Dude Abides
Dude Abides said:
The right to autonomy over basic life decisions isn't a moral issue?
Is that what I said?
Dude Abides said:
"Most people think" was essentially shorthand "even Bible-believing Christians would concede" that slavery is immoral.
That's some funny kind of short-hand you've developed. OK, then I'll reevaluate your statement:
Dude Abides said:
It seems you missed the point. [Even Bible-believing Christians would concede] slavery - the ownership of one human being by another - is inherently wrong, even if one form of ownership is crueler than than another.
To begin, Christians don't have to "concede" that slavery is wrong. Christians were instrumental in the abolitionist movement, and they based their opposition to slavery on Biblical principles. I think what you might have meant was, "What even atheists would concede," since atheists have no basis for believing in the inherent wrongness of anything. But I'll use your phrase, just to make you feel better.
Second, I find it amusing that you base your morality on what Bible-believing Christians will concede. Can't you think independently? But let's say that Christians would not always have conceded the wrongness of slavery, just for the sake of argument. In that case, the point remains the same: slavery was moral at whatever point in time Bible-believing Christians would not have conceded its immorality. So, either Christians have never refused to concede the immorality of slavery, or you can't complain about what God did or did not condone or condemn, since slavery was perfectly moral at some times. Of course, you'll have real trouble with the OT institution called slavery, since there were no Christians, and so none to concede slavery's immorality. Thus, OT slavery was moral under your second metric as well as under your "shorthand" first.
Dude Abides said:
Apparently that is not correct, as your posts show.
This is a confused sentence. You're saying that, on the basis of my posts, it is incorrect to say that some Bible-believing Christians will concede the inherent wrongness of slavery. But even if I had rejected the inherent wrongness of slavery, that would not mean that other Bible-believing Christians wouldn't concede the same. In other words, my posts cannot show what you think they showed, even assuming your characterization of my posts is accurate.
Which it isn't.
Dude Abides said:
I am aware of your lengthy defense of slavery.
You are clearly not well-enough aware of my "defense of slavery" to know that it was not a "defense of slavery." Feel free to read over that post again; I'll give you a hint to solving the conundrum that has you tying yourself in knots:
Dude Abides said:
This is incorrect. A right of ownership in other person's labor is not a master-slave relationship. It's an employer-employee relationship.
This is incorrect. Modern law does not recognize a right of ownership in another's labor--
at all. Even once labor has been contracted for--and even paid for--courts will refuse to specifically enforce personal service contracts on the basis of (1) the common law, and (2) Amendment XIII (I'm sorry to bring this up again. I know it must still sting). Yet, in modern society we retain the employer-employee relationship. Therefore, the employer-employee relationship must not involve a
right of ownership in the labor of another.
Moreover, let me say to you what I already said to Dani:
Metaphoreus said:
at this point you really should have started wondering whether your definition of slavery and the word as used in the Bible were somehow inconsistent with each other.
If I say that the ancient Israelites conceived of "slavery" as involving the ownership of one's labor and not the ownership of the person, then it is no answer for you to say, "No, because slavery means the ownership of a person!" That may very well be what it means to you; it may very well be its modern common meaning, but the modern common meaning has nothing to do with the ancient common meaning. If this is too difficult for you to wrap your brain around, then don't think about OT slaves as "slaves," but think of them as
'ebed, the transliteration of the Hebrew word used; or you could even think of them as
servants, which is how the KJV translates the term. My point is, your argument is nothing more than "This is how I define the term and no one can think of it differently." If that's how you mean to frame all of your arguments, I have no interest in dealing with you.
Dude Abides said:
The point that it does not follow from the fact that slavery B is worse than slavery A that slavery A is therefore moral.
That's not actually the point you were referring to. The point you claimed I missed was that "
[m]ost people think even Bible-believing Christians would concede slavery - the ownership of one human being by another - is inherently wrong, even if one form of ownership is crueler than than another." This other business about slaveries A and B is irrelevant, especially since you don't even believe slavery A is slavery!
Dude Abides said:
The concepts of anyone who thinks slavery is immoral. This isn't a complicated argument.
I wouldn't have even called it an argument, but I guess I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Let's put together what you've said so far to see what this "argument" consists of:
Dude Abides said:
Slavery is wrong because it violates the fundamental concepts of human equality and dignity held by people who think slavery is wrong.
