to acknowledge what a ridiculous argument that is, is that it's touching upon something you very much want and need to believe.

Anyway, yes, you want to talk about frustrating as though it's something you aren't exemplifying? You won't even grasp these points, just like you keep ignoring all the other ones I make. But you will pretend to actually be debating the issue while you piss and moan and snipe, running from the points and circling around to post something equally unreasoned. This is all you have ever done.

23342. angel-five - 8/12/2004 7:05:56 PM

I must disagree on this. The fact is, we have every indication that people of all stripes mistook the freedom offered by Paul,

What indications? Be specific.

In the same way, I wonder whether you prefer to proof-text your assumption rather than legitmately consider other factors that may speak to a more complex scenario than you have outlined for us here.

What's to 'proof-text'? Do you, or do you not, believe that Paul preached a 'body of Christ' where he said things like "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God" and "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. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. "?

If so, is it that you would say that these things aren't sexist?

All this 'complex scenario' multitude of red herrings and straw men are beside the point. I have freely acknowledged that things are complex. I have repeatedly stated that other factors may be at work. I have never said that all there is to know about Paul is that he's a sexist. All I've actually said is very simple and direct and forthwith -- Paul preaches a sexist social order. The fact that you keep ignoring that clear message, tossing up distraction after straw man after red herring after 'should have been clearer' after 'my mistake' after 'I think we mean different things when we use the word sexist' suggests that you really don't want to engage honestly. If I'm wrong about that, well, prove it by engaging honestly on the main point.

23343. angel-five - 8/12/2004 7:18:55 PM

To be honest, I don't think you have clue as to the core tenets of the Christian faith.

Oh, like you do.

23344. angel-five - 8/12/2004 7:22:17 PM

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

"36": Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

"37": Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

"38": This is the first and great commandment.

"39": And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

"40": On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

23345. angel-five - 8/12/2004 7:42:53 PM

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. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

23346. angel-five - 8/12/2004 7:43:59 PM

Pop quiz. What law is he referring to?

23347. angel-five - 8/12/2004 7:44:16 PM

23348. angel-five - 8/12/2004 7:46:28 PM

Do you really want to talk about the role of women in marriage as partners? If so, I'd be glad to.

Well, she can speak for herself, but I think what she asked is for you to cite something from the Bible which actually does say what you claim the Bible says about women being partners in marriage. Not to go out on a limb or anything, but it's kind of hard to mistake what she did say, and your evasive answer is obvious for what it is.

23349. pelty - 8/12/2004 7:50:01 PM

"I must disagree on this. The fact is, we have every indication that people of all stripes mistook the freedom offered by Paul"

Rom 6.1, 6.15 indicates that Paul was aware that these types of questions could be possible responses (and it is likely that he had himself encountered these responses in both word and deed) to his gospel.

"What's to 'proof-text'? Do you, or do you not, believe that Paul preached a 'body of Christ' where he said things like 'But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God'"

Yes.

and '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. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.'?"

Maybe.

We'll go 'round and 'round on this. I do not believe that the first quote is necessarily sexist; you do. Discussing the order of creation (God->Man->Woman) in an attempt to demonstrate that there should be order in the churches is, from my POV, a different thing than making a statement on the value of an entire sex. You *may* be right that he holds the very view you state; that said, you do not bring enough to the table to convince me of this as there is evidence elsewhere that suggests a more complex picture. I have pointed out other statements where the relationship of men and women is equal for those "in Christ," but you apparently remain unconvinced. Fair enough. I am not sure that a whole lot remains to be said on the matter.

23350. pelty - 8/12/2004 7:50:30 PM

An interesting sidenote, it would appear that there was some debate over the thinking of Paul about women into the second century as well, if a romanticized version of Paul's travels is any indication. Clearly the church, at times using Paul's writings, moved into a mode where women were marginalized (although at the same time began to become respected if properly ascetic), yet we also see in Thecla a woman who was inspired and told by Paul to go "preach the word of God." Could it be that some saw in Paul not a slaver but an emancipator? This has little to do w/ your bone of contention I realize; I bring it up more because of the possibility that it reflects a different mode of thought than that that held the most sway in the 2nd cent and it may be of some interest to others who may be reading along.

23351. judithathome - 8/12/2004 9:59:59 PM

Do you really want to talk about the role of women in marriage as partners? If so, I'd be glad to.

Why do you think I asked you for a cite, Jen? Just to see my name on the screen? Yes, I want to know if you can show me in the Bible where it says women and men are partners. Because I have always seen the religious slant to be wives must support their husbands in all things and not much short of having them walk three steps behind the male. It's the basis for the woman being referred to as "the little woman" and for women saying they will have to ask their husbands about major purchases or decisions.

I have been around so many Christians who are married and feel that way, not to mention those who are appalled at the suggestion their wife work or have an opinion of her own.

23352. Ulgine Barrows - 8/13/2004 4:44:09 AM

confused as to who woden is to sakonige

23021. Mammals begin life as parasites. A fetus is usually welcome in the host's body, but it is undeniably a parasite.

23022. woden - 8/8/2004 4:46:41 PM

(This is res being too lazy to log out) Actually, you got that idea from me. And I was wrong at the time, and knew it, and was just trying to rile some fundamentalists. Fetuses aren't parasites, even if you choose to use the terminology usually reserved for different species living in and on each other. They are symbiotes.

What's an ectopic pregnancy, then? That fetus was most certainly welcome, but it was killing me.

kuliginthehooligan, if you had some big-ass tumor growing on one of your balls, would you kill it? Yeah, not the same thing. You had no choice, aha!

23353. wonkers2 - 8/13/2004 4:48:20 AM

Who really cares about the thinking of Paul about women into the second century? Are Christians supposed to be frozen in time? What do WE think about women in the 21st century. Isn't that a more interesting subject?

Cap'n Dirty sez "Women only go from good ter excellent!"

23354. judithathome - 8/13/2004 4:52:37 AM

Yes, it is, but when you are asking someone who believes everything that was written in the second century, you just want to get their sources down pat.

The problewm is, a lot of people think just like those guys back in the second century.

23355. wonkers2 - 8/13/2004 4:57:17 AM

True.

23356. Ulgine Barrows - 8/13/2004 6:19:42 AM

Holy shite, I'm not watching 24, I'm reading the back annals of this thread in the 23000s and they are extremely vituperative.

If you've not been pregnant, perhaps you don't know about the energy suck. 'Nuff said.

23357. angel-five - 8/13/2004 6:28:45 AM

Rom 6.1, 6.15 indicates that Paul was aware that these types of questions could be possible responses (and it is likely that he had himself encountered these responses in both word and deed) to his gospel.

That's 'every indication'?

Discussing the order of creation (God->Man->Woman) in an attempt to demonstrate that there should be order in the churches is, from my POV, a different thing than making a statement on the value of an entire sex.

Oh, come on, Pelty. That's just sticking your head in the sand WRT the point at hand. Why do you think Paul chose that particular metaphor, given what was happening among the Corinthians? You think he just lazily wrote down the first thing that came to mind? You think he had no intention of making a good analogy? Maybe all the other stuff he said about women was just as dodgily related to what he envisioned their actual role as being? You pretty much have to ignore it, in order to gloss over it.

I have pointed out other statements where the relationship of men and women is equal for those "in Christ," but you apparently remain unconvinced.

You have done no such thing. You've made allusion. The passages you have cited do not approach, let alone substantiate, this sort of claim.

This isn't round and round, this is willful evasion.

23358. angel-five - 8/13/2004 6:29:55 AM

Discussing the order of creation (God->Man->Woman) in an attempt to demonstrate that there should be order in the churches is, from my POV, a different thing than making a statement on the value of an entire sex.

Oh, really, that's what it is?

First off, it isn't God -> Man -> Woman, but God -> Christ -> Man -> Woman, in the passage cited. Which raises interesting notions about what Paul might have thought of the Trinity, but that's another matter. But it is seriously your contention that in that exact cite, Paul is talking about the order of creation?
Here's the entire cite:

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4: Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5: But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6: 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.
7: 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.
8: For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9: Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

You are saying that a) that is not sexist and b) that is just Paul discussing the order of creation. That isn't Paul saying that 'woman was created for man, woman is man's glory not God's, woman's place is therefore different from man when it comes to church'. That's just Paul rambling with no point in mind?

Seriously, straight up, this is what your point has become?

23359. Ulgine Barrows - 8/13/2004 6:45:32 AM

I don't believe in you anymore, angel-five.

I think you're a made-up login designed to get more hits on this site to feed the masses.

23360. angel-five - 8/13/2004 7:15:37 AM

I've been posting in this community since, what, 1997? So if I'm a provocateur I'm old school.

23361. Ulgine Barrows - 8/13/2004 7:53:59 AM

Seriously, straight up, this is what your point has become?

I don't believe.

23362. Ulgine Barrows - 8/13/2004 7:55:47 AM

My lips feel chapped with all the wind whistling round these parts.

23363. Ulgine Barrows - 8/13/2004 8:04:03 AM

I regret posting that.

Perhaps the wind was whistling through my ears.

Lord knows, there's no brain in there.

23364. woden - 8/13/2004 7:54:06 PM

His exact point was that seeing Paul as sexist betrays "a lack of sophistication" and that one who does so is "addle-brained."

So, many, many posts later, we finally get Pelty to condescend to explain it to us poor addle-brained kids, I now see that if I were sophisticated and clear-thinking, like Pelty, I would know that when Paul said "man is the head of woman" he really meant "God created man before he created woman, chronologically".

23365. pelty - 8/13/2004 11:09:36 PM

"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.
8: For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9: Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."

"You are saying that a) that is not sexist

Actually, I have said it may or may not be sexist as I have so little information to go on, but that in my opinion given the witness of other passages in Paul's letters, I do not find Paul to be "sexist" nor do I necessarily think that this passage *has* to be sexist.

"and b) that is just Paul discussing the order of creation. That isn't Paul saying that 'woman was created for man,"

I do think Paul is saying this, actually, as it is likely that he pulls it from the Genesis account. I do not see the Genesis account as particularly sexist (but it is not an issue into which I desire to delve further. This has taken enough of my time as it is). In it, Eve is clearly created to give companionship and a helper to Adam (and we do not have to take it as literal for this point to be true).

"woman is man's glory not God's"

Depends what you mean. If you see this as a value judgement, I would probably not agree with this; if you view it as yet further evidence of the progression of creation, then I'm with you!

"woman's place is therefore different from man when it comes to church"

No, given that Paul is discussing prayer and prophecy and indicates that both women and men partake in this. He is simply speaking to propriety of dress.

23366. pelty - 8/13/2004 11:09:44 PM

Of even further interest are verses 11 and 12 which say:

"In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God."

Here we see Paul make a case for the co-dependency of man and women under the stewardship of God.

Listen, you don't have to buy it; I don't really care if you do or don't. Feel free to continue to think of Paul as a sexist, it has no effect on my life. The point is, the sexist view of Paul is not an open and shut case (nor is mine, of course.

"Which raises interesting notions about what Paul might have thought of the Trinity, but that's another matter."

And an interesting one...

23367. woden - 8/14/2004 6:57:55 AM

"I do not see the Genesis account as particularly sexist (but it is not an issue into which I desire to delve further. This has taken enough of my time as it is). In it, Eve is clearly created to give companionship and a helper to Adam (and we do not have to take it as literal for this point to be true)."

Yes, you seem to enjoy posting blatantly sexist things, making some baseless assertion that it's not sexist and then avoiding any logical defense of your statement by either spinning filligrees of nonsense or simply ignoring. So keep telling the women how they ought to act (c.f. the original post of yours I objected to about what the women need to do about abortion) and we'll keep either ignoring or ridiculing you.

23368. angel-five - 8/14/2004 7:36:44 AM

Main Entry: sex·ism
Pronunciation: 'sek-"si-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: 1sex + -ism (as in racism)
1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

23369. wonkers2 - 8/14/2004 1:52:21 PM

Any comments on this piece on religion and stem cell research from Pelty or Jenerator or other Mote theologians?

23370. wonkers2 - 8/14/2004 1:57:26 PM

Sorry I'll try again. Stem cells & religion

23371. judithathome - 8/14/2004 4:51:13 PM

From Wonker's link:

Most people believe human life begins at fertilization and that each individual embryo is endowed with one soul at that time. But if religious assumptions are accurate, how can two soul/embryos merge into one person or one soul/embryo split into two in the two weeks after fertilization?

Logic suggests that a window period of up to two weeks might exist. In this time period, nascent human embryos, while constituting life forms, may not yet have matured into human individuals — what we call life.

Makes sense to me.

23372. angel-five - 8/14/2004 7:23:10 PM

Actually, I have said it may or may not be sexist as I have so little information to go on, but that in my opinion given the witness of other passages in Paul's letters, I do not find Paul to be "sexist" nor do I necessarily think that this passage *has* to be sexist.

In your opinion, a passage which says men and women should act in different ways because they were created in a different order for different purposes.... doesn't have to be sexist.

Right. I had wanted to believe better of you, but it's pretty clear that you're not willing to be forthright on this issue even when it's presented to you in the starkest and most forthright terms repeatedly. You seize at any straw that floats past and clutch to it until it goes under, then you seize at another, and when the case is fully on the table suddenly you don't want to discuss it further.

So I'm with Woden on this one. You can believe whatever you like. We'll be here to disagree with you whenever you post something disagreeable.

23373. pelty - 8/14/2004 11:38:10 PM

"In your opinion, a passage which says men and women should act in different ways because they were created in a different order for different purposes.... doesn't have to be sexist."

Huh? The reason they are told to act in different ways has everything to do w/ their mode of dress in the service. Just as today, it may not be advisable for a woman to wear a G-string to church, so in that period they were to wear head-coverings. This is not so much of a strain of analogies if a recent article in the JBL (Spring 2004) is in any way accurate. I tried to go point-by-point w/ you in the last post, yet you consistently ignore those verses which may suggest something else is going on both within the very passage and elsewhere. That is fine; again, I don't care if you buy it or not. I am even willing to grant your point that it may be sexist, but as I say, given the extant info, it is difficult to say he was w/ any certainty. The bottom line, though, is that it is far from clear that Paul was sexist, generally, or even in this passage.

"You seize at any straw that floats past and clutch to it until it goes under, then you seize at another, and when the case is fully on the table suddenly you don't want to discuss it further."

This is patently absurd. I have dealt with your issue, you have decided the possible explanation don't fit your presuppositions, and thus you have discarded them. That is fine, but the interpretations offered are not untenable given the context not only of the passage (not just the bit you like to excise) but of the whole *section* of 1 Cor.

"So I'm with Woden on this one. You can believe whatever you like. We'll be here to disagree with you whenever you post something disagreeable."

Sounds good. I look forward to it, A-5 (I am assuming you will be the point man).

23374. pelty - 8/14/2004 11:40:02 PM

"...we'll keep either ignoring or ridiculing you."

OK, Woden.

23375. angel-five - 8/15/2004 4:57:47 AM

Huh? The reason they are told to act in different ways has everything to do w/ their mode of dress in the service.

Listen.

The reason they are told to dress in different ways is because they are women.. You keep saying 'oh, it's the creation order' 'oh, it's just how they're dressing'. I'm sorry, but only a very severe idiot would not be able to grasp that the common denominator here is that they are women and that they are being told to act differently because they are women and the nature and purpose of woman is different from that of man. Only a very dishonest debater would pretend not to understand that if they did grasp it. So ask yourself 'WHY is Paul saying that the men and women should act differently?' Don't just wank about with the shape of the metaphors. Ask yourself, just as I am asking you now, 'Why does Paul expect women to act differently from men in church, and what explanation for that does he use, and what is the salient point of that explanation?' Don't sit and jabber that you don't know. He clearly says it in his own words (unless he didn't write those either).

I tried to go point-by-point w/ you in the last post, yet you consistently ignore those verses which may suggest something else is going on both within the very passage and elsewhere.

Oh, that is rich, coming from you, who have ignored and glossed so many point by point answers from me, and ignored so many verses, and when you were unable to ignore them, fobbed them off with 'Paul maybe didn't write that' or 'Well, I can't concretely explain precisely HOW these verses aren't sexist, but, look, here's some other verses!' When asked to explain how these other specific verses might bear on your point, you do not.

And now you're saying I'm ignoring things? You have just flat out decided to abandon the truth today, haven't you?

