Radrook

This can be about the Bible as God's word.
Doctrinal denominational differences
Atheistic evolution vs Intelligent design.
Please keep discussions civil.

Participation or not I will post something once a day to keep the thread alive and available. That is a promise. Why? Because I enjoy it.

Radrook

In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Paul wrote: “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” (vv. 33-35).


Some denominations apply this strictly. Others seek a way of understanding that allows women more freedom. Interestingly, the same women who would vehemently tag the literal application of this scripture as bigoted are sometimes the same ones who enjoy trying to deprive others of their freedom of speach.

Radrook

The following is part of a debate I had with an agnostic on another website who claimed that the God described in genesis is evil.


Agnostic:
[quote] If God knew that it was making sentient beings that can suffer and have to learn as they go and then punishes them for making the wrong choices It knew it was being abusive and it knew that it could easily ease the suffering of these beings if it just ingrained them with the knowledge of what they really are.[/quote]

Reply:

Yes, he did know that they could suffer. That is why he told them how to avoid suffering, by avoiding sin or disobedience. He provided them with the full capacity to understand the concept of disobedience and death. He also provided them with free will to decide if they wanted suffering and death or non--suffering and eternal life. If he had deprived them of that freedom then he would have been forced create robots and nit mankind.


So in the case of our first parents, it wasn’t a case of ignorantly plowing ahead. It was a case of Adam, who is blamed for the whole thing, being fully informed about the consequences and freely choosing to face those consequences.

[quote]1 Tim 2:1And Adam was not the one deceived; ....[/quote]

Agnostic:
[quote]....then it knew what it was doing was wrong.[/quote]


Reply:

Well, that is of course your conclusion based on the premise that God is evil. Based on that premise the rest of your conclusions fit right in. But is that premise true? Or is it perhaps founded on limited understanding of what was really involved?

You see, despite all that you describe, the Bible tells us that God is just. Instead it places the full blame on what transpired on the shoulders of Adam.

[quote]Rom 5:12
For this cause, even as by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death; and thus death passed upon all men, for that all have sin.

The Bible also tells us that God did NOT create mankind inherently flawed and sinning inevitable:

Eccl 7: 29
Lo, this only have I found, that God has made man upright; but they have sought out many devices.[/quote]


So obviously they disagree with your evaluation of God’s personality-right?
That’s because their premise is that God is good.


Agnostic:
[quote] I don't understand how God could be all knowing and so unenlightened at the same time. [/quote]


Reply:

That is assuming that he is unenlightened. Then of course his nature as described would indeed appear to be paradoxical. We just have t be careful that we are not basing our evaluation of His ways on perhaps our limited human views.


[quote]Isaiah 55:8-9

8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the LORD.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts. [/quote]


Agnostic:

[quote] So much is up for interpretation hence the many differing denominations within the same system. If you believe Jesus is God or at least knew the mind of God then how can we explain the whole "Let he without sin cast the first stone" deal without acknowledging a change in heart? [/quote]

The Bible, as any other book, has a theme and a purpose. The biblical theme is the fall and redemption of mankind. From paradise lost to , as described in Genesis, to paradise regained as described in Revelation.

Between these two books everything is either directly or indirectly related to that theme. The God of the OT spoke of redemption in Genesis 3: 15 by promising a seed that would obliterate Satan.

[quote]He says to the serpent, "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel" (Gen. 3:15). [/quote]

The lineage through which that seed would arrive is then revealed and traced all the way from Seth to Jesus.

[quote]
Luke 3:38
the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.[/quote]


Once that seed arrives then of course the same God has a different subject-matter and expresses Himself accordingly. As writers we too change our style with the subject matter. But it doesn’t mean we are a different persons-does it?





Agnostic
[quote]I agree but that means there is no way God could have "created" everything because there was never "nothing" to begin with. If there was ever "nothing" there was never the potential for anything.[/quote]

Reply:

Doesn’t that require that we view God as nothing?
But according to the Bible there was something to begin with-God Himself and God is biblically described as the source of dynamic energy. A being with limitless energy at His disposal can do wonders with it. Which is exactly what the Bible tells us He did.