In other words, you've got the conclusion in hand, and now you just need to find someone who agrees with it so that you can pretend you had a basis for arriving at that conclusion. WHOA! Look out! Here comes someone now!
You agree with that conclusion, and therefore slavery is wrong because you think it is wrong! But then how is the following false if the above is true?
Slavery is not wrong, because it is consistent with the fundamental concepts of human equality and dignity held by people who think slavery is OK.
Not to mention the remaining 75% of questions you left untouched. Actually, I'll save you the time and answer them for you:
Dude Abides' Probable Answers said:
Metaphoreus said:
Why does violating fundamental concepts of human equality and dignity make something wrong?
Violating fundamental concepts of human equality and dignity is wrong because it is wrong to violate fundamental concepts of human equality and dignity.
Metaphoreus said:
Who chose human equality and dignity as the gold standard for morality?
Human equality and dignity were chosen as the gold standard for morality by the people who chose as the gold standard for morality human equality and dignity.
Metaphoreus said:
Because if I chose to rely on the concepts of people who disagreed with me, my "argument" would make even
less sense!
jdogmoney
jdogmoney said:
nobody has been able to come up with anything that would be "good" or "evil" if there weren't anyone around to call it that.
We aren't talking about whether people are around to call something good or evil, or moral or immoral. What's the point of discussing morality if no choosing agent exists? The definition given presupposes the existence of such moral agents--so there is someone around to "call" something good or evil. But that's not the point. The point is that, regardless of what that person "calls" good or what he "calls" evil, some things are good and some evil. Some things are right and some wrong, and they remain right or wrong regardless of whether they are called right or wrong by whoever is doing the calling. (Of course, the scope of this definition is limited to apply to those who are not the source of that objective morality.)
jdogmoney said:
If there is no objective morality, surely the standards I've come up with and the standards humanity as a whole have developed over time matter more?
My argument is only that if there is no objective morality, then there is no standard to judge others. It doesn't matter what standard you choose--whether a standard you have adopted or a standard developed by "humanity as a whole" (is there such a thing? If it is the latter, for example, can you
really say discriminating based on sex or race or sexual orientation is
wrong? Would most humans agree with you?)--you can't meaningfully judge the morality of someone else's actions unless there is an objective morality. Your example of the fellow who doesn't wash his hands after using the restroom misses the point; I already said that you could pass judgment, but I also said that the effect of such judgment is limited to a declaration that "I would not do such a thing." How can you tell him that he
ought to wash his hands after using the restroom, when his morality could be completely different from yours? Or how can you tell Hitler he
oughtn't kill six million Jews, when to him that may be the perfectly moral thing to do, or even something he is morally obliged to do? Only if there is a standard of morality that is objectively true--regardless of whether you or Hitler believe in it--can Hitler's conduct be condemned as immoral. And, back on point, if there is no objective morality, then on what basis can you judge God's actions as recorded in the Bible? The most you could say is that "God's morality is different from my morality," but it would require an objective morality to enable you to say, "God's morality is
wrong." So, either there
is an objective morality, or you cannot judge another person's morality and decisions pursuant thereto as being
wrong.
jdogmoney said:
I had hoped I wouldn't have to explain why it's wrong that "men>women", but it seems that I do.
First, saying that X is wrong is nowhere near the same as saying X is misogynistic.
Second, this is a perfect example of you wanting to bring in an objective morality without acknowledging the existence of an objective morality. You are saying that it is wrong "that 'men>women,'" regardless of whether someone believes it or not. If that isn't what you're saying, then you can't condemn God for allegedly believing that. If it is not wrong regardless of belief, then that means that its rightness or wrongness depends upon belief. Therefore, if God or anyone else believes that it is not wrong to believe that men are inherently superior to women (in whatever respect we're discussing), then it is not wrong to believe so
for that person.
jdogmoney said:
This doesn't follow at all. You're importing your belief that the Bible is misogynistic into the creation account, and finding reasons to confirm it. But consider the following as an alternative interpretation:
- Life is more valuable than non-life. Adam, the man, was made from dust, which is non-life. Eve, the woman, was made from a human rib, which is life. Therefore, Eve was made of a more valuable source than Adam.