23376. angel-five - 8/15/2004 4:58:16 AM

If you really do want to discuss the verses, go ahead. Post them, and say, specifically, what they do, why you think they do it, and how they bear on the point. I'll address them as you do them. But I really doubt you're interested in actually contesting the issue directly, so I won't be holding my breath, because you know that you can't find anything in Corinthians that supports your point unless you make a straw man and attack it instead.

The fact of the matter is that Paul, at several points already cited, tells men and women to act differently, and his explanation of why they should act differently centers upon the intrinsic nature of each gender and why each was created, and who was created for whom by whom. That is sexism. If you can't grasp that then read, and reread, and reread, the definition of sexism until it sinks in. If you cannot understand that a system which treats and orders men and women differently due to a postulated difference in their basic essence and purpose, is by definition a sexist one, then you don't even understand what the word means at all, and you should read and re-read that definition some more. I am confident that by the end of this exercise you will at least be able to say what sexism means, even if you prove too recalcitrant to apply it to anything to do with your religion.

23377. angel-five - 8/15/2004 5:01:13 AM

By the way, I can't help but notice the way you react entirely differently to me, a man, and Woden, a woman, although our points are more or less exactly the same.

Someone perhaps a bit more genteel would maybe ignore it. Someone a bit more charitable might suggest that it's an accident. But I already gave to charity, so I'll openly muse as to whether your stance on what is or is not sexist is flavored unduly by your own personal defensiveness about sexism.

23378. angel-five - 8/15/2004 5:07:34 AM

I mean, I know it's trite -- accusations of sexism between participants in a discussion on sexism. It's a bit like how Sakonige used to say that anyone who disagreed with her was bigoted against Native Americans. I really hesitated to say it, as a result. But it's getting pretty hard to ignore -- the question is really sort of raising itself, isn't it?

23379. Halo - 8/15/2004 5:21:22 AM

That's just the sort of reply a man would give.

23380. PelleNilsson - 8/15/2004 7:33:23 AM

Nice too se you here, Halo.

23381. angel-five - 8/15/2004 9:25:38 AM

I'm recalling an old conversation from the Fray where Pelle asked me if I could hear the bone crack. So although I'll be happy to continue responding to Pelty and would indeed like to see him make a real case for what he's saying, it might be nice to walk the topic along a bit just in case we've reached an impasse.

There's been a bit of tangential discussion about who wrote what in the letters of Paul, whether they had been edited, compiled, et cetera. The traditional conservative Christian view is that the books of the NT were written by the people who are laid out in the text as the authors. A more modern view suggests that they, at least the gospels and some of Paul's letters, were written by other people and that the finished product represents the evolution of thought among various camps in the Jesus movements and Christ cults of the first century. That these were works in progress, studied by proto-Christians who developed the thoughts more and revised the work -- or, as in the case of some of the Pauline letters, assembled various arguments within them into a coherent whole.

For those who toe the conservative line, this is of course not an issue, but for anyone who does believe these books were edited and revamped, my question is -- how does this affect the concept of biblical inerrancy? Were the unnamed people who later edited and revised Biblical works thought to also be divinely inspired so as to preclude error?

I'm not really looking for a discussion in inerrancy per se -- it's one that's been had several times. Some people here believe firmly in biblical inerrancy, others such as myself obviously do not, that's a dead horse. But I do wonder if there are Christians who believe that the NT was subjected to revision AND still believe it is inerrant, and if so, how they have arrived at that conclusion.

23382. jayackroyd - 8/15/2004 11:34:03 AM

I'd settle for a firm position from Pelty on whether or not the Pauline materials are authentic.

23383. alistairconnor - 8/15/2004 11:58:15 AM

It's clear enough to me that Woden needs to have power on her head because of the Angel.

23384. pelty - 8/15/2004 6:35:49 PM

"The reason they are told to dress in different ways is because they are women.. You keep saying 'oh, it's the creation order' 'oh, it's just how they're dressing'."

Actually, it is both. And of course they are told to dress different ways because they are women; women generally do have different modes of dress than men. The mode of worship in this period necessitated that women wear head coverings for reasons of propriety. For the same reason that women (and men) today should dress modestly, so also should the women of that period dress modestly. The women are addressed this way because it is likely that they have apparently taken the freedom offered in Christ by Paul too far and have not been wearing the coverings. I repeat, this is a matter of propriety, not a form of submission. Presumably, if the men had been walking about w/ their robes open, he would have told them to "zip it up."

Further, please tell me why being the head of something necessitates authority. Couldn't Paul have simply said "exousia" if that is what he meant? Can you tell me how this word was used in other contexts in this period? As you say, I won't hold my breath on this one.

23385. pelty - 8/15/2004 6:41:24 PM

"By the way, I can't help but notice the way you react entirely differently to me, a man, and Woden, a woman, although our points are more or less exactly the same."

Not entirely true. When she says something that shows she put two seconds of thought into it, I will be happy to respond (and I have in the past. Of course she then responds w/ vitriol, so any attempt to converse on the subject is consequently shut down). If it is, "I am waiting to ridicule and ignore you (please let it be the latter!)", then I will be happy acknowledge her and move on. Plus, it is hard to give much credence to someone who runs off to grab her boyfriend when in a discussion and yet at the same time makes this great stand for feminism.

23386. pelty - 8/15/2004 6:45:19 PM

BTW, the above is not meant w/ venom, although it will surely be taken in such a way. I simply had no interest in continuing the unproductive exchanges btwn Woden and myself, so I acknowledge and move on.

23387. pelty - 8/15/2004 6:58:05 PM

"I'd settle for a firm position from Pelty on whether or not the Pauline materials are authentic."

I cannot give you one, unfortunately. Scholarship does not dispute the Pauline authorship of Rom, 1&2 Cor, Gal, Phil, 1 Thess, and Phlm, but calls the others into question. They base this on any number of reasons from vocabulary to style to deeper issues of content. Yet it seems to me that these selections of the "authentic" Paul seems arbitrary in their own right. Often, it comes down to issues of what sounds "early" or sounds like what we would expect the "apocalyptic Paul" to sound like. Or they may see indications of a development of church structure beyond what they believe to be in place in the 50s-60s CE. The problem is, they are basically woring off of presuppositions that are not necessarily unassailable. I would question (and have questioned) scholars asking them if this approach is not essentially arbitrary in nature, and they to a person have said that this is true. There is no substantive reason that the Pastorals could not be written by the "real" Paul and the "undisputed" books be by a pseudonymous author. That said, there are some interesting issues in this arena with which I still grapple, so I take a rather agnostic position on this issue for the time being, until I have had further time to review and reflect on the issues. I have no problem w/ the undiputed books and to them I would add 2 Thess as well (this book is disputed by about 50% of scholaship and accepted by the same amount). The eschatological arguments (which form the major area of objection for this book) are not particularly persuasive to my mind.

23388. pelty - 8/15/2004 7:02:28 PM

Thus, when discussing Pauline topics, I tend to stay within the seven undisputed books as these are generally accepted by all (to be more precise, I really try to stay within the "Big Four" - Rom, 1&2 Cor, Gal - because there are some who are only "certain" about these four).

23389. angel-five - 8/15/2004 8:31:01 PM

Actually, it is both. And of course they are told to dress different ways because they are women; women generally do have different modes of dress than men.

Why?

The mode of worship in this period necessitated that women wear head coverings for reasons of propriety. For the same reason that women (and men) today should dress modestly, so also should the women of that period dress modestly.

Why?

The women are addressed this way because it is likely that they have apparently taken the freedom offered in Christ by Paul too far and have not been wearing the coverings.

I see you have taken your earlier, ostensibly musing premise that it's all a reaction to Paul's laissez faire teachings which he had to amend in 1 and 2 Corinthians, and converted it to a likely probability. How odd.

I repeat, this is a matter of propriety, not a form of submission.

Congratulations! Not only is this a straw man, it's also stupid.

First because it is, indeed, a form of submission. They are being asked to cover their heads because Paul doesn't find it seemly for them to pray with uncovered ones -- it is submission to his apostolic authority.

Second, it doesn't matter whether or not it's a form of submission. It doesn't need to be in order for it to be sexist. Have you even read the definition yet? It won't bite you.

23390. angel-five - 8/15/2004 8:32:17 PM

Plus, it is hard to give much credence to someone who runs off to grab her boyfriend when in a discussion and yet at the same time makes this great stand for feminism.

That's the second time you've said this, and it's still not true. The fact that you'd think so, however, when faced with no evidence whatsoever, is pretty telling.

Further, please tell me why being the head of something necessitates authority.

This is still a straw man. But I'll note that you had no problem acknowledging the authoritarian nature of the passage before. More backsliding?

I cannot give you one, unfortunately. Scholarship does not dispute the Pauline authorship of Rom, 1&2 Cor, Gal, Phil, 1 Thess, and Phlm, but calls the others into question.

Oh, please. When you find a passage in 1 Corinthians you don't like, you just say 'Paul probably didn't write that bit!'

(to be more precise, I really try to stay within the "Big Four" - Rom, 1&2 Cor, Gal - because there are some who are only "certain" about these four).

Not including you, apparently? Or are you only certain about them when you aren't talking about the parts you don't like to talk about?

23391. pelty - 8/15/2004 8:43:39 PM

"Oh, please. When you find a passage in 1 Corinthians you don't like, you just say 'Paul probably didn't write that bit!'"

Umm, no. I invite you to go back and read what I actually did say.

"Not including you, apparently? Or are you only certain about them when you aren't talking about the parts you don't like to talk about?"

No, I am uncertain about that portion for reasons mentioned before.

23392. woden - 8/15/2004 8:56:09 PM

He's ignoring me because I'm addressing the central points of his arguments. When you bother to address his strawmen he just thinks he's succeeding in diverting attention from his fallacies. Pretty pathetic tactics.

23393. Jenerator - 8/15/2004 11:08:17 PM

Judith,

Re: Thoughts to marriage as a partnership. Quoting the infamous scripture from Ephesians that wives must submit to their husbands, allow me to post the surrounding scriptures.

21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Wives and Husbands

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[2] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[3] 32This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

To start, one HAS to note that the husband is to (1)submit to his wife out of reverence for God (so in other words, it is an act of holiness to for the man to submit to his wife), (2) the husband is called to be as Christ in the relationship, (3)husbands are called to love their wives and demonstrate it in all they do, and (4)the husband is to leave his family in order to begin his new family with his wife.

23394. Jenerator - 8/15/2004 11:09:11 PM

These are incredible standards that the man is to live by in his marriage.

How did Christ love the Church? Well, he met their every need, loved them and prayed for them continuously, effortlessly, and completely. Guided them in wisdom, always, always, always had their best at heart. Christ served the Church as a servant, and above all, he gave of himself for the Church.

Now, this is the standard that husbands are to abide by.

23395. Jenerator - 8/15/2004 11:14:33 PM

The marriage is built on a dual servanthood. Nowhere is man given less of a responsibility than the woman in marriage.

23396. judithathome - 8/15/2004 11:54:35 PM

Jen,

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything

How do you get that the husband is submitting to the wife out of that?

Sorry, I don't see this as saying it is a partnership...the first thing it says is that the husband is the head of his wife. Yes, it says the husband leaves his family to be with the wife but the primary thing, the first thing mentioned is that the wife submit to the head of the house, which is the husband.

Your original claim was that the bible said a man and a woman were partners in a marriage. A partnership doesn't begin with one party submitting to the other. That makes it more a master/servant situation.

23397. Magoseph - 8/15/2004 11:56:30 PM

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.

23398. Wombat - 8/16/2004 12:10:05 AM

Now if they could only make it a one pager with words of three syllables or less...

23399. angel-five - 8/16/2004 4:45:15 AM

Umm, no. I invite you to go back and read what I actually did say.

I invite you to go back and answer the dozen or so questions outstanding to you, Pelty, rather than squirrel about with word choice.

No, I am uncertain about that portion for reasons mentioned before.

Well, you mentioned that it had appeared in a few different spots in different textual versions of Corinthians, and, at the time, you waffled about how one needed to be cautious about whether or not it was really Paul's writing. Now you're talking about Corinthians really being Paul's writing. So, your 'reasons mentioned before' seem to contradict what you're saying now, and you'll forgive me if I find your vagueness to be awfully convenient for you at the expense of the truth.

23400. angel-five - 8/16/2004 4:48:02 AM

To start, one HAS to note that the husband is to (1)submit to his wife out of reverence for God (so in other words, it is an act of holiness to for the man to submit to his wife),

I should thank Jenerator for linking the passage. It is very nice and to the point as far as the discussion goes. But on what planet does this passage say what she says it says? Because it says no such thing! It says 'love your wives.' Can it be that Jenerator thinks 'love' and 'submission' are the same thing? Do I hear the rattling of manacles in the background?

23401. angel-five - 8/16/2004 4:52:35 AM

How did Christ love the Church? Well, he met their every need, loved them and prayed for them continuously, effortlessly, and completely. Guided them in wisdom, always, always, always had their best at heart. Christ served the Church as a servant, and above all, he gave of himself for the Church.

Yes because as we all know the Church predates Christ... or something.

23402. angel-five - 8/16/2004 4:57:48 AM

I'm gonna sit here and wait for someone to demonstrate, even attempt to demonstrate, how that passage incites husbands to submit to their wives! That is just the grossest, rankest, stupidest lie uttered in this thread in a few weeks, and that's saying a lot.

23403. pelty - 8/16/2004 6:31:18 AM

"Now you're talking about Corinthians really being Paul's writing. So, your 'reasons mentioned before' seem to contradict what you're saying now, and you'll forgive me if I find your vagueness to be awfully convenient for you at the expense of the truth."

"...you waffled about how one needed to be cautious about whether or not it was really Paul's writing."

Come on, A-5! You surely are not so ignorant about text criticism that you cannot figure this one out! I will allow you to have the pleasure; it should not be too difficult. The baby does not need to be thrown out w/ the bathwater.

"I invite you to go back and answer the dozen or so questions outstanding to you"

You first. Plus, your questions are pointless. Why do women have different modes of dress than men? I don't know. Do you wear a skirt regularly? If not, why not?

Why dress modestly? No other reason than a general desire (Jewish and Xian) that men and women dress w/ restraint. This is not a position specific to Paul.

Is there really anything left to say on this topic? You are convinced that I am a waffler who will set up straw men in an attempt to avoid answering your question at any cost, that I am a hopeless sexist who does not even understand the meaning of the word, and that I don't know my elbow from my arse; I am convinced that you are either stubborn, purposefully obtuse, or simply a dullard who cannot or will not read the text within the framework of the Pauline material or within the framework of the section of the letter and of the passage itself, and that you don't know your elbow from your arse.

In any event, this is really going nowhere and we are not likely to have a meeting of the minds. Can we be done? Many other topics surely await us...

23404. angel-five - 8/16/2004 6:59:32 AM

Come on, A-5! You surely are not so ignorant about text criticism that you cannot figure this one out!

Yes, it's easy. Either Paul wrote all of it or he did not. First you were saying no, now you're saying yes. Either Corinthians was all written by Paul or it was not. You can't just take the bits you don't like and seize upon some kind of excuse as to them being possible glosses.

You first.

Show me any questions I missed answering.

Plus, your questions are pointless. Why do women have different modes of dress than men? I don't know. Do you wear a skirt regularly? If not, why not?

They're only pointless if you're hell-bent on not seeing the obvious and making yet another straw man. Paul doesn't sit and say that men and women have different modes of dress. He sais that women should cover their heads or be sinful, while it is sinful for men to do so, while in church, and he says why. I ask you why. You are currently doing your best to not answer that question, and I think we both know why.

Why dress modestly? No other reason than a general desire (Jewish and Xian) that men and women dress w/ restraint. This is not a position specific to Paul.

Show me where Paul makes it an issue of both men and women dressing 'w/ restraint'.

Is there really anything left to say on this topic?

You mean, aside from answering simple questions, Pelty?

There is clearly a whole lot more to say on this topic. You're just unwilling to say it.

Can we be done?

Oh, we can be done whenever you like; I'm just not going to let you go on posting and pretending you've addressed the point fairly. If you want to stop, stop anytime you like. It is as easy as not posting, and that's easy. But so long as you keep making wrong-headed posts about the discussion, I'll keep answering them. The choice is yours.