Isaiah 40:26
Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing.

Jeremiah 32:17 "Ah, Sovereign LORD, you have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you.

Agnostic
[quote] I see God as the universe itself in the process of self awareness. [/quote]

Reply

And you are entitled to that belief. Actually you are touching upon one very profound truth-that at one time God was the universe because only he existed and nothing more. In short if we had a time machine that could travel back a billion years per second and we could observe God and the universe, then we would see the material universe blink out and only God remain with his angels. Then his angels and heaven itself would blink out and we would be left with only God Himself for the past eternity.


Even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God (Psalm 90:1-2). ...

I Timothy 1:17
Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

chelydra

This isn't going into the poetry forum because it has all the qualities I hate in amateur poems — sloppy metre, no consistency or logic about when lines rhyme and when they don't bother, a narrative voice whose personality and tone keep slipping and sliding every which way—as if she's slowing figuring out who she is while she's discovering what she's trying to say. So the title is:

A VERY ROUGH DRAFT FOR A REPLY TO PAUL'S LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS

(And Radrook, say what you will about my gender-bending tendencies. A lot of respected authors seem to get a charge out first-person narratives in the opposite sex, and what you get is usually a fantasy persona that no member of that opposite sex would recognize as anything like herself or himself. Probably no actual female would be caught dead writing what I wrote here. But somebody had to step up in defense of Christianity, and nobody else seemed to be doing it...) All responses to this (if any) will be welcome in the acrimonious forum.





O Paul I pray to you
Whose supernatural vision
On your way to Damascus
To kill Chrisians
Outshone and henceforth
forever shall outshine
the life, deeds and words
of that Jesus who lived among us
made like us of Flesh Blood and Bone
Who you never met
or needed to meet
Because a better Jesus came to you
in the full Glory of pure Spirit
And revealed to you and only you
The Truth of Who He Really Was
and what He really meant to say
things he never said
to the likes of us
who knew him as
just mortal flesh
like us

O Paul I pray to you please
Accept my submission
To you and to all men
For as God is to Man
Man is to Woman
and to Worms
and Wombats
and Weasels
and Weevils.
All Nature
Submits
to thy
Will

I am Woman
Wallowing in Wet Nature
Oozing out blood
from my unholy Womb
Who follows obediently
the cycles of her moon
as if Worshipping
with blood sacrifice
that heathen goddess
in secret every month

Oozing out babies
in a bloody mess
Oozing out milk
from my tender breasts
yielding to secret ecstacies
from eager infant lips
sucking at this mortal flesh
Foul creature that I am
I dwell in the damp dank
realm of this flesh
of this blood these bones
of joy and desire
and wet tears
so many many tears
all my days
and am unworthy
to speak my mind
my woman-mind
in your holy church
Where Spirit speaks
and Flesh is silent

O Paul I pray to you
Forgive me for I cannot understand
this dry bright Love you preach
The love I know is dark and Wet
One after another
my babies swim
from bloody Womb
to milky breast
To me that feels
like the deepest love
but I know I must be Wrong
For I know beasts feel it too
and I must be a beast
unable to understand
a single Word
of the Wisdom
the Spirit-Christ gave you
and you alone
but you now deign
to offer us

O Paul I pray to you
give me some credit
for the Ways
I submit
to your Will.
I know I was born
to comfort nourish
and seduce and so
I purse my lips
and bite my tongue
(my wet and joyous
serpent’s tongue)
lest my soft dark voice
sound in your church
And I swear to you
I shall not sing
in your holy sanctuary
nor even pray aloud
nor (God forbid!) ask questions
lest the sweetness of
my womanly voice
send secret sinful thoughts
into the pure bright minds of men