- Regarding Adam, the man, God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." (Gen. 2:18.) This shows that man was not self-sufficient. He was lacking something essential. On the other hand, God never says anything of the sort concerning Eve, the woman, which implies that Eve did not need a helper; she was enough in herself. This interpretation is further supported by 2:24: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife." In other words, the man goes from the support provided by his parents to the support provided by his wife, because on his own he is not capable of being complete. Again, there is no similar lack with the woman.
- Eve ate of the fruit first, then gave some to Adam. If Adam were in a position of authority in the relationship, he would have rebuked Eve; instead, he did as she said, showing that she was in authority in their relationship. Furthermore, 3:3 says that the serpent spoke to Eve, and not Adam, even though 3:6 says Adam was with her. When dealing with two individuals, you speak to the one who has authority, not the one who has none.
Misc.
Now, I'd like to address a few verses that have come up, because there's (surprise, surprise) more that should be said about them. (I'm using
this document as my primary source):
Ephesians 5:21 - 28 said:
21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
If you look at the original Greek in verse 22, you'll notice a pretty important word missing: "submit." It isn't in verse 22. In fact, it is borrowed from verse 21. And who is verse 21 directed to?
Everybody. In other words, to the same extent that the wife is told to submit to her husband in verse 22--deriving its meaning from v. 21--
the husband is told to submit to his wife in verse 21.
To emphasize this point, the relationship between husband and wife is compared to the relationship between Christ and the church. Does the church submit to Christ unwillingly, contrary to its desires? No. The church chooses to submit to Christ, freely. And what of Christ? Did he come to
rule the church? No. He came to
serve the church. (See Matthew 20:28.)
In brief, the passages from 5:22 - 6:9 are instances of the general rule to submit. Thus, wives are to submit to husbands; husbands are to submit to wives; children are to submit to parents; parents are to submit to children; slaves are to submit to masters; masters are to submit to slaves. In these verses, Paul is turning the Roman household codes--which dictated how the man as absolute ruler of his home should govern it--on their heads. And this mutual submission is to be done "out of reverence for Christ," who taught, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave." (Matthew 20:25 - 27.)
(Regarding the discussion of the man as "head" of the woman, the Greek word used there is
kephale. When not referring to a literal head, this can mean either "boss or authority" or "source or provider." Given the context of this passage, it's clear that the latter is the more appropriate sense.)
I Corinthians 14:33 - 36 said:
For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?
There is something odd about this verse. Why would Paul say that women are not allowed to speak in churches, but should remain silent, when, just a few chapters prior, discussed how they should pray and prophesy in churches? (11:5.) And, throughout chapters 11 - 14, he referred to orderly worship, and spiritual gifts (such as teaching, prophecy, and so on), and did not differentiate between men and women.
In addition, v. 34 refers to "the Law," but doesn't refer to any particular part of the law. Compare that with 9:9 ("For it is written in the Law of Moses: 'Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.'") and 14:21 ("In the Law it is written: 'Through men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me,' says the Lord.") Yet 14:34 refers ambiguously to "the Law." More confusing, the Law doesn't say anywhere that women "must be in submission." Commentators claim that this refers to Genesis 3:16, but there God is merely describing something to occur in the future, not commanding submission. In short, the reference to "the Law" is (1) incorrect, and (2) not in Paul's style. So what to make of this?
In v. 34 - 35, Paul is stating an incorrect belief, and then refutes it. Paul does this on several occasions in the NT, including in I Corinthians 6:12 - 13, which I've referred to before. There is an untranslated particle (in the NIV; the KJV translates it, "What?") at the beginning of v. 36. It also appears at the beginning of Rom. 2:4, after the statement of an erroneous belief, and immediately preceding the rebuke. The same thing occurs in Romans 9:21 and I Cor. 6:9, among others.
This interpretation is further supported by the surrounding verses. 14:26 - 33 refer to "everyone" having "a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation;" "if
anyone speaks in a tongue . . .
someone must interpret;" "if a revelation comes to
someone;" "you can
all prophesy in turn." Verses 34 - 35 contrast with these broad, gender-neutral statements with a stringent restriction on women, particularly. V. 36 - 38 constitute a rebuke to something in the nearby text ("[What?] Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? . . . If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored."). V. 39 - 40 return to the previous tone--and I should note that "brothers" there is a Greek word (
adelphos) that "regularly refers to men and women," so that the universal nature of 26 - 33 is taken up again along with the gentle tone.