23405. angel-five - 8/16/2004 7:01:20 AM

Of course, I might eventually get bored. There's always that tactic.

23406. angel-five - 8/16/2004 8:33:33 AM

Ask yourself, Jenerator, why you have to mislead in order to make your Biblical points, and what that means about your points.

Ephesians 5

That's a link to an e-text of Ephesians 5, KJV. It's the chapter which Jenerator excised a cite from (ironically while claiming to be providing the context). I am supposing she thought no one would go and look at the text.

It is a short chapter, and in the ensuing posts I'll put up the whole thing so anyone minded to can read it and see what I'm saying.

23407. angel-five - 8/16/2004 8:34:46 AM

1: Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;
2: And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour.
3: But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
4: Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.
5: For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
6: Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
7: Be not ye therefore partakers with them.
8: For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:
9: (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)
10: Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.
11: And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
12: For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
13: But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
14: Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.
15: See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise,
16: Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.
17: Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.
18: And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

23408. angel-five - 8/16/2004 8:35:47 AM

19: Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
20: Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
21: Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
22: Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23: 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.
24: Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25: Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26: That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28: So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29: For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31: For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32: This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33: Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

23409. angel-five - 8/16/2004 8:37:46 AM

The simplest most cursory reading of this chapter shows that the 'submit to one another' bit is not directed at husbands and wives. It is directed at the Ephesians in general, and so there can be no mistake on the part of the reader as to whether or not this applies to EVERYONE, the Author then goes on to clarify the relationship between husbands and wives -- wives submit and reverence, husbands love and cherish.

I know, it's sneaky and hard to follow! You have to read entire sentences and know subjects from verbs!

23410. angel-five - 8/16/2004 9:01:31 AM

The one crystal clear thing that shines through in all this chimpery is that the author of these books views men and women as having different roles and different purposes based upon why the Judeo-Christian god made them.

We see it again and again -- Christ is the head of man, man is the glory of Christ, Man is the head of woman, woman is the glory of Man. Man and woman are commanded, at least some of the time, to act differently precisely because they are men and women and have different roles. We see it in marriage, we see it in church, we see it out walkin' around in public.

That is sexism.

That is the simplest definition of sexism, in fact.

Some people, like Pelty, find reason to question whether Paul was a sexist, because (although they get pretty vague on this point) there are some points where Paul doesn't bother to assign different roles to men and women explicitly. What's important to understand is that that doesn't matter. If you think that, say, blacks should let white people govern them because that's how nature seems to intend it to go, the fact that you think both can drive cars safely doesn't change anything other than the degree of racism you're exhibiting! There isn't anyone in this conversation (I hope) who would say that 'well, you can't call someone a racist for saying that whites should be in charge of blacks, if they also say both of them can drive.' Guess what? It's precisely the same logic at work when Pelty says 'I do not think we can fairly call Paul a sexist, because because because.'

Part of the problem is that 'sexist' is a scary and highly negative word for some people to apply to a figure they revere. Oh, well.

23411. angel-five - 8/16/2004 9:02:26 AM

Some people also apparently have difficulty with the 'complexities' of sexism -- i.e. someone can be fairly progressive in certain areas when it comes to gender, and still be quite sexist. Pelty and Jenerator have insisted that Paul was egalitarian about women in some ways. They haven't done much of a job to substantiate that (preferring to repeatedly assert it) but the simple point is that even if they were right, it wouldn't touch upon the very explicit points in his letters where Paul offers his theories that men and women have to act differently based on his god's immanentized plan and purpose for each. Will they admit this? No. Hell, they won't even admit any of it's sexist. But the rest of us can see it, and aren't hamstrung by the political realities of being religious in a secular debate forum, so we can admit it whenever we like.

23412. Roy Bean - 8/16/2004 9:40:00 AM

Good use of immanentized in a sentence.

23413. alistairconnor - 8/16/2004 9:50:54 AM

Pelty : The baby does not need to be thrown out w/ the bathwater.

When you find a turd floating in the bathwater, you declare "That's an interpolation... the baby didn't do that!"

23414. Jenerator - 8/16/2004 3:40:47 PM

Judith and Resonance,

Both of you failed to even look at the scriptures I posted. No, you focused solely on 'wives submitting'. You are guilty of ripping scripture out of context! Also, if you had actually read what I wrote you would see that men bare a huge responsibility in marriage; some argue that their role is more difficult than the role of the wife.

How can you sit there and accuse me of "lying" when you didn't even read what I wrote????

Men are to model Christ in the marriages!!! Do you even have the foggiest idea as to what that means?

The bottom line is that you have a problem with the word "submit" and you have a perverted sense of authority.

23415. Jenerator - 8/16/2004 3:43:26 PM

Resonance,

I do not use the KJV out of preference for other versions. This might come as a shocker for you, but I prefer to use versions that do not rely on the Textus Receptus.

23416. Jenerator - 8/16/2004 3:49:55 PM

Judith and Resonance,

Jesus preached the servanthood of man. First and foremost Christ came as a servant. We believers are called to serve one another, and this includes marriage. If you do not believe me, look at Phillipians chapter 2.

Again, what I think what you both are struggling with is the word "submit". I suspect that "submit" conjures images of S & M or of slave labor, but that's wrong.

Husbands are called to love their wives as Christ loved the church (*Resonance, the church means his body of believers). The marriage is a partnership of love in that the man serves his wife in every way, and she submits to his leadership. This does not mean that she walks 20 feet behind him or that she is called to suffer in silence. Rather, it means that she trusts him in matters to lead the home spirtually, morally and finacially.

I encourage you to read about the Titus 2 man and woman.

23417. woden - 8/16/2004 3:59:04 PM

"Rather, it means that she trusts him in matters to lead the home spirtually, morally and finacially. "

But that's not sexist?

I'm starting to think that the religious people on this thread actually don't have the ability to reason. It sounds like I'm saying this to be rude, but that is what I sincerely think. Res and I talked about this for a while.

Do you all realize that you're loudly shouting "2+2=5!!!" and earlier, making some pointed put-downs of people who don't submit to your 2+2=5 theories.

The idea that you really aren't capable of understanding or that you never bothered to study logic is the only thing that allows me to think charitably of you right now.

23418. woden - 8/16/2004 4:02:03 PM

I mean, look at the definition of sexism and then look at what YOU are saying about the scripture. You are basically BRINGING UP examples of blatant sexism yourself as a purported example of non-sexist scripture. Why would you do that? It could only be that you don't understand what you're saying.

23419. woden - 8/16/2004 4:05:10 PM

Why not just say, yeah, this literature is sexist but personally I find nothing wrong with living that way because A, B, and C.

There are lots of churches and believers who just embrace those teachings wholeheartedly without trying to say a cat is a dog in order to make it all palatable.

23420. Jenerator - 8/16/2004 4:08:04 PM

No, it's not sexist Woden. You'll see when you get married. There will be some things that you inherently trust Resonance with.

The bottom line is that Christians share a world view that nonbelievers have a difficult if not impossible time understanding. It doesn't mean that we're not capable of reasoning, it means that you and I share understandings or truths that are not reconcilable.

Furthermore, you and Resonance are the only ones who are regularly and routinely trying to tear down people with your unnecessary condescension. That shows me that you are incapable of even the most basics of civility.

Trust me, I am just as frustrated as you, but I am not shouting the obscentities or the accusations that I, and most lkely a host of others, would see as fitting.

Also, what I find completely telling is that both you and Resonance consider yourselves experts in this, and there are two doctoral students who post here!! No, it's always got to be us Christians who have a problem with logic, never you. Maybe you need to examine your motives and misconceptions in all of this. You seemingly bring your own understandings to the table and then cite scripture you believe supports your position(s). That is a common mistake to make, but heaven forbid anyone try and tell you otherwise.

All of this talk is a waste of time. I commend pelty on his patience.

23421. Jenerator - 8/16/2004 4:09:34 PM

Woden,

One last thing, if you would, explain to me what men loving their wives as Christ loved the church means.

23422. Jenerator - 8/16/2004 4:10:34 PM

This is a sick generation.

23423. woden - 8/16/2004 4:19:57 PM

As you are fond of pointing out, there is objective truth, Jen.

"No, it's not sexist Woden. You'll see when you get married. There will be some things that you inherently trust Resonance with."

But...that's not the same thing as what you just said. You said the husband is the leader of the wife, not that the wife trusts the husband with some things.

"The bottom line is that Christians share a world view that nonbelievers have a difficult if not impossible time understanding. It doesn't mean that we're not capable of reasoning, it means that you and I share understandings or truths that are not reconcilable. "

Well, you just admitted that you are not using the same paradigm as non-believers. In the system of logic, there's no such thing as truths that cannot be reconcilable. That is the definition of logic and how it works! I am okay with that, if you are going on faith, that's fine. But why would you blatantly say you are not using logic and then get really angry at me for pointing it out? It's the same thing you keep doing. You should not talk to non-believers about your faith if you're just going to abandon the common system of thought and then get worked up and mad at the non-believers.

23424. judithathome - 8/16/2004 4:20:18 PM

Both of you failed to even look at the scriptures I posted

Jenerator, I would appreciate it if you would not make assumptions about me. I read every single word of what you posted. Your problem with me seems to be that I understood it all too well. Perhaps you should get over this idea that because people disagree with you, they are automatically stupid.

23425. woden - 8/16/2004 4:21:39 PM

>there are two doctoral students who post here!!

You have heard of the fallacy "appeal to authority"?

Jen, have you studied rhetorical logic and symbolic logic in school? Yes or no.

23426. judithathome - 8/16/2004 4:23:48 PM

Rather, it means that she trusts him in matters to lead the home spirtually, morally and finacially

Because a wife couldn't possibly trust herself in these matters.

Jen, if you need a new fridge, and see one on sale at a great bargain, do you wait and ask your husband about it or do you buy the damned thing and have it delivered to your house?

23427. judithathome - 8/16/2004 4:25:31 PM

There will be some things that you inherently trust Resonance with.

Yes, Woden, because just loving him is not enough. When you enter the magic kingdom of marriage, and get the secret handbook, you'll see that you really CAN trust the man.

23428. woden - 8/16/2004 4:41:49 PM

You know what, not that someone should have to take any special course in school to be able to follow this.

Jen, you are posting things in plain english, then you are MAD at me for simply reading what you wrote. YOU posted that scripture says the man is in charge of the wife, not me. Then you're mad because I say that is sexist.

Then you get mad because I said you weren't logical and proceeded to post that you were not using the system of logic, ie, you are using truths that cannot be reconciled.

It's like, you are hopping mad at us for not having the magic truth filter or whatever that only people in your church can use, which makes words mean something other than what they mean in the English language.

23429. judithathome - 8/16/2004 4:45:01 PM

Furthermore, you and Resonance are the only ones who are regularly and routinely trying to tear down people with your unnecessary condescension.

Jen, for you to say this is ridiculous...you constantly condescend to people who are non-believers. You do it to me all the time...you bring up your education level and your superior understanding of God's word; you charge me with not having read your cites and if I've read them, with not understanding the core meaning or indeed, any of it.

You've even confronted me before about what college I attended knowing full well I never attended college at all. So don't go setting Woden and Res as the gold standard in condescension; you've set the bar fairly high yourself.

23430. woden - 8/16/2004 4:52:29 PM

This is what Jen is saying: I'm not using logical thought, I'm using revealed truths that cannot be reconciled. But you are a mean, condescending person for saying I'm not logical.

My only other alternative is to think you're just being malicious but I chose to think that you simply didn't understand. But I'm a jerk for doing so. Whatever!

23431. woden - 8/16/2004 4:54:25 PM

Pelty and Jen: The man is in charge of the wife, he is the leader, she is not. But you are horribly wrong if you think that means men and women have different roles based on sex.

23432. wonkers2 - 8/16/2004 5:03:55 PM

Hardly anyone will admit to supporting sexism today, so who cares what St Paul's position was? Plenty of people are opposed to stem cell research. What about pelty, Jen or K-Man? See my earlier posting of what I found to be an interesting article which tries to reconcile the pro and con positions on stem cell research. Message # 23370

23433. thoughtful - 8/16/2004 5:39:54 PM

Just stepping in to suggest that perhaps a definition of sexism would help this argument along.

Seems to me that sexism in jen's mind suggests that women are demeaned, mistreated, and disrespected. She's suggesting that that is not the xtian way in that it places a counterbalancing requirement on men's behavior just as it does on women. Men are to be obeyed, but they are not to ask the unreasonable. Men are the final arbiters in decisions, by they need to consider the women's pov in making that decision.

Seems to me that J@h et al are suggesting that sexism is any required/expected/suggested behavior differences from women vs men simply because they are women. So the fact that women are not allowed to be the final arbiter in any decision (unless the man says they can) just because they are women is sexism.

23434. judithathome - 8/16/2004 6:02:43 PM

Yes, and it would be the same if the Bible suggested that men submit to their wives and that wives were next to God and husbands were to defer to their wives in all things godly.

Main Entry: sex·ism

Pronunciation: 'sek-"si-z&m

Function: noun

Etymology: 1sex + -ism (as in racism)

1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women

2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

23435. alistairconnor - 8/16/2004 6:07:10 PM

I think that it's absurdly anachronistic to accuse Paul of sexism (misogyny is another issue).

Someone name me an author, say pre-18th century, who is not sexist?

(OK, maybe we can find two or three... but you get the point)

There are a lot of writers I have immense respect for, but there is stuff you just have to make allowances for. The fact that Erasmus or Montaigne were sexist bastards casts a certain light on their thinking, but does not me to discard it en bloc.

This is because I am capable of critical thought, and do not find it necessary to apply someone else's body of doctrine to compensate my abdication of personal moral judgement.

23436. judithathome - 8/16/2004 6:12:11 PM

I don't care if authors are sexist...what I resent is someone trying to tell me they are not when they clearly are. And then telling me what is written is not what is there. And then saying I am some sort of mental defective because I dont agree with them and don't live my life the way they feel I should. And then acting as though I am the one who just doesn't understand.

I get it. I just don't buy what they are selling.

23437. woden - 8/16/2004 6:18:46 PM

Yes, well. Of course it's only natural that someone of Paul's generation would be sexist. My point was never that it was somehow outrageous or wrong that this is the case.

Originally I was talking about pro-lifers and why their stance won't ever be mainstream. That's because they are living their lives based on doctrine written by a sexist person. I was then insulted. Jen is still insulting me "sick generation" and then whining that res and I are being mean to her.

It's a perfect example of what I was talking about, actually. Why would I ever want to be involved in a movement that is mainly religious - so I can be insulted for my beliefs, and lied to?

I appreciate this is boring for people, but if you introduce the stem-cell topic, don't you think the same thing is going to happen again?

23438. alistairconnor - 8/16/2004 6:26:36 PM

I suspect that the religious people are reluctant to talk about stem cells because they are confused : they don't have an established doctrine on it, and are unwilling to think for themselves.

Or perhaps there is a straightforward doctrinal position, but it's an indefensible one.

23439. judithathome - 8/16/2004 6:37:43 PM

Well, they aren't saying much about it so it's one or the other.

Maybe the memo hasn't come down from on high about it as yet.

23440. woden - 8/16/2004 6:44:45 PM

I didn't even touch on the part about how it's wrong for me to cite scripture and say what I think it means.

It's humorous, Jen's church says I have no right to do that, and I was just supposed to know and obey that.

23441. judithathome - 8/16/2004 6:58:48 PM

Or be pulled in by it before understanding it, which we can never do unless we study it properly for years and with the right people, not the ones who don't understand it prpoerly, either.

23442. judithathome - 8/16/2004 6:59:35 PM

properly, which obviously I can't do, not being able to even spell it.

23443. thoughtful - 8/16/2004 7:00:47 PM

Well, I think the heart of the problem is inerrancy.

If you say that Paul said what was correct for the time (or as important at that time for distinguishing the newly forming xtian religion from other more popular ones, and is now no longer necessary) and that through the light of modern interpretation it would be acceptable to soften those requirements...just as with the dietary laws...or the requirement that women cover their heads to pray...then that would allow one to be non-sexist and xtian. But that's opening up a huge door of human interpretation on what is supposed to be completely inerrant text.

Therefore if you won't open that door, you are left with following a largely sexist doctrine and saying it is sexist and so what...that's the way god intended. Or you are left with following a largely sexist doctrine but saying, in your view, it's not sexist...or at least not harmful in the way it distinguishes the sexes, just as gynecology, prostate surgery and hysterectomies are sexist but not harmful.