O Paul I pray to you
silently of course
Give me some credit.
I am learning to hold
my shoulders
hunched forwards
my back is also bent a bit
Soon I’ll have a little hump
Thus I keep once-proud breasts
humble
unassertive
slightly squashed
And when I walk I shuffle now
Never take long strides
nor hold my head up high
Bosom leading the way
like the prow of a ship
carving through the sea
I used to be like that you know
when I walked with Jesus
the Jesus I knew
We even laughed out loud
together more than once
and he didn’t seem to mind
when I sang an old song
one time softly by a little fire
as we shared a flask of wine
with the rest of our old gang
and the time it seemed just fine
But I know now I was wrong
he must have been disgusted
because your Spirit-Christ
blocking your Way to Damascus
told you that was how He felt
as He was trapped in His
temporary physical body
Dying to get out and get away
So He could come to you alone
Free from hangers-on like me

O Paul forgive me please
if ever again my eyes meet yours
as they did when you first came
to tell us of your Spirit-Christ
and lead us to your Truth
I felt my doubting eyes
shoot lightning through
your fragile soul
I could smell your spirit burning
as the thunder came
soft and gentle from my throat
along my serpent’s tongue,
past pearly teeth and wine-red lips
I’d intended it to be a question:
How can you be so sure you know
that your Christ-hallucination
was not sent to you by Satan?
But what came out
was a thunderous woman-laugh.
I thought you were such a funny guy.
Jesus Himself, the one I knew,
never had your Messiah Complex.
He didn’t need it. He kept things simple,
took time to listen, told good stories,
always a punch line you’d never forget.
Seemed to love everyone he met,
Even, or especially, the ones he damned,
and always had a loophole handy
to get them out of their sorry fate.
Behold the lilies of the field, he said,
be like them and you’ll be okay.
Then you showed up to say no, no,
your Chirst-Spirit told you different
said faith in Him, meaning in your vision,
was the only escape from the fires of Hell,
where His Father was planning to roast us all.
And why was that? Cuz Eve got tempted
then tempted her man.
That’s what comes of letting women
have a say in what goes on.
Every baby is born to burn
and only you knew the true Christ’s
solution: Faith, more faith, and only faith.
To hell with the good Samaritan,
forget the Sermon on the Mount,
listen to me instead you said,
because the faith we need
is faith in what you say,
and we’re supposed
to believe you’re right.
becuase whatever you saw
or thought you saw
seemed to be glowing
so awfully bright.
Well that was then and this is now.
The guys around here have seen your light.
Now your rules are their rules
and their rules are my rules and so
I keep my eyes downcast and averted,
my mouth as silent as a tomb.
No lightning or thunder from me these days
No questions, no laughter, no audible prayer
never a song or a whistle or hum.
I feel like a naughty little girl
punished for just being who I am
Yet all this tongue-biting, hunching and shuffling,
shucking and jiving, repressing and muffling,
is making me old before my time.

O Paul please give me a little credit
does my good behavior count for naught?
Do I really have to burn,
because what you mean I can’t discern?
I’m no threat now, I swear I’m not
The Jesus I knew is as good as forgot.
I’d tell you I have full faith in your vision
if I thought lies could influence God’s decision
But they don’t, I think, and on that at least
I think we agree.

Hey, here’s a thought, Paul —
Can’t I just be a two-legged woman-beast?
Loving my babies and loving my man?
I’ll drop any claim to have a soul,
live out my life, then call it quits,
and melt back into the dark damp earth.
Okay?
Shuffling around Heaven forever and a day,
head bowed, eyes down, in endless silence—
Maybe that’s what your Christ-ghost expects from me,
But no thanks, and no Hell either please.
See, if I have no soul to save or damn,
I’ve nothing to contribute to either place.
So Paul, here’s the deal, I’ll stay right here,
and if when Doomsday’s come and gone,
it turns out the New Earth was here all along
(like when your Christians (or Paulists) get reborn,
what’s different is they got a whole new attitude
and the born-again thing’s a metaphorical platitude)
Then a New Eden will blossom at every latitude,
Countless Trees of Life will be sinking new roots
Who knows, maybe Yahweh and Satan will be in cahoots,
Because even if the planet’s more or less the same,
What’s happening will be a whole brand new ballgame
And I want to be composting in that sacred soil,
(the whole earth will be sacred once it’s renewed,
it already is but now we can’t see it)
and doing my bit to get life restarted,
because after all that’s really all women know:
bringing people and places to life through our toil.
And don’t tell your Christ-ghost I said this, but
Do you really think the whole point of Creation
Was tormented souls having faith in a ghost
For fear they’ll otherwise be burnt toast?

