Faith and other YEC: why even bother taking part in the discussion?

There are many others, many turns of speech here and there, but my head is fogged up from a terrific cold, if that is any kind of excuse, and nothing much is getting through at the moment. I disagree, it is not at all unclear in the case of Jonah. A literalist reads it as historical, not figurative, because there is nothing in the text to suggest that it was intended as anything else. It "strikes" people as a fable only because it violates their OWN preconceptions, but the text itself is not at all ambiguous -- it's clearly presented as straight historical narrative. Besides that, it is grouped with the other prophets, all of whom are regarded as historical persons reporting God's word and historical events as well (that is, it could have been grouped with the "wisdom literature" instead, like Proverbs and Ecclesiastes etc); and Jonah is referred to by Jesus, who in no way demotes it from historical status. Well, but this is a problem with outsiders or unbelievers imposing their own notions of what "literal" means on literalists. Literalists don't read figurative passages literally. Literalists know the difference between poetry and history. Literalists know the Bible has embedded meanings -- {Edit: Or nonexplicit implications that must be ferreted out} -- and that there are fascinating connections to be found between the OT and Jesus that aren't in the surface text in any obvious way.A purely intellectual approach to the Bible without believing it will not yield any of these insights however. It all begins with believing it.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-15-2005 03:10 PM

Well, I tried. Have a good day.{Edit: I'm surprised and disappointed that you would make such an insulting comment}This message has been edited by Faith, 09-15-2005 06:54 PM

OK if you didn't think of it as insulting you are forgiven. I guess I'm way too sensitive. It does sound like a description of an obviously deluded/crazy/irrational attitude, certainly not a description of what you would consider rational thinking. Such irrational mental states do of course exist, where a person sees patterns that aren't there, misinterprets clues and so on.But what I was presenting was my view that the types of the Bible (that was the subject IIRC?) are a serious systematic study of objective facts, not a psychological state.You ARE forgiven but now I'm curious how it doesn't seem insulting to you as it still does to me. Not particularly harsh in tone, no, rather matter of fact. This message has been edited by Faith, 09-17-2005 01:01 AM

Um, I don't see how, quite the opposite. A problem here with the word "believe" I suppose. Believing the Bible is God's word means that I expect to learn from it things I'm in no position to *want* to find because I haven't a clue beforehand what *can* be found in it. There are revelations in it that would never occur to me, discoveries, eye-opening information about the nature of things I can't know about from my own senses or imagination. I'm not believing any *specific content* beforehand, just that it's the word of the Creator God, something unique, something beyond me. If I truly believe, I am simply eager to learn what it has to reveal about spiritual realities I'm too dull to figure out on my own. Everything I've learned from the Bible was brand-new to me at one point, and there's always more to discover. If anything, the Bible has a way of shaking a person up with the totally unexpected. But this is not in fact what happens. People have not discovered these things by expecting to find them. They are wonderful revelations. Well, it might be worth a test. What would you like to find there? See if you can find it. Should be interesting.But whatever you find, it's not how believers approach the Bible.

Sure. I don't recall specific instances at the moment, but the experience Oh THAT's what that means happens a lot. A lot of it is just plain indigestible at first too, makes no sense. But I never relied only on my own reading to understand it. It takes hearing/reading preachers who have studied it in depth to bring out its meanings, and I read a lot of books by Christians too. There are always minor disagreements on meanings too.

Possibly but I don't recall a specific instance. Maybe one will come to me eventually. But my usual experience is of not understanding something and just leaving it for the time being, and later it may be clarified by a sermon or something else. That happens a lot. Or I might look it up in some commentaries to see how they explain it. Most of the Bible was opaque at first.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-17-2005 02:01 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 09-17-2005 02:03 PM

Well, it's a hard question. Fallibility sure, but then believers ARE saved because they believe, so they're "infallible" --if that's the right word --about at least their belief in Jesus' sacrifice for sin. Having enough understanding to believe in the sacrifice of Christ is basic. It grows from there.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-18-2005 11:31 AM

But the definition of what a Christian is comes from what is revealed in the Bible. I guess I'm not distinguishing between its being preached versus being read in the Bible. The term "fallible" is hard to work with. Believers are RIGHT about what the Bible says about salvation, and ALL believers GROW in their right understanding of what the Bible says, learning more all the time that they can use in living the Christian life. As I tried to say in an earlier post on this, believers are fallible in their interpretation EXCEPT about the crucial points having to do with salvation. (But believers are also willing to learn from teachers, so their fallibility is always being corrected). There is every kind of believer from the very learned and mature in the faith to the brand new and immature and everything in between.I know what you're getting at but there are too many different things involved to answer clearly. A good Bible preacher/teacher has the Holy Spirit and may have years of study and practice, but still he usually relies on commentaries for help in teaching the Bible to his flock. He sometimes may disagree with them too.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-18-2005 07:44 PM

Yes.