Those are the options I see.

23444. Jenerator - 8/16/2004 7:13:15 PM

You have heard of the fallacy "appeal to authority"?

Jen, have you studied rhetorical logic and symbolic logic in school? Yes or no

Yes, Woden, I have.

23445. Jenerator - 8/16/2004 7:15:09 PM

Also, I am still waiting for you to explain to me what it means for a husband to love his wife as Christ loved the church.

23446. The Summer Woman - 8/16/2004 7:31:01 PM

If you don't mind, I will take a stab at it.

Christ loved the Church because it was through the Church that his message and love could be spread. Therefore, for a husband to love his wife as Christ loved the Church might mean that a man must spread his message and his love through his wife. It could simply be an exhortation to go and multiply.

23447. Jenerator - 8/16/2004 7:45:45 PM

Summer,

Are believers to submit to the authority of Christ? Is Christ our authority? If so, how then do we submit on a practical basis?

23448. PelleNilsson - 8/16/2004 7:59:52 PM

One would assume that Christ considered the church to be subservient to his teachings. So Paul's words could be read as "love your wife if she obeys you".

woden and A5 sees Paul's letter to the Corinthian's as an expression of a specifically Christian sexist ideology. As a follow-up to thoughtful's post I think it can be seen from another angle. Paul was culturally a Greek. Corinth was a Greek city. There is no doubt that, seen through the raster of today's values, hellenism was a sexist culture. A respectable Greek woman was veiled when she appeared in public. Given that, the letter can be seen as an attempt by Paul to assure the Corinthians that the new religion was one that respected the accepted societal norms and values. That may have been important because for the general observer there are many similarities between Christianity and the orgiastic mystery cults, such as the central place awarded to the mystery of death and resurrection, the importance of the holy meal and so on.

Generally speaking, its is rather profitable to analyze Paul in term of a politician who tries to packetize his message for maximum appeal while trying to safe-guard its ideological core.

23449. PelleNilsson - 8/16/2004 8:01:03 PM

I composed my latest before I read Jen's latest.

23450. iiibbb - 8/16/2004 8:01:15 PM

I'm going to stay out of this argument... however.... Christ loved the church so much he gave his life away, took on all the burdens of our sins so that we wouldn't have to be responsible for them.

It's almost a blank check, all we have to is submit(accept) this gift.

Personally, I try not to mix symantics and religion. I was watching that show about Paul that Peter Jennings or Dan Rather or whoever did. He asked a minister what he had to say about all the inconsistancies in the Bible... to which the minister replied, "Well, it's God's message, but it was written by people that were only human, so it isn't perfect".

I can live with that.

The church is an extended family, I think that's it's main function. I helps people who don't have anyone. Back in the day, a lot of religions were very closed to outsiders. Christianity became popular because it was all about setting up support systems for those who didn't have money or families... you could count on the church to take care of you if you couldn't.

I think that's the central concept. That's the part I try to subscribe to and live toward. Try not to live only for myself, but try to make a contribution that may not get you a reward in the end.

It's obviously impossible to live up to this standard, and that's where Jesus comes in.... if you choose to subscribe to that.

23451. iiibbb - 8/16/2004 8:08:16 PM

As far as the modern issues of abortion... stem cell research and whatnot.

It's mainly a matter of when does life begin... conception or birth? Personally, I think it's conception.

The conflict is our government doesn't officially sponsor any religions, and so some people may not believe that life begins at conception. That's between them and God as far as I'm concerned...

but I think there's nothing wrong with limiting late-term abortions (except in cases where the woman's life is in danger... or rape). I can't see why someone would wait longer than 3 months to decide whether to keep a child. I think by that time you have a clear responsibility for your actions.

In all other cases I'm basically pro-choice... because I admit I have no clear mandate to tell others what to do... but we have to accept some kind of standard, because I don't think life is limited to whether you can live outside the womb or not. There's lots of people that would die without some kind of external support, either by drugs or technology...

Said my peace... enjoy your argument.

23452. angel-five - 8/16/2004 8:23:47 PM

No, you focused solely on 'wives submitting'. You are guilty of ripping scripture out of context! Also, if you had actually read what I wrote you would see that men bare a huge responsibility in marriage; some argue that their role is more difficult than the role of the wife.

How can you sit there and accuse me of "lying" when you didn't even read what I wrote????

I read what you wrote. It's apparent that you did not. I didn't rip it out of context -- you're the one who deliberately excised the quote so as to make it look like the 'submit to each other' line applied to husbands and wives. Yes, you did that deliberately. Yes, that's dishonest. Yes, you're angry that you got caught. Yes, that's all very stupid of you. Yes, go rant some more at Woden when she's simply pointing out exactly what you're doing.

23453. angel-five - 8/16/2004 8:25:16 PM

Just stepping in to suggest that perhaps a definition of sexism would help this argument along.

I posted one already. In fact, I think it's the same one that Judith just posted. It isn't helping the thumpers comprehend the word, though. It's just making them crankier.

23454. angel-five - 8/16/2004 8:28:01 PM

Message # 23436

This is exactly correct.

23455. angel-five - 8/16/2004 8:30:41 PM

Yes, Woden, I have.

Then how come you can't exhibit an ounce of it?

FWIW I don't believe you ever had training in logic. You show zero familiarity with its formal operations.

Generally speaking, its is rather profitable to analyze Paul in term of a politician who tries to packetize his message for maximum appeal while trying to safe-guard its ideological core.

That's what I was getting at when I said you have to be cautious about reading the text.

23456. thoughtful - 8/16/2004 8:40:45 PM

Q? Wasn't there also desire to make sure Paul, formerly Saul, was creating a church that was very distinct from the jewish religion? In temple men's heads are covered, women's are not...sabbath on sat. vs. sunday.

23457. The Summer Woman - 8/16/2004 8:55:52 PM

Are believers to submit to the authority of Christ? Is Christ our authority? If so, how then do we submit on a practical basis?

I'm sorry, Jen. I can't connect your questions to the interpretation I suggested.

23458. woden - 8/16/2004 9:02:51 PM

>Also, I am still waiting for you to explain to me what it means for a husband to love his wife as Christ loved the church.

Why? That's your idea that you're selling, not mine. But since you'll say I'm ducking, I'll answer it.

The Church is an institution which worships and obeys Christ. So I guess he's saying that a wife should worship and obey her husband. In the hierarchy, Christ is clearly at the top, his followers underneath. Paul is clearly using this analogy to reinforce the other things he says which make it clear that the wife is to be led by the husband.

If Paul wanted to say that husbands and wives were equal, he would have chosen some kind of relationship of equality to illustrate this, not a relationship of God to worshippers.

Just because Joe at Joe's Bible College says something else doesn't automatically make it true.

23459. thoughtful - 8/16/2004 9:03:19 PM

i's b's, I don't understand your position....you believe life begins at conception, but you are pro choice? You believe there should be limits on late-term abortions and you see no reason to end pregnancy after 3 mos (though ultrasound/amnios often don't reveal fetal defects until 4 mos or later), but you have no mandate to tell others what to do. I have absolutely no idea where you stand on the issue then.

Are you pro-stem cell research?

23460. woden - 8/16/2004 9:08:41 PM

It doesn't advance your argument to ask me irrelevant questions and demand an answer.

Before you go off about it, I agreed with your conclusion - that the husband is supposed to be the leader in the relationship according to this passage. This is what you said yourself. If you want to argue against it, be my guest but I can't see why you'd argue against your own beliefs.

23461. iiibbb - 8/16/2004 9:10:45 PM

It's the difference between what I would personally do... i.e. I abstain because I don't want to have to deal with being involved in an abortion that's my responsibility...

... but I believe the subject is abiguous enough that I'm not going to project my belief onto others.... it's between them and God as far as I'm concerned. I don't feel I know the right answer well enough to tell someone else... but I think I know the answer well enough to not want to be responsible for an abortion.

As far as stem cell research... that whole subject is muddled because there are sources other than embryos... and they can be cultured. I do think there is plenty of room for immoral behaivior in the field, but I don't feel the subject is inherantly immoral.

I don't care if my position is ambigous. I am trying to straddle my beliefs and the principles this country is based on.

23462. thoughtful - 8/16/2004 9:28:23 PM

i wasn't suggesting your position was ambiguous, only that your explanation was. I think i understand it better now.

Re stem cells, my understanding is there is a difference between those of embryos and those that are cultured, esp since there is an extremely limited number of lines...far less available than initially suggested by the bushies when they changed the regulations to existing lines.

23463. iiibbb - 8/16/2004 10:41:17 PM

I'm just confident that no matter what moral compass I may be using... it's likely going to be as wrong as almost everyone else's on any single matter.

I make an honest effort to do my best, do what's right, and help other people where I can. I recognize I'm not perfect... I trust that most of what God wants is the effort to do right as best you can figure it out... If you get it wrong... well... Jesus has got you covered.

I just don't think arguing over semantics (after several translations, and many political itterations of the bible) is what God is looking for.

23464. jayackroyd - 8/16/2004 10:45:23 PM

Dan Savage has an interesting comment on the McGreaveys, marriage and gays:

If it does nothing else, the McGreevey marriage highlights the chief absurdity of the anti-gay-marriage argument: Gay men can, in point of fact, get married -- provided we marry women, duped or otherwise. The porousness of the sacred institution is remarkable: Gay people are a threat to marriage, but gay people are encouraged to marry -- indeed, we have married, under duress, for centuries, and the religious right would like us to continue to do so today -- as long as our marriages are a sham. As long as we're willing to lie to ourselves, our wives, our communities, our children, and for someone like McGreevey, our constituents. A closeted gay man like McGreevey can even marry twice and have both his marriages regarded as legitimate. Even as an openly gay man, McGreevey can remain married to his wife and smoke all the pole he likes on the side. There ain't no law agin' it, Sen. Santorum. But how does this state of affairs protect marriage from the homos, I wonder? If an openly gay man can get married as long as his marriage makes a mockery of what is the defining characteristic of modern marriage -- romantic love -- or if he marries simply because he despairs of finding a same-sex partner, what harm could possibly be done by opening marriage to the gay men who don't want to make a mockery of marriage or who can find a same-sex partner?

23465. Jenerator - 8/16/2004 10:57:30 PM

Well, you know what Woden? You and I are at an impasse. Neither one of us is agreeing with one another's position and we both think we're right.

The bottom line is that I AM A FEMALE CHRISTIAN WHO DOES NOT SEE PAUL AS A SEXIST, nor do I, THE FEMALE CHRISTIAN, have a problem with the biblical understanding of wives submitting to their husbands. From my academic as well as personal studies of the scriptures, I have never interpreted them as you and Resonance have.

And, from what I have seen and experienced with both of you, you don't care what other people think - you're already convinced you understand more than a practicing believing Christian - female or not.

23466. thoughtful - 8/16/2004 11:12:43 PM

Hmmm. I guess I'm just dense. I'm trying to understand your take on this situation Jen, and shouting it loudly doesn't add clarity.

If it is correct for a woman to obey a man and that is NOT sexist then it can only be that a woman qua woman is in fact subservient by her very nature.

In other words, it is not (what is the word?) "dog-ist" to treat a dog as subservient to humans as dogs by their very nature are in fact subservient and dependent. Dogs are created subservient, so it is only correct and proper to treat them thusly and it represents no "-ism" at all.

Is that your argument?

23467. Jenerator - 8/17/2004 12:08:34 AM

My argument is that marriage is based on the nation of dual servanthood, and that woman are called to serve their husbands and husbands are called to serve their wives. Both are called to serve in different but complimentary ways. Submitting out of love is not sexist; some are applying their 21 century take on "submitting" as inherently sexist, when in actuality, it was not intended to be.

23468. Jenerator - 8/17/2004 12:10:22 AM

I can see someone saying, "The bible says we're to 'serve our fellow man'!! Well, that's sexist and who does the Bible think I am, some kind of waitress!?!"

23469. anomie - 8/17/2004 12:16:23 AM

Pleasure to see the activity in your thread, Jen.

Glad you're as feisty as ever. As mystifying too...and exasperating...

But, really, it's been good reading for the short time I had today.

23470. anomie - 8/17/2004 12:19:16 AM

Woden,

Hello. I'm an old poster, at least twice your age, and half your intelligence. A5 may remember me, and we both have probably had a good chuckle as you've discovered the amazing things some Christians can do with language.

I've enjoyed your exchanges, and hope to see more of both you and A5 here. He always livens things up.

23471. anomie - 8/17/2004 12:20:10 AM

A5,

Hello. Always good to see you here!

Cheers!

23472. wonkers2 - 8/17/2004 12:23:00 AM

So what if Paul was a male chauvinist pig? I assume that nearly men of his era were. Until recently women were little more than chattel in this country. If memory serves, women didn't get the right to vote until the early 20th century. Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, yet we still consider them among the greatest presidents while rejecting their position on slavery. It's called enlightenment. There is no reason why we can't take from Paul what is applicable to our lives today and forget about the parts that have been superceded by modern manners, science and morals. Why is that so hard for you to grasp, jen, pelty?

23473. Jenerator - 8/17/2004 12:29:20 AM

Wonkers2

Religion a la carte doesn't appeal to me.

Hi anomie!!

23474. wonkers2 - 8/17/2004 12:34:28 AM

Well, your tortured attempts (and Pelty's) to deny that St Paul was sexist aren't very convincing. The place of women in western society has improved a lot in the last 100 years or so, but not due to fundamentalists and scripturalists.

23475. thoughtful - 8/17/2004 12:44:59 AM

OK, Jen, I think I'm getting closer to understanding but here's my problem. You say complementary ways, but that to me implies balance (i do the cooking, you do the dishes).

However, the paul text suggests an imbalance in power in the relationship between man and woman if the man is the final arbiter in all decisions. Further it suggests an inflexibility in that relationship so that role reversal is not possible. So for example, if the husband is a lit major but can't add 2+2 and the wife is a finance guru, isn't the couple better off if the wife handles the finances instead of the husband? Or can the wife only handle the books with husband's permission? Is it hers to serve by standing mutely by while husband proceeds to lose all the family assets in poor financial decisions?

And what happens if the husband should become ill...stroke, gambling problem, alzheimers? Is it still her role to abide by his decisions, irrational though they may be? Or under those circumstances, would she be able to serve by taking charge?

You see, I'm all for partnership and complementary relationships. I do the taxes and hubby does the electrical work. Believe me, we are both happier and better off doing it that way. On expenditures of any consequence, we make those decisions together...be it buying a tractor for him or an appliance for me. We both have veto power. We both consider each other's needs/wants in making those decisions.

23476. thoughtful - 8/17/2004 12:45:06 AM

To push the complementary analysis further, a master and slave have complementary and well-defined roles. One is to set tasks, make decisions, provide food, clothing, shelter. The other is to obey, perform tasks, ask no questions. Master has to consider slave's welfare if he expects to keep him alive. Slave works to keep master happy if he expects to be kept alive. Both in some sense serve each other, both in some sense benefit from the relationship, and both are dependent on each other. Both have an important role to play. But clearly there is an imbalance of power and control and decision making.

So, as with slave and master, to define the role for the wife as always subservient, even if complementary in some regard, is still sexist.

23477. thoughtful - 8/17/2004 12:52:22 AM

The reason why I'm pushing this is to understand what happens when a husband fails in his god-given role. I'm assuming man is to be the provider (though I may be wrong). So here's my girlfriend, extremely religious, aching for children all her life and yet having none because her very religious husband is incapable of holding a real job for any length of time. (He has 2 masters degrees and studied paralegal besides.) He's dragged her off to many locations in places around the world where he loses his job and she always ends up being the sole wage earner. As the dutiful xtain wife, she has done as he's wished and gone where he's asked. As such, she's never been able to afford the luxury of children, which I know just breaks her heart. And even at that...even at that, she makes dinner in the a.m. in the crockpot before she leaves for work, and then has to rush home to feed him, because he won't even dish a stew out of a pot for himself!

She never complains about him, I never criticize their relationship.

But to me, this is just nuts.

So what does the bible allow when a man fails to consider his wife's needs and wants and fails to perform his role as head of the family? When is it her turn to say, enough! Ever?