chelydra

Chose to ignore the doubts that came to mind when about to click send. So perhaps this is an ideal candidate for a deletion—which Marg on Radrook's "edit" forum said is an option if you request it of the management, and have a good reason for requesting it. When I was dwelling on the bodily fluids, etc., I overdid it quite a lot... trying to imagine what it is about women that would make Church leaders from Paul's day to our own so emotionally distraught at the idea of women participating meaningfully in the life a church (or The Church if we mean European Christianity between Constantine and Luther), and what sort of distorted self-image would result from being considered unholy. 99% of the difference between male and female is obviously that women have babies and men don't. Why that should make women less holy rather than more holy is beyond me, unless there's a prevailing philosophy that nature itself is unholy, and life itself is contemptible because it involves physical bodies... And it seems not coincidental that the most militant and explicit sexist remarks in the New Testament came from the only one of very earliest Church Fathers who never encountered Jesus in His biological form, but only in a flash of light that he heard speaking to him. I'm not a total skeptic by any means about whether such a light could have been something much than a hallucination brought on a Saul/Paul's guilty conscience, but I find it hard to believe that someone as mixed-up and distraught as Paul himself admits he was even long after he was reborn would not have filtered such an experience through his own ideas — particularly after he started creating a whole theological system on top of the experience itself. And offhand, I don't recall a word in the Gospels remotely like Paul's pronouncement about the inferior status of women.
A lot of this is old hat, especially since Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code popularized some of the main feature of the feminist critique of Paul, and the idea that women (Mary Magdalen in particular) may have been centrally important in the beginnings of what would soon became Christianity. When a theory includes the not-unreasonable notion that all evidence that might back it up was destroyed, leaving only a few tantalizing clues in a Gospel or two, there's no way to judge how much of it might correspond to reality and how much is wishful thinking.
It's worth noting that the letter from James is diametrically opposed to Paul on the all-important "faith vs. good works" question—and of all the authors of New Testament, even including Peter, James seems to have been closest to the historical (physically present) Jesus. Whatever the word "brother" means, it has to mean a lot. The obvious implication is that James is far more likely to have preserved in writing Jesus's own view that an outsider, an dedicated enemy of the earliest churches when they were taking form, who got all his information from one overwhelming revelation and his own efforts to express what it signified. And if Paul felt his revelation gave him the authority to contradict Jesus's own ideas about "faith vs works" (which can be inferred from the Gospels as well as from James's very explicit "faith without works is dead"), is it that great a leap to suppose Paul might have done the same with other great questions, such as the status of women?
To be continued

chelydra

TYPO CORRECTION TIME AGAIN...
Start of fourth line should read ...participating meaningfully in the life OF a church (or The Church)
Middle of the last paragraph: Jesus's own view THAN an outsider (not "that")
Probably others I missed.

Lizzi

I once borrowed a little book from the Public Library called "What Paul Really Said About Women" by Rev. John Temple Bristow.(Episcopalian). It seems translation was done according to the preferences of the male clergy. Worth reading.

Radrook

I enjoyed reading your Christianity oriented poem immensely. As a fiction writer and poet myself I understand that it is perfectly allright to assume different identities and in fact necessary to assume different gender perspectives. Thanks for your contribution.

BTW
Perhaps you will receive a response to it at your Acrimonious thread. There are a lot of women here and it is hard to imagine them remaining toatally disinterested. In fact, there are many points of interest that should elicite a response not only from women but from anyone interested in Christianity.

