S
[PUG] Christiantiy
- Thread starter Krumplenump
- Start date
Yes, very true, and as you suggest later in your post even the respondents themselves can hold mixed or even seemingly contradictory views (for example, a CNN poll found that 57% of the Christian respondents said that they believed in the Book of Revelations' account of the end of the World where only Christians are allowed into Heaven, but almost 80% of the same people said that those who hold other beliefs can get into Heaven), but FWIW the group that did the original study I quoted is one of the most respected groups in this particular field (here's the wiki page on them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Barna_Group ).
Even if the Barna poll is dead right and only 9% of US adults hold strongly conservative or fundamentalist views on Christianity, then because of the sheer size of the population that still means there'd be roughly 20 million of them, plus all the more moderate conservatives on top of that. And if it's like you say and the range of beliefs between liberal and conservative is a bell curve (and there's every reason to think that it is) then that moderately conservative wing of US Christianity is going to number considerably more than 20 million.
The point being that even if there are still a lot of conservative Christians around (even to the point that they make up roughly half of Christian populace) the closer you get to that moderate middle ground by definition the more moderate are the beliefs and the more moderate the strength of those beliefs are that those people who fall into that bracket will hold. In other words even though those conservatively minded moderates (or moderately minded conservatives) may hold views that we might consider regressive or even oppressive, they won't hold to them them with the rigid dogmatism of those at the far end of the spectrum, they'll be more willing to listen, discuss, and even to make compromises.
So "Dense, but not hopeless." perhaps. :lol:
But there's also the added question these days of what constitutes conservative or liberal beliefs. Compare the typical conservative Christian today to one a couple of hundred years ago and the one today may well have fallen towrds the liberal end of the scale back then.
And there are also countries that have a much more moderate/liberal bias than those countries, and even the US, like Sweden or the UK. So again even on the world stage it's almost certainly much like you said earlier, the range of beliefs is a bell curve.
So let me get this straight, first you complain that the definition of Christian is ambiguous, because each individual or group has their own particular definition depending on their own subjective bias.
But when someone offers you arguably the most neutral (and therefore the most accurate/unambiguous) definition of Christian available, you complain that it's irrelevant because it doesn't reflect the multiple subjective definitions of Christian.
Make up your mind, you either want an accurate, unambiguous definition (which by necessity is one that cuts out as much of the subjective bias surrounding the term as possible) or you don't.
Or perhaps it's more that you just want that "accurate, unambiguous" definition of Christian to be the one that conforms to your own particular subjective bias.
S
Shai Gar
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ"]YouTube- 10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer[/ame]
S
Shai Gar
And a Womans Role is to shut up and be silent when men are talking. Sounds like Christianity to me.
That's a interesting interpretation, what is it based on?
Just Timothy 2:12, Timothy 2, or all of Timothy. What about the context of the letter, or the context of the Church recieving it?
The women are not completely shut out of the theological discussions, though. If a woman has a question about something, she is allowed to ask her husband about it when they get home after the service.
(2 Corinthians 14:33-35)
S
Shai Gar
Context is important, but you can only play that card so far: Paul's Epistles were accepted into the canon over many other writings. Apparently the church leaders believed that they would remain relevant despite the fact that they were addressed to specific churches at specific times. If we're discounting unsavory passages like this, then it's time to review the selection of the canon as a whole. There's a lot more where that came from.
This makes me think that what I'm going to say next will be wasted.
(I already posted a response this morning, but apparently it didn't register. I'm tired so I apologise if this post is unsatisfactory.)
I have no inention of removing 1st Timothy or even just the second chapter of 1 TIM. as unsavory, infact I find it to be entirely truthful.
The first thing we should note about the letter is whom paul is writting to. The letter is adressed to a young new preacher named Timothy at the church in Ephesus. The church in Ephesus was "acting out" for lack of a better turn, and Timothy didn't know how to correct the situation. So paul writes a letter on how to handle the function of the Church, how the members should act, what the leaders and servants should look like and a host of other information.
Now that we have a little info about the Church and Timothy we can move forward to the matter at hand chapter two of Paul's letter. Paul starts off this part of the letter telling Timothy to pray for every one, then he specificly mention praying for kings and leaders, he moves from that note to how God wishes all to be savedand how he is a part of that as God has appointed him(Paul) to be the an Apostle to the gentiles. With that closed we move close to verse 14 that Shai mentions.
Before Paul mentions anything he makes a statement about self controll and that is the focus of the rest of the chapter. He states that women should wear respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair or gold or silver but instead with good works. Then paul mention that women are to learn submissively, then about women not having teaching authority over men, the he recaps the fall of man and follows up on how a women is redeemed through child bearing.
think of it this way, do you remember that one kid in class whom the teacher could never get to shut up, the kid who was constantly a disruption, that is who Paul is talking about and what Paul is talking about not forcing women into the back row and keeping them silent(you'll note Paul doesn't use the term silent but instead quiet).
as for the teaching and position of leadership, this ties in with the fall of man to, just a women is redeemed through Child bearing man is redeemed through his labor, if the women takes over the mans labor then she is taking away his redemption. Which is unfair to the man whom can not give birth to a child to redeem himself like a women.
I hope this is coherent I feel like it may not be.
S
Shai Gar
S
Shai Gar
Straw man. You put words in my mouth because you do not have the skill or moral ability to argue against me.
My point is that Christianity says women must shut the fuck up, that they are inferior to men and must abide by their roles.
Satanism has no such sexist bullshit.
Sel control does not come into it.
no your using a straw man, your putting words and meaning into the text that arn't there
and what makes you think Self control doesn't play its part, seeing as paul specificly talks about five verses prior.
Infact you've fallen back on insulting terms as to force a point as opposed to proving it. Do you even know what it means for women to have roles in Christianity. It's an equlizer, what a women in the church does has just as much(if not more) importance as what a man does. Historicaly and even today women lead more events in churchs then men do. If it wasn't for women in the Church, there would effectivley be no Church.
Have you even been to church recently? If not , how would you even know about church dynamics and functions?
But why take my word for it, go find a church. Talk to the women in it and find out if they feel oppresed or if they've been told to "shut the F**ck up" recently.
Last edited:
S
Shai Gar
I don't know what to make of the posts after #52. What point did Barnabas prove? When did Shai, or anyone else, mention self-control?
Self control was mentioned in post numbers 52, 54, 55 and 56.
Self control was mentioned as the focus of chapter 2 of 1 Tim 2:9ff in post number 52.
Post 53 Shai stated I proved his point.
Post 54, I replied that his point was that people shouldn't excercise self-control
post 55, shai responds that I was using a straw man and that self control has nothing to do with self-control and that christianity tell women to stfu.
post 56, I respond by claiming shai is using a straw man, and that the focus of the verse Shai posted 1 Tim 2:14 was and is self-control.
Self control was mentioned as the focus of chapter 2 of 1 Tim 2:9ff in post number 52.
Post 53 Shai stated I proved his point.
Post 54, I replied that his point was that people shouldn't excercise self-control
post 55, shai responds that I was using a straw man and that self control has nothing to do with self-control and that christianity tell women to stfu.
post 56, I respond by claiming shai is using a straw man, and that the focus of the verse Shai posted 1 Tim 2:14 was and is self-control.
That's where I'm lost. I don't know what point Shai was referring to, and I don't know why you thought that it had to do with self control. That only came in with your defense of the passage, and was not mentioned by Shai until after you brought it up as if it had been.