23478. anomie - 8/17/2004 12:53:37 AM

Thoughtfull! Hi! Good analysis.

...from the peanut gallery.

23479. anomie - 8/17/2004 12:55:33 AM

iiibbb,

Why the exception for rape? Is this punishing the child for the sins of the father? I never understood this.

I say, track the rapist down and do him in...in a Christian capital punishment way.

23480. wonkers2 - 8/17/2004 1:03:29 AM

Frank Richter offers the following as a way out of the stem cell research vs. religion dilemma:

"Embryologists tell us that 14 DAYS AFTER FERTILIZATION the embryo begins a 'primitive streak' where a backbone forms, organs start to grow and genes are turned on. During these 14 days, a single undeveloped human embryo can split into two distinct embryos producing twins. Likewise two emhbryos can fuse together producing a single new embryo.

"Most (?) people believe human life begins at fertilization and that each individual embryo is endowed with one soul at that time. But if religious assumptions are accurate, how can two soul/embryos merge into one person or one soul/embryo split into two in the two weeks after fertilization?

"Logic suggests that a window period of up to two weeks might exist. In this time period nascent human embryos, while constituting life forms, may not have matured into human individuals--what we call life."

The above formulation could provide a basis for reconciling the religious call for a respect for human life at whatever stage and the scientific community's call for stem cell research in an effort to protect and preserve human life.

???

Message # 23370 for link to article.

23481. Jenerator - 8/17/2004 2:02:43 AM

Thoughtful,

I like your definitions up-thread. I have read your posts on the matter, and I appreciate your levity. Regarding your scenarios in Message # 23475, they're somewhat silly. While we're called to submit to our husbands, we're both to be stewards of what we have. If the husband comes downwith Alzheimers, the wife should take care of him in a respectable manner. We're not suddenly blinded because we're married. Also, in scripture (can't rememember which one) the woman is the keeper of the books - probably because woman usually has the aptitude and theinclination there. If neither one does, it gets worked out.

Judith asked me if I would impulsively buy a bargain priced fridge without consulting my husband, implying that doing so would constitute some form of sexism. Well, I would consult with my husband and if he pointed out that we couldn't afford it, or we shouldn't do it, I wouldn't buy it.

He and I talk about things. In fact, the only times the word submit comes up is when my husband jokingly says, "Get in there and do the dishes!" To which I promptly role my eyes. He then goes in to the kitchen, giggles and loads them into the dishwasher out of love.

23482. Jenerator - 8/17/2004 2:08:31 AM

Thoughtful,

One thing you have touched upon is what happens if a man does not fulfill his role in marriage. This happens a lot. In fact, I read that the divorce rates in Christians is higher than nonbelievers, which tells me that there is a definite crisis. I don't have a definite answer, but the scripture does say that if a woman is unequally yoked, her gentle demeanor can win over her husband.

If it's a marriage between two Christians and the husband is not fulfilling his role, I would encourage them to go to Christian counseling, to have accountability partners, to pray and to fast over the situation. I know that it's tough, and I think that the woman will have to use her best judgment.

23483. anomie - 8/17/2004 3:16:19 AM

"He then goes in to the kitchen, giggles and loads them into the dishwasher out of love."

You got a video? Extraordinary claims require proof. as they say.

Anyway, that's some pretty powerful eye-rolling, Jen.

23484. judithathome - 8/17/2004 4:13:41 AM

Jen, c'mon. I was asking you if you would feel comfortable deciding for the both of you...not to send you into debt or anything. IF you needed a fridge and were palnning to get one, and you saw one at a huge bargain, would you get it? Not would you get it on a whim just because it was some cool color and not if it would plunge the family into debt.

I don't have a definite answer, but the scripture does say that if a woman is unequally yoked, her gentle demeanor can win over her husband

Yes, that is certainly something to try, all right. I have no idea what a gentle demeanor could do if the man is a drunkard or a gambler or an abusive SOB, though.

Sometimes things just aren't meant to be.

23485. angel-five - 8/17/2004 5:11:47 AM

Furthermore, you and Resonance are the only ones who are regularly and routinely trying to tear down people with your unnecessary condescension.

Well, to people like you, anyway. You have this habit of taking how people treat you and assuming it's how they feel toward all Christians, all women, all people, all etc. The problem is that they're only talking to you, and in fact they do show a marked difference in how they address other people. So the evidence suggests that it's got less to do with how we view people and more to do with how we view you.

Is it really condescension? You basically don't know what you're talking about WRT sexism -- the word has an objective meaning, you know. You continually screw up your logic and insist that cites say things that they do not say -- indeed, you try to cut and paste them in a way which reinforces your point at the expense of the truth.

You get chances to explain what you meant, on the off chance that you might just have not been communicating it well, and you don't take them. And you never engage on the issue at hand despite our tries to get you to do so. Whenever you are faced with a rational argument your brain seems to seize up. Is it condescension to address someone who exhibits these qualities as if they exhibit these qualities? No.

I treat these fora as meme pools, and take a pragmatic point of view on posters, based on whether someone's participation adds anything useful or interesting -- either memes I don't have, or a means of testing the ones I do. There's just nothing new, interesting, or useful in your posts, ever, and nothing that I can't find elsewhere quickly and easily. It's trite, tired and boring to interact with you, it always goes predictably, and it has been that way ever since you came to this community. Hence my attitude toward you. If you don't like that, then, don't interact with me.

23486. angel-five - 8/17/2004 5:19:31 AM

The bottom line is that I AM A FEMALE CHRISTIAN WHO DOES NOT SEE PAUL AS A SEXIST, nor do I, THE FEMALE CHRISTIAN, have a problem with the biblical understanding of wives submitting to their husbands. From my academic as well as personal studies of the scriptures, I have never interpreted them as you and Resonance have.

Could that possibly be because you start out believing that the bible is inerrant and that the Church fathers were all good people and that your god is a nice guy? Might that have something to do with it? Might that explain why your interpretations always differ so severely from those of people who have a fresher and less baggage-laden perspective on the text?

And, from what I have seen and experienced with both of you, you don't care what other people think - you're already convinced you understand more than a practicing believing Christian - female or not.

No. We do, however, believe we understand more than you. That doesn't require much going out on limbs, Jenerator. You post what you believe and we read it. The rest follows naturally in any place with free speech.

23487. angel-five - 8/17/2004 6:43:45 AM

Let's take a straw poll. How many people reading this thread would, if asked, reply that they are at least nominally Christian?

23488. angel-five - 8/17/2004 10:08:38 AM

John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

John 15:9-10 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.

If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

Isn't it funny when Jenerator's cites end up causing her trouble?

23489. angel-five - 8/17/2004 11:43:34 AM

We believers are called to serve one another, and this includes marriage. If you do not believe me, look at Phillipians chapter 2.

Well, I do not believe you, and so I went and looked at Phillipians chapter 2. And got a refresher course in why I never believe you.

Phillipians 2 doesn't even mention marriage, you dolt. It does not even allude to it. 'If you don't believe me, look at Phillipians chapter 2.' What kind of freakishly hapless impulse leads you to say things like that?

Whatever it is, the same thing is at work in your 'encouragement' to read Titus 2. Hell, Jenerator, I encourage you to read Titus 2.

1: But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:
2: That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.
3: The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
4: That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
5: To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
6: Young men likewise exhort to be sober minded.
7: In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,
8: Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.

23490. angel-five - 8/17/2004 11:44:45 AM

Haven't you claimed to study the Bible? Did you even open it when you were studying it?

One last thing, if you would, explain to me what men loving their wives as Christ loved the church means.

Well, according to Jesus, it means you love them as long as they keep your commandments and carry your words in their heart.

23491. thoughtful - 8/17/2004 3:55:55 PM

Jen, there are inherent contradictions in your explanations. If a man is a gambling addict, no amount of charm is going to sway him from spending down the family assets and plunging the family deeply in debt. Certainly there are enough physically and mentally abused women who have never been able to "charm" their way out of a beating as they are not the cause, but the victim.

How on earth is a woman expected to get a man to go to xtian counseling if he chooses not to go? He is the final arbiter after all. In fact, chances are, in the case of my girlfriend, he's not unhappy with the situation at all. If he were, he could certainly manage to hold down a job, any job. Rather, isn't the xtain woman's role to learn to obey and accept the decisions her husband makes? Isn't it her role, if she's unhappy with the result, to pray harder? Become more self-sacrificing and understanding for the sake of her husband and the family?

If a woman is always to be obedient to the husband, she is not allowed to independently choose to divorce him or certainly not divorce him without permission.

23492. judithathome - 8/17/2004 6:15:40 PM

Good points, thoughtful.

23493. Jenerator - 8/17/2004 7:37:42 PM

thoughtful,

If a husband becomes abusive or is struggling with addiction and is defiant about it or unrepentant about it, I think that the wife needs to do whatever she needs to do to ensure that she and/or the kids are safe. Some Christian counselors (don't know what percentage) suggest temporary separation with reconcilaition in mind as an alternative to staying in an abusive marriage. Ideally, the Christian wants to have his/her marriage restored and healthy, but if s/he is married to a rebellious and unrepentent person, it might be time for a divorce. I'd say for each situation the person needs to seek Godly advice, sound counsel and to pray about it.

God hates divorce, but he gave it to the Israelites when marriages were perverted from their original function and design.

I have a friend of mine who is married to an alcoholic. She struggled for years and years, but the time came when she understandably had enough of it. He would sometimes get so drunk that he would pass out and not come home during the night. It eventually came to the point where he got two DWI's. You can imagine what this situation would do to her or to any of us.

She struggled against despair and hopelessness. She felt angry and disappointed. She was scared he was going to kill himself or someone else while drunk; she felt all kinds of things.

23494. Jenerator - 8/17/2004 7:37:51 PM

What she told me she did was seek out support from both AA and a Christian counselor. Those two functioned as a place to vent and share her frustrations; however, the time came when the situation at home needed to change. She wasn't willing to be around someone who was destroying his life and endangering the lives of his loved ones.

She moved out, and he began to drink more. She continued to pray for him.

Not quite 6 months later, he crashed his car, but no one saw what he did and he felt a real sense of conviction penetrate his heart.

He and his wife started having contact again, but under her rules that they wouldn't sleep together while separated, he would go to Christian counseling, and would not drink.

Eventually the relationship got to this point where they were able to reconcile and they have been able to stay married and work through an extremely difficult time.

23495. judithathome - 8/17/2004 7:42:51 PM

If a husband becomes abusive or is struggling with addiction and is defiant about it or unrepentant about it, I think that the wife needs to do whatever she needs to do to ensure that she and/or the kids are safe. Some Christian counselors (don't know what percentage) suggest temporary separation with reconcilaition in mind as an alternative to staying in an abusive marriage. Ideally, the Christian wants to have his/her marriage restored and healthy, but if s/he is married to a rebellious and unrepentent person, it might be time for a divorce. I'd say for each situation the person needs to seek Godly advice, sound counsel and to pray about it.

This is also known as common sense. And even ungodly people possess that.

23496. Jenerator - 8/17/2004 7:43:56 PM

Resonance,

I scroll past your posts. You needn't waste your time addressing me.

23497. thoughtful - 8/17/2004 7:51:55 PM

Jen, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that a woman should be obedient to her husband so long as it's practicable, but can opt out of the marriage when it is no longer so. It's up to her to decide which conditions constitute impracticable.

23498. judithathome - 8/17/2004 7:59:46 PM

Jen, you're making a mistake if you skip Res' posts.

Sometimes I feel the urge to do that to Kuligin but I feel I should do him the courtsey of reading what he has to say since he takes the time and trouble to say it.

You can't hope to understand a person's stance if you refuse to listen to it.

23499. judithathome - 8/17/2004 8:00:43 PM

courtesy

23500. Jenerator - 8/17/2004 8:01:29 PM

I would think that a Christian woman with accountability partners and Christian couseling will do what's safe and right for her family.

You're trying to make it all seem so cavalier. Well-being is hardly a metter of practicality. If we're talking about abuse or addiction, it's hardly like anyone says, "It's over, I'm opting out and will submit no more."

My point to you was that if the situation endangers her or her children, or if she is married to a rebellious, unrepentant glutton, she should not stay in the home. There is a chance that the marriage can be restored eventually - the goal is to keep the marriage intact.

23501. Jenerator - 8/17/2004 8:03:12 PM

Judith,

I appreciate your point.

23502. judithathome - 8/17/2004 8:03:17 PM

You're trying to make it all seem so cavalier.

Where do you get that idea?

23503. Jenerator - 8/17/2004 8:06:04 PM

if I understand you correctly, you're saying that a woman should be obedient to her husband so long as it's practicable, but can opt out of the marriage when it is no longer so.

From this.

23504. thoughtful - 8/17/2004 8:35:55 PM

Jen, read carefully. the word is "practicable"
def=Capable of being effected, done, or put into practice; feasible. See synonyms at "possible".

I didn't say "practical".

23505. judithathome - 8/17/2004 8:39:54 PM

Jen has posted in Suggestions that someone else take over the hosting of this thread; she also said she didn't see any need for the tread any longer.

Anyone want to volunteer to host?

23506. thoughtful - 8/17/2004 8:40:36 PM

See, that's where I get confused. To me there is a world of difference between being in an abusive home which puts her and children's lives and/or physical well being at risk. I read that and think I understand your point that marriage is to be preserved unless under the direst of circumstances. Then you throw in, "a rebellious, unrepentant glutton" which just means someone who is difficult to live with, setting the bar, in my view, at a much different standard...much closer to the "cavalier" charge you cavalierly charged.

Just when I think I'm understanding your point, I get confused again.

23507. angel-five - 8/17/2004 9:25:58 PM

I scroll past your posts. You needn't waste your time addressing me.

That would be awfully convenient for you, but I think we both know you don't.

Phillipians 2 and Titus 2. Read 'em sometime. You might like them.

23508. woden - 8/17/2004 9:49:47 PM

Anomie - nice to meet you, and thanks for the compliment!

23509. Jenerator - 8/17/2004 10:55:27 PM

Bye y'all.

Satan, I hope you enjoy hosting the forum.

23510. SnowOwl - 8/18/2004 12:04:46 AM

Do I hear the pitter patter of little cloven hooves in this thread?

23511. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/18/2004 12:12:18 AM

I'M READY, BABY!

23512. anomie - 8/18/2004 1:14:10 AM

Jen! I hope you're not signing off the Mote too. I'd miss you.

You're evasive sometimes, and exasperating sometimes, and sometimes infuriating, but you're very real and I appreciate that about you.

May the heat die down. So to speak.

23513. angel-five - 8/18/2004 1:34:24 AM

Ok, as presumptive host of this thread now that Jenerator has declared disinterest in it and sees no need for the thread to continue, I should post my plans.

My plans are: nothing.

This is a thread which doesn't catch a whole lot of traffic unless two or more people are debating. I may encourage two knowledgeable people to square off now and again but mostly I like the thread the way it already is.

This is a place where everyone is already free to post so long as they mind the RoE, so I won't change that either. Don't troll, don't try to quash discussion, try to keep conflicting religious ideologies from dictating the course of a discussion -- these are my proposed guidelines. But they are only guidelines -- the posters in this thread will determine how it goes, not me. Frankly I wouldn't want to try to strictly control a place like this or be responsible for what gets posted here.

I reserve the right to do whatever I damn well like, and plan to do next to nothing at all.

Now, the thread itself --

Religion and philosophy, the former more than the latter, are things people tend to have stronger opinions on than an education in, which is just fine by me. But this is the Net and there's no reason we can't link plenty of good resource sites. We have some already; I would like more, especially good ones. Please feel free to submit good links on religion and philosophy. I want balanced sites more than I want ardently partisan ones, but if a site is good it'll be linked. The information will be useful even if it's never linked in a discussion. I'd like people to cough up some good links to start; as discussions ensue and more good sites are linked or mentioned, I'll add to the list.

23514. Jenerator - 8/18/2004 1:50:29 AM

My parting gift to you, Resonance.

23515. angel-five - 8/18/2004 1:57:04 AM

Oh, you actually didn't leave when you said bye? How hard to predict.

And it's my very own link on what happens to sinners when they die! I'll have to peruse bibletools.org and see if it's linkworthy.

23516. angel-five - 8/18/2004 1:57:47 AM

By the way, I thought you were scrolling past my posts. It's gratifying to see that I was right about that too.