Kind regards

Radrook

chelydra

hi and thanks, both of you... i was unsure if i might have lit the fuse for a big blow-out, after a friend (not on TD) I showed it to said it looked like I was just trying to get everyone offended and confused.
Lizzi, before I forget: Would you happen to know any Greeks, or classics scholars, who could say what the original said, or do you remember anything from the Bristow book? And was he talking about King James Version, or from Greek to Latin 200-400AD or whenever that happened? That's good to know. There are passages in Paul's letters that are mind-bogglingly beautiful and deep, as everyone knows, and I'd like to believe they came from a decent fellow.
There's another angle on this that comes to mind - I gather Paul and a whole lot of other relatively well-off and cosmopolitan Jews were (unlike Jesus and his circle) "Hellenized" - writing in Greek, maybe speaking only Greek in some cases, and saturated with Greek ideas... a whole lot of Christian philosophy, starting very early (probably with Paul himself), is recycled from Plato's followers, and Gibbon (Decline & Fall of Rome) had a whole chapter proving (it sure looked like it was proving anyway) that the notion of the Trinity was lifted directly (circa 200AD or even later) from some musings Plato wrote down and had absolutely zilch to do with anything in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Anyway, I bring that up because one of the main features of Greek society was its total contempt for women (except in Sparta where the men were so involved with each other they let their womenfolk run free)... maybe this was more Athens than anywhere else, but it was certainly true of the Socrates-Plato gang., who were most relevant to Christian ideas.
In other words: It seems reasonable to believe that Jesus's own circle had beliefs about women that were relatively normal (i.e., they play an some kind of active role in the community and are accepted as full members of human race), or maybe they didn't have anything you could call "beliefs about women" if women were just people to them... not full equals but not objects of contempt either. (I'm sleepy which makes me diffuse and verbose and too lazy to edit)... but Paul and maybe some others would have brought in the Athenian view of women (there must have been something there even if it was exaggerated by translators)... sorry to ramble...

Radrook

The following articles provide relevant useful information for further discussion.

Women in the Early Christian Church
http://www.angelmessage.org/women_in_the_early_christian_ch


Barnes' Notes on the Bible

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:28

http://bible.cc/galatians/3-28.htm

Radrook

All info has been usefu and relevant. The info links just provide additional data that might give us a deeper view of how Paul viewed women.

Radrook

How people and a denominations can go awry in relation t forgiveness of sin.


There is one common feature that distinguishes all denominations as Christian, all claim belief in the Ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. But such a claim can be merely a veneer and rules and regulations can very effectively nullify it. How? well, by introducing ideas of men as requirements for forgiveness. What ideas? Let's consider one, confession to another human or the demand that another sinful human serve as an intermediary between the sinner and God in order for us to feel forgiven.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

"For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God." (1 Peter 3:18a)

"In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace." (Ephesians 1:7)

That is basically all that is needed for our sins be forgiven. To illustrate, if one is isolated from all human contact and one sincerely prays for forgiveness one will be forgiven.


But there is one vital requirement that some persons tend to forget. We must forgive others in order to be forgiven ourselves.


"For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." (Matthew 6:14,15)


"Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ, God forgave you." (Ephesians 4:32)


That means that we are wasting our time asking God to forgive us if we harbor hatred in our hearts against our fellow man and refuse to forgive. Then God will apply the same measure we are applying to our neighbor and the Ransom sacrifice ceases to be effective in our case. This is very important fact to keep in mind since humans tend to be vendetta minded and seek ways to punish a even after that individual expresses remorse.