Exactly. There are hundreds of denominations that disagree on many points, but all consider each other Christians nevertheless. To be considered apostate or a cult a group has to deny one of the ESSENTIAL doctrines, such as the deity of Christ. No, this would put them them outside the camp as I say above. That's between you and God. That's all that can be said. I do use the genderless "he" most of the time because the other versions always sound awkward. I never had a problem with it growing up so I continue with it. But in the case of preachers, the pastors of a congregation, I believe the Bible teaches clearly that that is a role reserved for men only. I know feminists consider this sexism, but it's about role, not about ability. Women are to use the same ability in other contexts.

The word isn't "subservient," Schraf. It says "submit to" your husband; it doesn't mean you are his slave, it means you are to serve him in love, willingly -- and he's to do the same toward you.

quote:

---

Do you believe that women should be subservient to men in all things?

---

No, only to her husband, not to all men, and yes in all things to her husband, though the word, again, is not "subservient." Somehow that implies she is forced to do menial things at his command, but that's not the idea at all. I completely disagree. The natural differences between male and female physical strength and functions are obvious, and different roles for the two make sense. There are no natural differences between races.

quote:

---

The issue here is power and status. The most powerful religious position in a congregation is the person who interprets and teaches the Word of God to the people; the pastor. If men are always the most powerful, women will always be considered second class.

---

That's not the idea. The idea is authority, not inequality. The pastor is also exhorted in the Bible to regard himself as a servant, not a boss.

quote:

---

This teaches girls women that to be good Christian women, they must content themselves to being second class people; that God views women as not important or trustworthy enough to entrust with the Word of God.

---

I don't see it that way at all. It's not about class or status, it's about role or function. The sexes are equal in human status, different in role and spheres of authority and responsibility.

Quotes please. From MAJOR Christian sources. That is true. It is a hierarchy of authority, not tyranny. No, she is not to submit if he leads in a way that is contrary to God. Huh? In the Old Testament they are. That was the way of life in the Middle East. It is a result of the Fall. It is not dictated by the Bible, it is not God's will, merely reported as a fact. Jesus Christ, however, changed things. He is God and demonstrates God's true will. It was revolutionary for Him to speak to women as He did, to include them in His circle, to speak to foreign women especially, and prostitutes. His disciples were often a bit flummoxed by his behavior in that way, because they had been brought up under the old idea that women are chattel and foreigners no better than dogs. But though women are now equal to men, we are not equal in authority and are given a different role to play. The Bible does not approve of slavery, it merely tolerates it and tries to tame it. Slavery is a part of the fallen nature same as mistreating women is. But the hierarchy of authority goes back to the Creation, it is not a part of the Fall, it was merely twisted by the Fall. At least in the command to husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church. A bossy commanding manner is excluded by the above command to love their wives, but menial labor has to be done in any case, and certainly a lot of that had to be done by all until a century ago anyway. No, I didn't say it was a "reason" for anything, I said it just to emphasize that the sexes are different from each other in many ways, in contrast with the racial example you gave, where there is no difference. See above. It's not a "reason" for anything. You read that into what I said. Well, now you are off on a tear based on your misreading of my mention of the physical differences between the sexes which I did not give as the REASON for anything. Those are circumstantial differences, not natural differences in the sense I obviously meant it. Those are differences like the trait differences between parents and children, but I was talking about fundamental differences. The word was ambiguous. My mistake. Jesus Christ.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-20-2005 07:36 PM

As I understand it, and have been trying to get across, it is a matter of church government more than anything else, of authority or responsibility rather than a prohibition on preaching and teaching as such, but I have some questions too about how this should be played out. As I said, it is not about ability. Women have the ability. And there are special contexts too. When there are no men capable of leading, then a woman who has the ability leads instead. Again, this isn't about ability and I don't know why my having said it many times already isn't getting across. Women have the ability to hear from God and convey His word. It's about role and authority in government of the church. This is the complete opposite of what I've been saying but I guess you prefer your own view so I don't see any point in repeating mine. I did NOT say at any point that women are not "to preach." I said they are not to have authority over a congregation, to BE in the official responsible ROLE of preachers and pastors of the church. And I admit I still have some questions myself about where women's talents in preaching are to be used in the church. Some women obviously have more of these gifts than some of the men who have the responsible roles in the church, but if it's a matter of role and not ability, then it's a matter of determining the right context for women's giftings to be of use in the church and I have questions about this. Some churches believe that women are to use such gifts in teaching women and children only. I don't think that is all that clear in scripture. But overall it seems right and biblical that men should head the church as leaders and overseers.

Why do you admire the roles of men so much? Don't women have their own importance in their own roles? Isn't there something a tad sexist about your idea that women have to be identical to men or somehow they are inferior?By the way girls USUALLY do better than boys in school up to a certain age. Nothing new there.