23517. Jenerator - 8/18/2004 2:00:11 AM

The least you could do is thank me for handing over such a powerful position. Look at all of the control you now have!!! Anyway, have fun kiddo.

23518. anomie - 8/18/2004 2:02:20 AM

..., Long live the thread host!

23519. pelty - 8/18/2004 6:08:20 AM

Jen,

Not worth quitting over, frankly. Just take a break and come back when your annoyance has died down a bit. Someone link Bobby McFerrin for her, would ya?

23520. pelty - 8/18/2004 6:24:09 AM

Briefly, because of (or perhaps in spite of) Alistair's wonderful mental picture, I will mention why *some* scholars think 1 Cor 14 is not an original part of what most take to be an authentically Pauline letter.

Let's examine the passage in question, so we are all on the same page. I am using the NIV version because it is the first one listed on BibleGateway and, frankly, none of the versions on BG are that wonderful. As a rule, NIV is an OK, but not great translation WRT being relatively exacting when translating from the Greek. It does do a nice job of giving the sense of the passage in a readable form. As we are not too concerned w/ translation issues in this particular case, I think we can live w/ the NIV. Onwards...

"What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. 27If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.
29Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.

23521. pelty - 8/18/2004 6:24:44 AM

34As 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. 35If 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.
36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.[9]
39Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way."

OK, as mentioned before, in the manuscript tradition, the disputed passage is found *either* in its present position *or* following what is now verse 40. To some scholars, this suggests a later scribal gloss since you would expect to find a passage in the same place if it were an original part of the letter (this is one of the main objections, along w/ early manuscript witness, to the belief that the passage in John about the woman caught in adultery is authentic).

Further, if you read the passage sans disputed passage, it might well be argued that the section flows more sensibly than it does w/ the disputed section included. See if you agree or not...

23522. pelty - 8/18/2004 6:25:06 AM

"What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. 27If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.
29Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.[9]
39Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way."

Note the continuation of the discussion re: prophets. This is the argument for the exclusion of the debated passage. I think it may have some merit to it *for the reasons stated above* as opposed to some supposed socio-theological agenda. Buy it or not, I care not.

23523. angel-five - 8/18/2004 7:22:33 AM

Some people apparently think that 1 Corinthians isn't of a single piece, but that it was blended from two letters Paul allegedly wrote, just as 2 Corinthians is taken as a pastiche of several letters.

Unity of the epistles

...Some scholars believe that certain of the Epistles are not single letters, but rather made up of two or more texts which were merged together:
Romans 16 may have been a separate letter to the church at Ephesus to introduce the deaconess Phoebe. It was tacked onto the end of the letter to the Romans at an unknown date.
1 Corinthians may be a blending of at least two letters.
2 Corinthians appears to be made up from at least three separate letters.
Philippians may have originally been two or three separate letters.

23524. angel-five - 8/18/2004 7:23:38 AM

From Authorship and Date of NT writings

Romans	55 CE	53-58 CE	Paul
1 Corinthians	50-56 CE	50-56 CE	Paul
2 Corinthians	53-56 CE	53-56 CE	Paul, possibly in sections
Galatians	CE	47-56 CE	Paul
Ephesians	57-58 CE	85-95 CE	Paul (disputed)
Philippians	58 CE	62-63 CE	Paul
Colosseans	56 CE	65-95 CE	Paul (disputed)
1 Thessalonians	48-51 CE	48-51 CE	Paul
2 Thessalonians	48-51 CE	48-51	Paul (small dispute)
1 Timothy	55 CE	c. 64 or c. 120	authenticity doubted
2 Timothy	c. 56 CE	c. 64 or c. 120	as above
Titus	55-57 CE	c. 64 or c. 120	as above
Philemon	57 CE	60-61 CE	Paul (small dispute)

Among the writings claiming to have been written by Paul, several are in dispute, while another (2 Corinthians) is alleged to have been compiled from parts of several letters. The ending of 1 Corinthians may have been formed the same way, and there is some degree of manuscript evidence to show that the ending of 1 Corinthians has been disturbed.

23525. angel-five - 8/18/2004 7:23:58 AM

From 1 Corinthians

Paul's authorship of 1 Corinthians, apart from a few verses that some regard as later interpolations, has never been seriously questioned. Some scholars have proposed, however, that the letter as we have it contains portions of more than one original Pauline letter. We know that Paul wrote at least two other letters to Corinth (see 1 Cor 5:9; 2 Cor 2:3-4) in addition to the two that we now have; this theory holds that the additional letters are actually contained within the two canonical ones. Most commentators, however, find 1 Corinthians quite understandable as a single coherent work.

23526. angel-five - 8/18/2004 7:40:21 AM

Other notes:

It's commonly held that Paul wrote at least the bulk of 1 Corinthians in response to two letters from the Corinthians, and that a large part of the book is him responding, in order, to points raised by these letters. So Paul, if this traditional view is observed (and, therefore, 1 Corinthians is actually an authentic letter, not one compiled later by Paul or someone else) is not completely free in how he raises his statements or addresses the Corinthians, but is rather working with a framework of specific points and queries relating to specific problems in Corinth. These letters have apparently been lost, so we know not what their contents were -- aside from what we can glean from Paul, if we take the letters to be accurate and fair. Therefore even if we're working with the idea of a seamless and unified Pauline authorship of 1 Corinthians, we can't necessarily look at the work as if it is Paul expressing a coherent series of thoughts which flows naturally from start to finish. Instead we're looking at half of a give-and-take correspondence in which the lost half is heavily influencing the latter, extant half. If this is the case (and nearly everyone holds it to be so) then you can't really decide what's seamlessly a part of the book and what's an insert -- at least, you can't do so as easily as Pelty would.

Secondly, those people who do attempt to glean what was going on in Corinth at the time from Paul's letters do find that there were significant questions linking womens' actions in church and prophesying. Apparently there was some, ah, uppityness going on among the Corinthian women, who didn't necessarily want to have to wear a veil, and felt they could speak out in Church as well as any man. So once again if 1 Corinthians was solely of Pauline authorship and of one piece, the passage Pelty is questioning isn't incongruous.

23527. angel-five - 8/18/2004 7:44:36 AM

The third thing that comes to mind is that this is supposed to be an authentic letter of Paul. What scholarship I've reviewed says that while letters of this kind were often dictated to scribes who didn't always record things verbatim, Paul isn't likely to have done this, but rather written the letter himself, about things he felt very strongly about. If that's the case, then the presence of seemingly-related but mildly tangential bits in an otherwise unified passage would seem to strengthen the case for single authorship. Who here hasn't had something to say and while saying it, gone tangential for a moment as something else occurred to them? Perfected and smooth thoughts rarely come to people, and rarely if ever appear without significant revision and editing. People aren't perfect writers.

Taken together these arguments and more bear heavily upon the point. The overwhelming bulk of conservative Christian theology holds that 1 Corinthians is authentic. But if it isn't, then the idea that 1 Corinthians is composed of more than one letter assembled later into the book itself addresses Pelty's issue. The author of the pastiche, unless 1 Corinthians is indeed an outright fabrication, would have blended the two letters and edited them together where he felt the pieces best fit.

Moreover, the idea that a scribe may have changed the text of 1 Corinthians isn't something that can necessarily be tossed out entirely -- but it may not be a matter of addition as much as excision of surrounding lines. Pelty also mentions that various versions of the text all have that line about women not speaking in church, so, the question points less to one scribe's interpolation and more to the existence of differently edited pastiches.

23528. PelleNilsson - 8/18/2004 8:23:57 AM

You are now the host, A5. I used the e-mail address you have listed in WX. I hope that's OK. I also sent you the address to the magic ring.

23529. angel-five - 8/18/2004 8:40:48 AM

The hosting page is significantly updated from what I remember it being! But it still has that giant space olive motif on it.

OK, people, remember, if you have interesting links, get 'em here. Over the next week or so I'll update the links bar with them.

23530. The Summer Woman - 8/18/2004 9:05:42 AM

Disparate thoughts and things -

1. I found the most interesting parts of this discussion to be those which touched on the early history of Christianity. This is an excellent site that I found on the subject. There is also a discussion board there, though small. This site takes a comparative approach to world religions, has many links to other such sites, and provides texts of the gospels of various early Christian sects - not just those that eventually led to the development of the Catholic church. There is also a section on the theories of the historical Jesus, and a related site on Early Jewish writings. I would like to suggest it for a link here:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

2. One aspect of the discussion here about contraception and abortion has dealt with the role that men should or should not have in decisions relating to what takes place in a woman's body. On one level, there is something ludicrous about this, since, without men, nothing at all would be taking place in women's bodies. The fact remains that should a man chose not to be a father and financial supporter of his child, the woman will have no choice but to fill these functions unless she puts the child up for adoption. One has to ask why many men feel "comfortable" with such a choice. Is it solely because they are not -literally - left holding the bag? (continued)

23531. The Summer Woman - 8/18/2004 9:07:48 AM

I think the explanation may be at once banal and profound. It is obvious to even very young children that women have babies. But most young children and children of the early elementary years don't really understand what the man's role is - or that he even has one. It has often been stated that young children should not be told more about sex than they are able to handle. In large part, I agree with this, with one exception that I think is crucial to changing the way our society views men and conception: as soon as they understand "where babies come from" little boys need to be told what they have to do with creating babies. Not to do so is to leave a hole in their sense of self that doesn't get filled until the demands of puberty put sex, rather than fatherhood, in the forefront of how they define themselves. If it is understood that men and women create human beings, it becomes possible to make the role, and the responsibility, of fatherhood central to a male child's sense of self.

Which brings me to a touchy subject: What role do men have in a woman's decision of whether or not to carry a fetus to term? The focus of the discussion is always on the woman, but is this right? We feel that it is right because the burden of the "mistake" falls on the woman, and many men are relieved not to have anything to do with the "mistake". The fact that the mistake is not viewed as being equally shared by both parties suggests that the role of men is seen as peripheral to pregnancy - a view that is absurd, but there it is. Which brings me back to the issue of how the "man's part" of babymaking is presented to young children. Children need to start out with a sense that creating new human beings (or not creating them) is something that men and women do together, something of which men are an essential, not peripheral, part. (By the way, I'm pro-choice.)

23532. The Summer Woman - 8/18/2004 9:09:18 AM

3.Here is a very brief history of abortion in the US - which was legal until after the Civil War:

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_000400_abortion.htm

4. A very small point: Thoughtful said "but, pelty, to people who believe life begins at conception, iud is NOT an option as it does not prevent conception...only pregnancy. (22903)

Well, in the ideal scenario that may be true, but IUD's are not as effective as other methods of birth control. I have a wonderful child that was conceived in just such a fashion. I had another pregnancy with an IUD which put me in the position of having to chose whether or not to try to carry to term an infant with an IUD embedded in its developing brain and which also carried a 50/50 chance that both the baby and I would die of sepsis before the baby was ever born.

I don't recommend IUD's.

5. An interesting juxtaposition of posts by our new host:

(22908. angel-five )There is simply far more to be gained by working with people than there is to shriek hellfire at them, and it is at times like this that I am most glad that whatever gave rise to me gave me the power of independent reason, rather than slavish adherence to inflexible principle, when it comes time for me to decide what is right and moral and just in a world which ten commandments can neither control nor cage nor command.

23485. angel-five There's just nothing new, interesting, or useful in your posts, ever, and nothing that I can't find elsewhere quickly and easily. It's trite, tired and boring to interact with you, it always goes predictably, and it has been that way ever since you came to this community.

23533. The Summer Woman - 8/18/2004 9:10:35 AM

I see that the discussion has moved on to other things since I wrote my post. Sorry to have moved a bit off-topic.

23534. angel-five - 8/18/2004 9:13:19 AM

In searching for a new tagline for this thread I came across a few gems.

Albert Einstein:

What is the meaning of human life, or of organic life altogether? To answer this question at all implies a religion. Is there any sense then, you ask, in putting it? I answer, the man who regards his own life and that of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unfortunate but almost disqualified for life.

and

The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious -the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science.

Algernon Black:

Why not let people differ about their answers to the great mysteries of the Universe? Let each seek one's own way to the highest, to one's own sense of supreme loyalty in life, one's ideal of life. Let each philosophy, each world-view bring forth its truth and beauty to a larger perspective, that people may grow in vision, stature and dedication.

F. Forrester Church:

Religion is the human response to being alive and having to die.

Margaret Mead:

We will be a better country when each religious group can trust its members to obey the dictates of their own religious faith without assistance from the legal structure of their country.

23535. angel-five - 8/18/2004 9:14:52 AM

Mark Twain:

Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion- several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight.

H.L. Mencken:

We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

Stewart Holbrook:

Almost everyone who has read history in a more than casual manner knows that when the great figure of God appears in a controversy, the shooting cannot be far off.

G.K. Chesterton:

It is the test of a good religion whether you can make a joke about it.

Lord Acton:

Fanaticism in religion is the alliance of the passions she condemns with the dogmas she professes.

Mohandas Gandhi:

Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is.

and

It is easy enough to be friendly to one's friends. But to befriend the one who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true religion. The other is mere business.

Pearl S. Buck:

It may be that religion is dead, and if it is, we had better know it and set ourselves to try to discover other sources of moral strength before it is too late.

Theodore Dreiser:

If I were personally to define religion I would say that it is a bandage that man has invented to protect a soul made bloody by circumstance.

23536. The Summer Woman - 8/18/2004 9:18:37 AM

Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is.

I like that one very much. Seems to describe the thread quite well, too.

23537. angel-five - 8/18/2004 9:26:47 AM

I would like to suggest it for a link here

Done.

23538. pelty - 8/18/2004 5:17:18 PM

"If this is the case (and nearly everyone holds it to be so) then you can't really decide what's seamlessly a part of the book and what's an insert -- at least, you can't do so as easily as Pelty would."

Maybe not as regards the whole letter, but it is not always difficult to find potential seams. BTW, I have never claimed that the book is seamless, although most do see it as a unified work. You are certainly correct that we are seeing half of a conversation (which may well account for some of the seams just as easily as the notion that we have a couple of letters patched together), but your despair over determining seams is *perhaps* (in other words, you may also be right; there is obviously no consensus on this passage) overdone, at least in regards to our passage. In this instance, I think it *may* be possible that such a seam has been identified.

One thing I would like to see, and if you can pull anything up on this A-5, I would appreciate it, is whether we have evidence of the type of epistolary pastiche that you talk about occurring elsewhere in the ancient world. That is, was it commonplace for people to "glue" letters (or other works) together into a unified whole or is this pretty much the only evidence for it? If you don't have time to do such a search, I understand. This question was brought up on a Pauline discussion list, but no one was really able to give a conclusive answer on this; maybe my luck will be better here?

23539. judithathome - 8/18/2004 5:49:39 PM

with one exception that I think is crucial to changing the way our society views men and conception: as soon as they understand "where babies come from" little boys need to be told what they have to do with creating babies. Not to do so is to leave a hole in their sense of self that doesn't get filled until the demands of puberty put sex, rather than fatherhood, in the forefront of how they define themselves. If it is understood that men and women create human beings, it becomes possible to make the role, and the responsibility, of fatherhood central to a male child's sense of self.

What a fine idea! I think this would go a long way to solving some of the problems teenage boys have with their attitudes about women and sex. These days, they get so many of their ideas from rap videos and popular culture.

23540. judithathome - 8/18/2004 5:51:36 PM

Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is.

This one gets my vote.

But I like ths one, too:

The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious -the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science.

23541. angel-five - 8/18/2004 9:48:43 PM

Maybe not as regards the whole letter, but it is not always difficult to find potential seams. BTW, I have never claimed that the book is seamless, although most do see it as a unified work.

But the question is very important to your stance, which is, why, one senses, you are happy enough leaving your stance upon it so vague. Because none of the answers can be good for fundamentalism. If the letter is a whole then you have a clearly sexist Paul. If the letter is a compilation of Paul's letters, then you have the questions of who compiled them, what drove the editing process, and why it was presented as an authentic epistle, and you still have a clearly sexist Paul.

If the letter has interpolations not written by Paul -- or if the letter is a compilation which has been subject to these interpolations as well -- then the news is even worse. About the only person for whom the news is good is Paul, because the bright side of this for fundamentalists is that they can infer, wherever something disagreeable is found in 1 Corinthians, that Paul didn't write it. But Paul's dead and doesn't much care now, so it sucks that that's the limit of the good news.