Matthew 7:1-2
1Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Organizationally this unchristian modus operandi can manifest itself via the cruel application of shunning as practiced by the Amish and JWS.

chelydra

I've been forumming more than enough of late, but before I disappear I felt the need to explain the poem (if that's what it is) I wrote above. Radrook had repeatedly posted (on several forums) a quote from St Paul about how women should stay silent in church, adding his own rather twisted little comments. Since direct communication with him tended to backfire regardless of what tone we took, I thought this approach might get through to him. Alas, it apparently didn't (unless his gratitude and appreciation were sincere, which seems unlikely). In trying to get into my narrator, a woman repressed by growing male dominance of the earliest churches under Paul's influence, disheartened and demoralized, yet trying to not be so openly defiant she'd be expelled (Chriistianity was her life), I probably made her desperation and confusion so deep that she ended up fitting Radrook's ideal. The whole thing can probably be read as a woman surrendering to her fate, succumbing to male authority by giving up even any claim to have her own soul and looking forward to be eaten by worms. She can't honestly endorse Paul's doctrines (which seem to her inconsistent with what she remembered Jesus saying), but the option she chooses instead is to sink even lower. That wasn't what I thought I was writing, but it might be the feeling it conveys. Hence Radrook's benign approval.

pollyesther

Chelydra, please don't disappear--let's continue the discussion.
I really like your poem. It is at the heart of a true dilemma that I have no solution for. When I read it, it feels like aspects of it came from my own heart.
I know Paul is not always easily understood and especially in this passage from our culture's perspective he seems sexist. I really don't think Paul's intention is alienate women in the Church, but this is a work of other's who interpreted the teaching to suit their own agenda.
Paul sets men and women in equal but differing roles. There is nothing demeaning about men and women being different.
Having said that, I do find that it is difficult for me to be silent in Church (I haven’t regularly attended a church in over 3 years). I think this is because I like to study the Bible, I'm fascinated by doctrine, and it damn near kills me to be quiet when I hear some fool rattling on about absolutely nothing having to do with the scriptures--or even worse manipulating people with false doctrine. Church is not always that way of course, there are some wonderful churches out there.
Concerning men and women's roles...I think our society is a bit confused as well.
I grew up in a society that rewards women's independence from men and family.
Think about the way we would see a young, 'stay at home' mother as a society. She is pitiful, she is undereducated, her potential in unreached.
Now think about a young “career women” who has postponed or even discarded her role as a mother.
More shame will be placed on the girl who follows a natural role, and the latter will be commended for making a “responsible” decision.
Some women do both as “working mothers” but it’s difficult to do both well IMO. You cannot serve 2 masters (roles) you will be loyal to your family or you will be loyal to your job and neither one will ever get enough of your attention. It is a conflict of interest for me to work as a mother of four precious children who need someone to look after them—it might as well be me, the one with all of the oozings=)
Concerning being silent in church: as I have said i don't regularly attend anymore as to prevent any more disruptions=Dlol

pollyesther

What I meant to say is that it is difficult for me to work (a conventional job)as a mother of four because "time off" from work means "on duty" at home, and that doesn't even account for the things that can go wrong while I'm at work. I'm only an ordinary human being (I have been called lazy) but I like to call it being focused.

chelydra

Lots to discuss! In the parlance of the 'fifties, you said a mouthful. Not time now, but will say the career-vs-babies thing is a vile, nasty dilemma, and the inability of society in general and the feminist networks in particular (unless I've missed something) to come up with a win-win compromise has really ruined many women's lives. There does seem to be more respect (or less disrespect, to be more accurate) for both childless women and stay-at-home "breeders" (I that that was a terms used by gays for straights before gays decided to become parents themselves) than there was a decade or to or three ago. That's a huge step in the right direction, to lighten the stigma attached to either available choice. It doesn't do much to alleviate the practical, personal, and painful aspects of the situation though, in individual women's lives - as you so well described it from your own perspective of trying to do it all. And while the social stigma is lightening up a lot on both sides, I think a lot of women have had their lives f^%$#ed up by first abortion and then IVF etc being sold as cure-alls, as if they had no downside. "Reproductive choice" makes a great slogan, and it's definitely a principle worth upholding (certainly when forced sterilizations and worse have been endemic in many times and places)... but we're not really ready to replace nature with gyno-technology... and the implication that utopia will arrive when the techniques to control reproduction are perfected is probably a good example of the road to hell being paved with good intensions.

Ramble ramble....