In conclusion, these verses do not constitute a command that women be silent in churches; instead, it constitutes a refutation of such an order.
I Timothy 2:11 - 14 said:
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
At first glimpse, it seems that Paul is outright forbidding women to be placed in positions of authority. However, this is inconsistent with what we know of Paul and the NT church.
- For example, in Romans 16:7, Paul refers to the "apostle" Junia, a woman (at least, she was a woman until 13th century copyists decided that no woman could have been an apostle, and turned her into a man with the non-existent name Junias); of her, Paul--the apostle--writes that she "[is] outstanding among the apostles, and [was] in Christ before I was." Likewise, in Romans 16:1 - 2, "our sister" Phoebe is referred to as a deacon--or church elder. Paul likewise referred to numerous women as his "fellow workers," of whom we know: "They assisted in composing letters (Rom 16:22; I Thess 1:1), carried apostolic messages to local churches (1 Cor 4.17; 16:10-11), sought to encourage the believers on Paul's behalf (1 Thess 3:2), reported to Paul the status of congregations under his care (1 Thess 3:6) and even occasionally hosted house churches (1 Cor 16:19) . . . In view of this wide range of ministry, it would be ludicrous to deny that Paul's coworkers possessed authority in the churches (1 Cor 16:17-18) . . . a role which included the task of admonition (1 Thess 5:12) . . . Paul spoke readily of women, as well as men, as his coworkers." Moreover, Paul instructed the Corinthians to submit to these "fellow workers" (I Cor. 16:16). Considering that Paul referred to women apostles, and was certainly aware of prophetesses (Acts 21:9; I Cor. 11:5), and bearing in mind the hierarchy of I Cor. 12:28+ ("In the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third..."), it's clear that Paul's views on women in the church were not nearly so mysogynistic as some of you seem to believe.
- Women played a significant role in a number of churches founded during the NT period. Mary, the mother of John Mark, hosted a church in her home (Acts 12:12). Lydia founded the church at Philippi (Acts 16), and Paul's "fellow workers" Euodia and Syntyche were some of its leaders. The husband-wife pair Priscilla and Aquilla (jdogmoney will appreciate the fact that the woman's name typically comes first in Biblical references to this pair) played a significant role in the beginning of the Corinthian church--where women were involved as prophets and in prayer (I Cor. 11); the two later moved on to Ephesus (Acts 18:19). Four prophetess daughters of Philip ministered to the church at Caesarea (Acts 21:7 - 9). The woman Nympha ran a house-church in Laodicea (Colossians 4:15).
- It bears noting that there are references--Biblical or otherwise--to women bearing every title in Christianity by the fourth century.
So, why would Paul say something that so clearly contradicts his own actions? Again, looking to the Greek reveals some interesting facts about this passage. The word for "authority" is
authenteo, and this is the
only time that it occurs in the New Testament. (Most of the time the word used for "authority" is
exousia.) The meaning of
authenteo is uncertain, but it seems to connote some idea of wrongdoing, such as usurpation. (The KJV translates it as "usurp authority over.") Thus, the problem is not with women
having authority but with women
usurping authority. Specifically, the women are usurping authority
over men (given all of the above, it would appear to be incorrect to claim that Paul is treating "having authority" over men as the equivalent of "usurping authority" over men, so probably nobody should suggest that). Also of note is the joinder of
usurping authority with
teaching; it's almost as if, just maybe, there was some teaching going around in Ephesus that was leading women to usurp authority over the men. Maybe relating to the issues addressed in v. 13 - 15. If 13 - 15 represent a correction to this teaching, then the teaching might look like this: Eve was formed first. Adam was the one deceived, and not Eve. Childbearing is bad. (NB: I Tim. 5:14 seems to indicate that whatever teaching this was, it was anti-marriage and anti-childbearing.) Such a teaching would be consistent with the non-Christian religious elements in Ephesus at the time, as well as the mixing of Jewish and non-Jewish religious imagery evidenced by archeological finds in the area. In fact, Paul appears to be attempting to address an early form of what would later become Gnosticism, which taught that Adam was deceived, that Eve was enlightened by the serpent and then enlightened Adam, and that childbearing was part of the "evil" material world.
In short, Paul was not formulating a universal command here, but was addressing a particular problem in a particular church at a particular time. And I think that's enough for now.