The bad news is that you have a tradition which has rested upon biblical infallibility and clear, unmolested authorship of 1 Corinthians, which in turn depended upon the idea that this work came into being honestly and was preserved from the days of Paul. This has taken a lot of faith, but it has been the prevailing view.

23542. angel-five - 8/18/2004 9:48:58 PM

If it is decided that other people wrote whatever they liked into the manuscript AND did so thoroughly enough that different versions of that manuscript all included the gloss AND were thought authentic, the obvious question that is raised is -- what else wasn't written by Paul?

And let's be clear -- you have no way, whatsoever, of determining what is Pauline and what isn't. All you can do is determine what is a bad interpolation -- by word choice, by incongruity, by inclusion of ideas or data that historically don't appear until later.

But you have no apparatus for determining the skillful interpolations from the rest of the text, and once you have accepted that people could plug in what they like and have it be accepted as authentic -- yes, even bits that you now find easy to say 'that's different from its surroundings', especially those -- then you have thrown the doors open wide to all manner of possibilities which are more subtle than the one you speak of now.

This is, of course, one of the reasons why so many people have argued so hard for the authenticity of 1 Corinthians.

If you admit that the 'detection process' could be compromised in those early days, to the extent that multiple versions of the text have the same interpolation, and to the degree necessary for them to overlook what seems to you to be an easy to see interpolation, and that moreover the two ensuing millennia would pass and at the end of them the vast majority of Christian scholars would still argue that 1 Corinthians is of one piece.... then you are, unfortunately, admitting that far subtler revisions may have gone unchallenged until now.

23543. angel-five - 8/18/2004 9:51:47 PM

So, in light of this, Pelty, the question as to what you do believe becomes a bit more pressing. It's obvious that the hedging and 'maybes' are convenient to your stance as you can enjoy the best of both worlds --depending upon solid Pauline authenticity when it suits you, excising unfortunate quotes when it suits you. Too convenient for my tastes. So, is 1 Corinthians an authentic Pauline letter, or has it been compromised by other sources? One or the other.

23544. pelty - 8/18/2004 10:10:35 PM

"If it is decided that other people wrote whatever they liked into the manuscript AND did so thoroughly enough that different versions of that manuscript all included the gloss AND were thought authentic, the obvious question that is raised is -- what else wasn't written by Paul?"

I think you misjudge the manuscript evidence (assuming you have looked at it). The *vast* majority of manuscripts, early and late, are in agreement about what the text of a letter like 1 Cor says. Now, to be clear, this does not mean that there are not variants to be found; clearly there are. These variants, though, do not represent fundamental shifts in vocabulary, letter structure, etc. This is why the passage in dispute stands out to scholars as something relatively unusual.

23545. PelleNilsson - 8/18/2004 10:10:52 PM

This "one or the other" stuff reminds me of Ace.

23546. pelty - 8/18/2004 10:11:03 PM

"And let's be clear -- you have no way, whatsoever, of determining what is Pauline and what isn't."

Agreed. There is no way to know for sure that Paul wrote any of these letters, but only the most hardened skeptic would say he did not write the "core four", whether through an amanuenses or by his own hand.

"But you have no apparatus for determining the skillful interpolations from the rest of the text, and once you have accepted that people could plug in what they like and have it be accepted as authentic -- yes, even bits that you now find easy to say 'that's different from its surroundings', especially those -- then you have thrown the doors open wide to all manner of possibilities which are more subtle than the one you speak of now."

23547. pelty - 8/18/2004 10:11:11 PM

In a way, you are right. If someone is skillful enough to have forged a portion of the letter at an early enough date that it was faithfully reproduced in the vast majority of manuscripts, then we would almost certainly not be able to tell. Has this happened? Possibly. That said, where we do have early attestation to Pauline sayings (and by early I mean late-1st cent to early-2nd cent) they line up w/ the extant letters. One could argue that these works have been corrected to line up w/ the Pauline materials, I suppose, but most are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to these materials it seems.

The problem w/ your approach is that it is not a very practical way to approach ancient texts because we would ultimately have to say "we don't know" about almost every facet of antiquity. Ultimately, I suppose that *is* the answer and I am OK w/ that to some extent, but in order to work w/ the extant materials, we have to assume that, in this case, the materials were not compromised at so early a juncture that the changes would be virtually undetectable. It makes me wonder, though, if we are not giving enough credit to those who valued the letters as documents to be kept (and this appears to have been the case early on; cf. 1 Clement). Would they have been interested in preserving the words of the founder of their congregation? Possibly, maybe even probably. If so, would they then feel comfortable manipulating them? A definite "maybe," but not a "definitely".

23548. angel-five - 8/18/2004 10:16:36 PM

This "one or the other" stuff reminds me of Ace.

Bite your tongue. It has got to be one or the other, and I was trying to forestall more waffling.

23549. pelty - 8/18/2004 10:18:06 PM

"Too convenient for my tastes."

Perhaps, but that is the way of scholarship. Very little is "certain" when it comes to these issues.

"So, is 1 Corinthians an authentic Pauline letter, or has it been compromised by other sources? One or the other."

But that is the problem. It does not *have* to be one or the other. Something can be genuinely Pauline and yet, when it stands out as something that does not "fit" from a text critical perspective, can have elements that may not be original. Again, we can never know for sure if their are early, undetectable interpolations, but some certainly posit that the 1 Cor 14 passage is a later, detectable one. FWIW, the scholars who make this claim are not of a conservative stripe, at least not the claimants of which I am aware. They may have their own agendas, I grant you, but this should not be painted as a conservative position trying to PC-ify Paul. I imagine many in the conservative pews would stand by this statement and apply it in ways that you, woden, et al suggest.

23550. angel-five - 8/18/2004 10:37:23 PM

This is why the passage in dispute stands out to scholars as something relatively unusual.

This is why the passage in dispute stands out to a small minority of scholars as soemthing relatively unusual, you mean.

There is no way to know for sure that Paul wrote any of these letters, but only the most hardened skeptic would say he did not write the "core four", whether through an amanuenses or by his own hand.

Are you then a hardened skeptic? Because you seem to be saying that there are parts of 1 Corinthians he did not write -- at least, you are doing so when it's convenient. And as I have brought up, you can't just firewall it off at one passage -- either the text was altered or it wasn't, and if it was, the doors are thrown open to other interpolations, alterations and bits of selective editing. So what is it, did Paul write the passage or didn't he, in your opinion?

That said, where we do have early attestation to Pauline sayings (and by early I mean late-1st cent to early-2nd cent) they line up w/the extant letters. One could argue that these works have been corrected to line up w/ the Pauline materials, I suppose, but most are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to these materials it seems.

Most not including you, at least when it's convenient to your argument, Pelty.

And there are many explanations as to why the sayings could be attested to by other people which do not depend upon 1 Corinthians being an authentic, unmolested work. The first and most obvious is that this wasn't the modern world, and most of the people who encountered Paul's teachings and sayings probably did so second-hand, through letters, through arguments, through other preachers, etc. These people didn't spend two years in a room with him getting to know what he'd say and what he wouldn't.

23551. angel-five - 8/18/2004 10:37:58 PM

Another obvious choice is that these attestations do not extend to cover the whole of 1 Corinthians. They instead focus on bits and pieces of it. So the attestations can't be used to substantiate the authenticity of 1 Corinthians. At most they can be used to substantiate parts of 1 Corinthians as being, probably, Pauline. But that obviously doesn't bear on whether Paul wrote all of it, or whether he wrote 1 Corinthians in one piece, or whether other people put what they found convenient into it, does it?

The problem w/ your approach is that it is not a very practical way to approach ancient texts because we would ultimately have to say "we don't know" about almost every facet of antiquity. Ultimately, I suppose that *is* the answer and I am OK w/ that to some extent,.

Oh, I completely agree that a) we don't know is the ultimate answer and b) in order to do any work from the text you have to make some assumptions and c) that isn't unreasonable to do, if you want to do your exegesis.

The problem is manifest, nonetheless, that somewhere between point A and point B the assumptions become forgotten for what they are, and are instead represented as ground truths. Most Christian discussion on the epistles requires those assumptions to be made, and when people argue their conclusions they can't afford to dwell on the fact that assumptions were necessary. Well, it's all well and good for people to say 'what if' for the purposes of exploratory readings, but that uncertaintly can't be conveniently discarded along the way when it suits us. All readings of this text should be heavily marked by the caveat that 'No, really, honestly, we don't know'. Almost none of them are.

23552. angel-five - 8/18/2004 10:38:49 PM

we have to assume that, in this case, the materials were not compromised at so early a juncture that the changes would be virtually undetectable.

When the issue of authorship and authenticity of the materials come to the forefront, however, you end up begging your own question. You're basically building a case for Pauline authenticity in 1 Corinthians and other epistles that depends upon the assumption that 1 Corinthians and other epistles haven't been compromised!

This is why I don't accept your current line of argument and why I am repeatedly pressing you for something more substantial.

23553. angel-five - 8/18/2004 10:49:10 PM

"So, is 1 Corinthians an authentic Pauline letter, or has it been compromised by other sources? One or the other."

But that is the problem. It does not *have* to be one or the other. Something can be genuinely Pauline and yet, when it stands out as something that does not "fit" from a text critical perspective, can have elements that may not be original.

(See, Pelle?)

If it has elements that may not be original, then it follows a priori that the letter has been compromised by other sources! For you to say anything else is silly!

What you want to argue is that the presence of an interpolation doesn't mean that there are no unmolested authentic Pauline bits in the epistle, or even that these bits aren't 95% of the epistle. But you know, I believe, that you can't do that directly anymore. Instead you have to admit that you're assuming that's what's happening, which is useful to your position but, despite what you insinuate, not good scholarship at all, especially when someone has to drag the admission out of you that it's all heavily dependent upon assumption, and when you are obviously reluctant to bring this admission to bear upon your conclusion and whether or not 1 Corinthians was authentic.

Look, this is all very simple. You have yourself admitted that you have to make the assumption that it is mostly if not all authentic, and you have admitted that you cannot tell interpolation from text if it was done skillfully enough -- i.e. if it isn't clumsy. You have admitted that 1 Corinthians is a response to other letters and that therefore one can't just necessarily read it with an eye for organic smoothness to determine what is and is not an interpolation, even a clunky one. So put it all together.

Don't just say 'well that's scholarship' if the results bear on the point.

23554. pelty - 8/18/2004 11:03:45 PM

"This is why the passage in dispute stands out to a small minority of scholars as soemthing relatively unusual, you mean."

Do you even know what you are talking about? It is by no means a "small minority" of scholars. I won't venture a guess, as I have not taken a poll on the issue, but it is not some fringe element that has at least called the section into question.

"So what is it, did Paul write the passage or didn't he, in your opinion?"

Round and round we go. The answer is, "I don't know. Maybe, maybe not." I am not saying this to be purposefully evasive, honestly. I simply do not have the foggiest idea whether this was written by him or not.

23555. pelty - 8/18/2004 11:04:14 PM

"When the issue of authorship and authenticity of the materials come to the forefront, however, you end up begging your own question. You're basically building a case for Pauline authenticity in 1 Corinthians and other epistles that depends upon the assumption that 1 Corinthians and other epistles haven't been compromised!"

Well, again, this is based on text critical methods that demonstrate that the text as we have it is relatively solid (given allowances for variants, etc. If you will, grant me that I am aware of variants and other textual issues surrounding all NT docs). I am not alone in this; the whole academic community agrees that 1 Cor is authentically "Pauline." I say this not to appeal to authority, but simply to say that this is a working assumption in biblical studies.

I grant you that there is the possibility of compromise at an early period, although I think a case can be made for an early cognizance of these works as "authoritative" or "scripture" and thus there would likely have been a move to be a bit more protective of these texts, but we cannot assume this. If there was a compromise of the texts at the earliest juncture, then there is no way to detect it. Period. Therefore, I grant you your point that I build my case on texts that *could* have been compromised at an early juncture. But if you have a problem w/ this, then you need to take up your issue not only w/ me, but also w/ biblical scholarship as a whole. Further, if this is the stance you prefer, we are at an impasse.

23556. pelty - 8/18/2004 11:04:24 PM

" At most they can be used to substantiate parts of 1 Corinthians as being, probably, Pauline. But that obviously doesn't bear on whether Paul wrote all of it, or whether he wrote 1 Corinthians in one piece, or whether other people put what they found convenient into it, does it?"

No, and I thought I was careful in my presentation of this. It clearly only confirms that the selected passages are the same as the letters we now accept as Pauline; it tells us very little about whether the letters from which these passages came resembled our current forms.

23557. angel-five - 8/19/2004 12:03:14 AM

It is by no means a "small minority" of scholars. I won't venture a guess, as I have not taken a poll on the issue, but it is not some fringe element that has at least called the section into question.

Let me phrase this in an unmistakable way. In the same series of posts you say that the entire academic community is sure that 1 Corinthians is Pauline: I am not alone in this; the whole academic community agrees that 1 Cor is authentically "Pauline." I say this not to appeal to authority, but simply to say that this is a working assumption in biblical studies. And then you say Do you even know what you are talking about? It is by no means a "small minority" of scholars [that think the passage in question in 1 Corinthians 14 stands out as something unusual]. I won't venture a guess, as I have not taken a poll on the issue, but it is not some fringe element that has at least called the section into question.

This may be compatible, but you are using the arguments to two different and incompatible purposes. And, as you yourself have acknowledged and I have linked, "the whole academic community" is by no means in agreement that 1 Corinthians is authentically Pauline.

Round and round we go. The answer is, "I don't know. Maybe, maybe not." I am not saying this to be purposefully evasive, honestly. I simply do not have the foggiest idea whether this was written by him or not.

This would be a lot more convincing if you weren't talking up the 'maybe not' when Paul says something we don't like, and 'maybe' when you want to say that 1 Corinthians is authentically Pauline. When the discussion was on 1 Corinthians 14 as it possibly bore upon whether Paul's doctrine was sexist, your statements were certainly not 'foggy'. And when you say 'the entire academic community is in agreement that 1 Corinthians is authentically Pauline', that isn't foggy.

23558. angel-five - 8/19/2004 12:03:27 AM

You are using the ostensive 'uncertainty' as two definite positions, in fact! And when it's pointed out that they're mutually incompatible you say 'Well, I don't really know, haven't got the foggiest, actually'. You understand why this might cause some people to find your position to be nothing more than epistemological sophistry and willful fallacy, right?

Well, again, this is based on text critical methods that demonstrate that the text as we have it is relatively solid

The basis of these methods depends upon the base assumption that you have already acknowledged is only an assumption. Therefore it is somewhat dishonest, or sloppy, to use the methods to support your argument when the subject is whether or not the basis for the methods is sound.

Therefore, I grant you your point that I build my case on texts that *could* have been compromised at an early juncture.

Or texts that were never uncompromised! Or texts that were assembled out of authentically Pauline material (i.e. the two letters) but, due to the definition of 'authentic', are not themselves authentic. I could take 1 and 2 Corinthians and assemble them into something which says, as a whole, something completely different than what you'd argue Paul was actually saying.

If nothing else, the posts of the last few days raise the serious question as to whether 'Pauline authenticity' and 1 Corinthians is a simulacrum. Given that the shape of the Christian church depends very, very heavily upon the Pauline school, this is an extremely significant question, and despite what I cited above you prefer to just gloss over it and assume that what you're arguing for is actually true. (Which does, I'll grant, make it a lot easier for the argument! But is unfortunately neither logical nor scholarly nor sound.)

23559. angel-five - 8/19/2004 12:06:32 AM

But if you have a problem w/ this, then you need to take up your issue not only w/ me, but also w/ biblical scholarship as a whole. Further, if this is the stance you prefer, we are at an impasse.

It isn't 'biblical scholarship as a whole', Pelty, which agrees with your position here. It is only the biblical scholarship which agrees with your position, which agrees with your position, if you will.

What's the impasse? You've already admitted that your assumptions are assumptions, that you can only identify 'obvious' interpolations, etc. There is a way to move forward from this. You just don't wish to walk it, because you think it will undermine your point.

23560. pelty - 8/19/2004 12:28:21 AM

"And, as you yourself have acknowledged and I have linked, "the whole academic community" is by no means in agreement that 1 Corinthians is authentically Pauline."