I expected that poem to get a lot of response, not just Lizzi's brief note and Radrook's rants. Parts of it aren't as readable as they might be, I guess, and the good bits tend to be buried under complicated and contradictory verbiage. I'd almost totally forgotten I ever wrote it when your message here brought me back to it. I'm really glad it spoke to you.

About Paul: I noticed on my own (and I'm not a diligent Bible studier, not even much of a Christian) the direct opposition of James and Paul's specifically their faith vs works positions. It's pretty hard to miss. And considering that James is said to be the biological brother of Jesus (full or half depending on whether you're into virgin births), in charge of the church in Jerusalem and environs, where Jesus lived and preached not long before --- whereas Paul based his theology on a hallucination and Neo-Platonic concepts quite alien to the original gang around Jesus --- there can't be much doubt about which brand of Christianity is the heresy and which is authentic. Paul may have been the most eloquent religious wordsmith of all time, but even so, I'm sure his heresy has dominated church doctrines because it's a hell of a lot easier for the leaders of the church to downplay the stuff about rich hypcrites heading to hell and poor people inheriting the earth (as if it were mere rhetoric we needn't take literally) than it is to confront inequality and injustice in real life. (Hence the Maryknoll martyrs in El Salvador are dismissed as heretics instead of being sainted, and meanhile the evangelicals in Guatemala got involved in actual genocide of Mayan peasants, with a clear conscience. This is a logical extension of "faith not works" I think.)

Probably much more in your message I didn't get to. Hope this will do for now.

Hazer

Chelydra, I have started to write a response a couple of times but didn't get it posted. I'm usually on here after work, which for me is 11 p m, and as you have seen by my stories, I would benefit from a good nights sleep before I start pecking away at the keyboard! This topic deserves to be approached with a clear head.
I will be working some day shifts yet this summer and I will make a point of commenting, so please, hold this thought.

Lizzi

Interesting discussion. Jesus treated women as persons and was always respectful to them. When confronted with a woman accused of adultery, Jesus wanted to know where her lover was. It takes two to tango. In the book that I mentioned in a previous post, it is pointed out that Paul wrote his 'infamous 'lines to Timothy,( a student of Paul's). The letter was personal, not directed to the congregation. It was a specific answer to a specific situation...the problem of unruly behaviour in church. Grecian women were kept at home and did not attend public meetings, hence their poor understanding of proper procedure, i.e. everyone talking at once, rather than taking turns. It seems the women may have thought of the meetings as a time for free-and-easy socializing, as at a family gathering. The author believes that the letter was not meant to be used a universal way of silencing women, but as a teaching for those women who needed guidance in the grown-up way of conducting a meeting.

Lizzi

BTW, Chelydra, your comment about Paul's hallucination made me smile. Always puzzled me why anybody would accept his word about God speaking to him, and why Paul's writings would be more important than all the others, both male and female ,who knew Jesus well, many since childhood. The Catholic church set aside gospels written by some of those people, in favour of Paul's. Strange how the NT is almost entirely Paul. Did the "church fathers" invent him to be their mouthpiece? No, I suppose he really did exist.
In the first chapter of Genesis, God sent out his Spirit to create. The Hebrew word for spirit is "ruach"- a feminine noun. What?!!! Does this mean that everything in Heaven is NOT exclusively masculine?

pollyesther

faith vs works
Which is it and whats it for?
Paul writes in Galatians about faith vs works
Galatians 2:16
knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

and James
James 2:14-17
New King James Version (NKJV)


14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

I think they are talking about different types of works here. Paul is referring to the works of the law from the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was made between God and the Hebrews. All of those works (sacrifices and offerrings etc.) were a shadow of the sacrifice Jesus would make on the cross. That is why Jesus is called the "Lamb of God"

Jesus told us the parable of the good Samaritan in which the badly injured man on the side of the path is passed up by a Priest and a Levite and then saved by a Samaritan. Jesus was always challenging cultural biases which was in this case against Samaritans.
This is the same as what James is saying... One who is in the position to help someone who desparately needs their help, if they have the Spirit of Love they would be compelled to do so.