Let's look at your posts again. First, there is this:

1 Corinthians 50-56 CE 50-56 CE Paul [NOTE THAT IT IS NOT "DISPUTED"]

Then there is this: Paul's authorship of 1 Corinthians, apart from a few verses that some regard as later interpolations [DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR?], has never been seriously questioned. Some scholars have proposed, however, that the letter as we have it contains portions of more than one original Pauline letter. We know that Paul wrote at least two other letters to Corinth (see 1 Cor 5:9; 2 Cor 2:3-4) in addition to the two that we now have; this theory holds that the additional letters are actually contained within the two canonical ones. Most commentators, however, find 1 Corinthians quite understandable as a single coherent work."

23561. pelty - 8/19/2004 12:28:29 AM

So how is it that you have established 1 Cor as not authentically Pauline? Beyond the stance that I have granted that there is at least the possibility of early, undetectable interpolations, this repeats pretty much what I have been saying. This certainly represents what the majority of scholarship thinks about 1 Cor.

Now, if we want to use your stance as a starting point, that we can never be 100% sure that Paul wrote 1 Cor, then that is fine, but then there is really nothing to debate. That said, you really have to throw out almost every text that we attribute to a person from antiquity as we ultimately have no way of knowing whether or not they *really* wrote something. Did Plato write "Timaeus" or is it simply the figment of another person's imagination that decided to attribute it to Plato? Are there portions w/in the work that are really not Plato's? If so, we cannot speak of the work as being Platonic nor can we understand what "Platonic thought" really is. This is an extreme approach to historical study and ultimately allows us to draw no reasonable conclusions. Is this the approach you wish to take? If so, I have nothing further to add because there is no way around your basic presuppositions. If you wish to take a more reasonable approach, then perhaps there will be more to discuss.

23562. anomie - 8/19/2004 12:50:34 AM

Summer Women,

I caught your commenst about the man's role in procreation, and child rearing. Perhaps we can take the topic to Gender or here later. It's an interesting topic.

An observation that may color every aspect of the topic is that the man's role is seen mostly in terms of dollars. Everything else runs a distant second.

23563. uzmakk - 8/19/2004 12:56:43 AM

You're not going to get me to nurture a wee bern, anomie.

23564. anomie - 8/19/2004 12:58:26 AM

a wee bern? Translation?

23565. uzmakk - 8/19/2004 12:59:32 AM

small baby

23566. anomie - 8/19/2004 1:27:10 AM

Oh. Hey Uz! Howzitgoin?

And, I'm not in the nurturing time of my life either. But those grown kids never stop appreciating the check.

23567. anomie - 8/19/2004 1:27:25 AM

Oh. Hey Uz! Howzitgoin?

And, I'm not in the nurturing time of my life either. But those grown kids never stop appreciating the occasional check.

23568. uzmakk - 8/19/2004 3:39:44 AM

The grown kids have to settle for attention from the crusty old bastard. Nurturing is out of the question.

23569. anomie - 8/19/2004 3:52:06 AM

I take it you're not a nuturer, then. Now, just how do you feel about that, Uz?

Ha!

23570. angel-five - 8/19/2004 4:07:30 AM

Then there is this: Paul's authorship of 1 Corinthians, apart from a few verses that some regard as later interpolations [DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR?], has never been seriously questioned. Some scholars have proposed, however, that the letter as we have it contains portions of more than one original Pauline letter. We know that Paul wrote at least two other letters to Corinth (see 1 Cor 5:9; 2 Cor 2:3-4) in addition to the two that we now have; this theory holds that the additional letters are actually contained within the two canonical ones. Most commentators, however, find 1 Corinthians quite understandable as a single coherent work."

Yes, let's look at that again. Do you spot the difference between 'I am not alone in this; the whole academic community agrees that 1 Cor is authentically "Pauline." ', the phrase you used in Message # 23555 and 'Most commentators, however, find 1 Corinthians quite understandable as a single coherent work.' which I cited in Message # 23525 and you again cited in Message # 23560? I am sure you do, as you initially agreed with the latter! Where? In Message # 23520 where you said 'I will mention why *some* scholars think 1 Cor 14 is not an original part of what most take to be an authentically Pauline letter.'

In other words, the cite you re-cited proves my point, which was that you were backsliding on your terms in order to artificially strengthen your point for the moment.

My guess is that you didn't like that, because you launch into a few straw men in your next post.

23571. angel-five - 8/19/2004 4:08:20 AM

So how is it that you have established 1 Cor as not authentically Pauline?

Where did I say that it wasn't authentically Pauline? To take a page from you, all I said was that there is scholarly doubt about it --but unlike you, I don't then argue both sides of the doubt depending on whichever best supports my point at the moment, Pelty.

Beyond the stance that I have granted that there is at least the possibility of early, undetectable interpolations, this repeats pretty much what I have been saying.

Why do they have to be both early and undetectable? All they have to be is ones you haven't detected, and as at least a significant portion of Pauline scholarship is in debate as to whether the verse in 1 Cor 14 is a later interpolation, it's not as if we're talking about going over the documents with foolproof science. It's educated guesswork. Your argument is that the verse from 14 is suspect because a few texts differ on its placement and because it can be excised and the surrounding verses make coherent sense to you. Well, tell me something, Pelty -- what other verses in Corinthians can either of these be said about?

This [i.e. my cite] certainly represents what the majority of scholarship thinks about 1 Cor.

What's 'this'? That there are interpolations? That some think that there are interpolations? That some think 1 Corinthians is a composition of more than one letter? I thought you were saying that 'the whole academic community' thought it was authentically Pauline. What is it that the majority of scholarship (not the whole academic community, now) thinks about 1 Cor? Please be specific as your vague terminology has caused us much digression and unnecessary delay, not to mention it has raised serious points about your argument.

23572. angel-five - 8/19/2004 4:09:34 AM

Now, if we want to use your stance as a starting point, that we can never be 100% sure that Paul wrote 1 Cor, then that is fine, but then there is really nothing to debate. That said, you really have to throw out almost every text that we attribute to a person from antiquity as we ultimately have no way of knowing whether or not they *really* wrote something.

This is a red herring and a false duality all at once. That's hard to pull off, you know. But it wouldn't be necessary at all if you simply did address my real position.

Your position has been that scholarship can distinguish between authentically Pauline letters and ones that are not, authentically Pauline verses and later glosses. This cannot be done with 100% certainty as you have noted, and parts of it come with much less certainty than others. My stated position is rather similar to this. Why then would you seek to reduce my own position -- which partially draws upon the very scholarship that you are using as your authority --to 'we cannot say at all whether anything was authored by anyone?' I do wonder why you're having difficulty addressing what I have actually said, and sticking to the same qualifiers and terms as you make your argument.

23573. angel-five - 8/19/2004 4:10:48 AM

The reality is that while, yes, in a Humean sense we can't be sure whether or not anything is real, in pragmatic practice we do have the tools of inquiry. I believe in using them.

I also note that you're back to ignoring about 95% of the points I make. Do you understand that you can't make the authority of the scholarship the thrust of your argument when the query involves whether the scholarship is correct? Do you understand that the methodology and conclusion of the scholarship is itself at question? Do you understand that once you start arguing for the existence of interpolations which were accepted by the early Church as authentic and indeed are still accepted by a lot of people today as authentic, that you cannot simply stop it there, that you cannot limit yourself to 'early' and 'undetectable' alterations to the text when the only limitation is that they had to be Pauline enough for people to buy them? That the method of dating variant versions of the texts is itself largely dependent upon the accepted Pauline order which is in turn dependent upon the methodology and conclusion which we're questioning, which are indeed at the unavoidable heart of our inquiry?

This isn't a matter of 100% certainty or none at all. To take a page from your own statements, however, it does draw the entire process into serious question. Your problem is not that you can't be 100% sure ever of anything, but that you only want to be unsure about some things, and aren't willing to be as unsure about others, regardless of their actual probability of being true.

Whether or not we can continue the discussion, Pelty, isn't dependent upon whether I abandon a fallaciously derived point of view which I never held. It's whether you're willing to cease with the straw men and red herrings and address what I am saying, in clear English. Are you?

23574. angel-five - 8/19/2004 4:11:58 AM

It's 'bairn', but what do rhino-riding barbarians know about Scots?

23575. uzmakk - 8/19/2004 4:22:11 AM

Who said anything about Scots?

23576. uzmakk - 8/19/2004 4:25:42 AM

Greetings, A-5. To spend any time here on the Mote would take a great deal of time and effort; so much needs correction.

23577. angel-five - 8/19/2004 5:22:18 AM

The work of an apocalyptic nomad is never done.

23578. Magoseph - 8/19/2004 6:34:41 AM

To spend any time here on the Mote would take a great deal of time and effort; so much needs correction.

Tell us about the corections the Mote needs in Suggestions, why don't you?

23579. The Summer Woman - 8/19/2004 6:59:51 AM

anomie - I will certainly check out the gender thread.

Thank you.

23580. pelty - 8/19/2004 7:14:23 AM

A-5,

Let me put it to you this way. I have never met a person in my academic pursuits who has not thought that 1 Cor. is authentically Paul. I study under one of the more "liberal" of academics; he is not willing to grant anything beyond the "core four" as being Pauline. Perhaps, depending on what he had for lunch, he may even grant 1 Thess. So you can play the pedant and say that not *every* scholar believes 1 Cor to be authentically Pauline, but in everything I have read, everyone I have been in discussions with, and everyone I listen to at conferences, etc., 1 Cor. is understood to be Pauline. I have used "some" and "most" simply because I prefer to be cautious. I do not know *for sure* that everyone holds this position, but the vast, vast majority do. While you seem to want to have everything in black and white, it just ain't so. There are shades of grey. Here's an idea: examine the manuscript evidence, internalize the variants and their impact on the letter, and then draw your conclusions. If you decide that there is too much in there that we cannot be sure about vis a vis Pauline authorship, then take the agnostic position on it and be done w/ it.

23581. pelty - 8/19/2004 7:14:31 AM

"Why do they have to be both early and undetectable? All they have to be is ones you haven't detected, and as at least a significant portion of Pauline scholarship is in debate as to whether the verse in 1 Cor 14 is a later interpolation, it's not as if we're talking about going over the documents with foolproof science."

Again, do the text critical work and get back to me. No one claims text criticism is a foolproof science, but it can at least demonstrate whether the text we have in hand is established and does a good job of finding interpolations or scribal error when they can be detected. It is not foolproof, but it is what we do.

"Do you understand that you can't make the authority of the scholarship the thrust of your argument when the query involves whether the scholarship is correct?"

You are the one making a claim against the accepted position. Prove your point. You have not done so thus far. That there are interpolations does not bother scholars as we understand that they occur and are able to be sniffed out. You may argue that there are some we might miss, but if they are, then they were probably inserted and normalized prior to the advent of the extant manuscript tradition and ergo we will never know about them. So prove that 1 Cor is not Pauline. You will not be able to do so anymore than I can "prove" it is. Tell me, what other factors lead scholars to view 1 Cor as authentic? What arguments do you mount against these? I am open to being convinced.

23582. angel-five - 8/19/2004 7:46:05 AM

I grant you that there is the possibility of compromise at an early period, although I think a case can be made for an early cognizance of these works as "authoritative" or "scripture" and thus there would likely have been a move to be a bit more protective of these texts, but we cannot assume this.

Here's one nexus of this issue that confuses me as to your argument.

You see, you are already arguing (depending on the point at hand, either strongly or cautiously) that the texts have probably been compromised. You say this specifically in reference to 1 Corinthians 14 although it is not the only case where Pauline epistles are supposed to have potentially been altered. This compromising is something that, even today, with the staggering weight of analysis that has been poured onto the Pauline epistles in the last two thousand years, people are still divided on as to whether or not it happened.

Your implication is that it's obvious to a lot of people that the verse in 1 Cor 14 at least LOOKS like an interpolation, and that this notion is at least partially supportable, although no more than that, by the textual evidence. Your other implication (correct me if I'm wrong) is that this is NOT an early compromising of the text.

Yet you argue in the cite above about the possibility that these texts, even early on in the Church, might have been recognized as being important, authoritative works of Scripture, and steps might have been taken to preserve them inviolate. My question is, if later, clumsy interpolations can get into the text and be accepted by most people, how do you think your argument holds up against what you're levelling it against -- other, subtler glosses and the like? Because it seems a very problematic argument to make, especially as you have already agreed to some degree that you can't know with reasonable certainty that the texts haven't been altered in ways you haven't thought of yet.

23583. angel-five - 8/19/2004 7:46:35 AM

The unfortunate fact about most studies of this sort (you'd know more about them than I would) is that they often unfortunately end up falling back on self-referential data. While there are ways to analyze the text based on historical data (some relatively forthright, like, reference to historical happenings, some more complex and hypothetical like the presence or absence of certain ideas and motifs which are thought to have followed a certain timeline of development) there are also ways which end up falling into the category of 'the scholarship says this is what Paul sounds like, the scholarship says this isn't what Paul sounds like'. There are text criticisms, which unfortunately depend upon a weeded corpus of extant texts, not an unmolested historical body of writing that has survived relatively intact to this day but a body of writing that has survived several attempts, by the Church, to find the heresies and burn them throughout the ages.

And of course there's a disquieting truth in all this, which is, that most of the people doing research on Paul and the early Church already have a well-developed ideology about what those two things are supposed to be like, not to mention those who have strong religious convictions about Christianity and/or work for the Church itself. This isn't molecules in a flask or anything so scientific -- as you say this is criticism, which when applied to the Bible usually leaves the standard rules of literary criticism far behind... and literary criticism is hardly a science itself.

What I'm getting at is that the uncertainty mounts up after a while to a degree which precludes your statements, even swaddled in foggy 'possiblys' and 'maybes'. Can we say anything is or is not Pauline with 100% surety? We can't say anything is anything with 100% surety.

23584. angel-five - 8/19/2004 7:46:44 AM

Can we say anything is or is not Pauline with 100% surety beyond a reasonable doubt? (Which is more or less the basis for what we think of as proof.) The answer is no, unfortunately, due to many factors like the self-referentiality of much Bible study, like the Church's propensity from time to time to burn the works which it hasn't pronounced acceptable or canonical, and like the idea that a lot of Biblical scholarship never gets very far from the preconceived notions of the scholar, and like the idea that there is no such thing as Biblical scholarship which isn't impinged upon, in some fashion, by the political realities surrounding anything to do with the Bible and its schools of interpretation. This is serious 'A Canticle for Leibowitz' territory, you know.

However, as you no doubt would stridently argue, this doesn't mean we can't say anything about the so called gospel of Paul. We can obviously say some things, at least on the basis of establishing them beyond reasonable doubts --this is your argument, and I do agree with it to some extent. The problem is that the certainty required for your selective excisions of Paul is about five sigmas past that point of reasonable doubt, IMO, and to take up the slack you end up imputing your own belief system.

It isn't accidental, you know, that we're having this argument about a passage that is extremely controversial by modern standards of gender equality, as opposed to something comparably insignificant. It isn't accidental that there is such a weight of scholarship insisting various things about 1 Cor 14 and not, say, the incest passage in 1 Cor 5. And it isn't accidental that you bring 'interpolation' arguments to bear in this case. I believe that what you want to believe is driving your argumentation, and not the other way around.

23585. angel-five - 8/19/2004 8:00:52 AM

So you can play the pedant and say that not *every* scholar believes 1 Cor to be authentically Pauline, but in everything I have read, everyone I have been in discussions with, and everyone I listen to at conferences, etc., 1 Cor. is understood to be Pauline.

You would prefer to level this argument against me, I know, from the position of your authority as part of the biblical scholarship tradition. But I did link three cites which raise issues about the authorship of 1 Corinthians. You tell me to take it up with biblical scholarship -- very well. You do the same.

. While you seem to want to have everything in black and white, it just ain't so. There are shades of grey.

You don't say? That's been my argument for quite some time, now, Pelty. Rather rich of you to discover it just now.

Again, do the text critical work and get back to me.

Please, as if this isn't a smokescreen. I'm talking to you, and you are proffering arguments. You can't fob them off now and say 'well, go do the work yourself'. You put them up and I'm addressing them, and if you don't want to continue there are more honest ways of saying so.

No one claims text criticism is a foolproof science, but it