h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Mikey,

My slightly flippant response to Vicky in the other thread was that - given that generations of theologians have felt able to not regard Paul' comments in Galatians as demanding equal rights for women - so presumably they felt he is being metaphorical here. After all, he's not *literally* saying that there's no difference between men and women, is he?

So how can I tell whether this is a strictly literal commandment or a metaphorical / hyperbolic one? If it's common sense, how can I compare your common sense (that women should be equal) with the common sense of millennia of church fathers (that women are unsuitable to be priests)?

(My answer would be: only by applying my secularly-derived moral values. But I'm wondering if you have a non-secular alternative.)

Gif

So, 'sanctified common sense' is similar to 'common common sense', except it must operate within the boundaries of accepted christian theology.

Is that an accurate definition?

Morality?

Morality is...a group of social laws so that we all can get along without killing eachother...the problem is...ppl tend to transform it.

Believe in no god, believe in you!

A small part of a dialogue of a famous book:

«- YOU STEAL MEN'S SOULS, and make them your slaves!

Death: - The same could be said of all religions. »

Paul's advice about wives submitting to husbands and husbands loving their wives as Christ loved the church is not bad advice. Homes where the mother respects the father and the father loves his wife creates an atmosphere for children to feel safe and confident knowing they are loved and knowing who's in charge. It does not make women inferior.

Don't you think its a bit sad when you see a man unable to lead his family or even to answer his wife back if he disagrees with her? A lady I used to work with used to long for the old days when 'men were men and women were grateful'...I'm not sure what she meant but I think it may illustrate a point here.

Personally I prefer men to be leaders in church, but on the other hand, I'd rather be led by a godly woman than an ungodly man. But times being as they are, we're bound to get women leaders...its not too big a deal for me.

mikey2

>I'd rather be led by a godly woman<

I'm your woman then, mikey.

I was thinking as I delved earlier today (literally delved in the earth, working on a new garden plot. I know it's not spinning, but later I'll be spending time hooking a rug. Gender rolls are all topsy-turvy in caesarville) and a question I'd like to throw out there came to me:

So, here we are taking part in the centuries long debate over what Paul meant or even whether 'Paul' was one person or many and I thought, I'm not sure there is even any agreement on what means. I mean, I remember when I was a teenager if I were asked what religion I was I probably would have said -- I wasn't muslim or hindu, I'd been baptised as a baby, I did the Christmas thing and I figured everybody should be nice to each other. Of course, I didn't believe in God, I figured the Bible was pretty obviously mythology and Jesus was probably a rather charismatic itinerant preacher who might even have been the son of a carpenter. I guess I was what Dawkins calls himself -- a cultural Christian. I also feel that I have as much right to use the term Christian to describe myself as has the Pope, the President of the Mormon Church, Desmond Tutu, or anyone who has ever posted to this or any other thread anywhere on the internet.

So, the question (it's a long question with a number of clauses) that came to me as I carried on with Adam's task and as I prepared to do a bit of Eve's is this: does anyone disagree? does anyone feel that they have the ability or right to decide who is or is not a Christian? If so, how do they make that judgement? On what authority is that judgement based? Is there some list of beliefs and/or behaviors on which all who term themselves Christian agree? Is there some objective criterion by which I, for example, might be denied the use of the term Christian? Does someone or some group have the authority to deny the use of the term to someone or some group? Who gave that person or group ownership of the term?

The questions which grow out of this issue of ownership are many. Any thoughts? I say again, I feel that I have a right to use the term of myself -- can anyone deny that I have that right?

Hi Mikey,

That's a fairly good attitude - but does it square with Paul's commandment that women may not speak in church?

Gif

Hi caesar,

A good question. I don't claim for myself the right to judge who is a Christian and who is not - if they claim to be, I generally have to accept that they are. Yet strangely, I find that I do frequently end up disagreeing (mentally, if not verbally) with people who claim that others are not Christians - whether it be because they are Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, etc.

Not sure if that's a contradiction or a logical extrapolation!

Gif

Hi Caesar,Happy rug hooking, I too design and hook. to your point as a cultural Christian as an atheist I have been accepted by the church and when my children wished to join said church there was no problem. We talked at great lenght and I explained I would support my children's wish but I would not change my fundemental disbelief in a God. The Rev was happy and I knew that my kids would cridicaly decide as they grew older reach which ever decision they chose regarding their beliefs. I will always regard myself as a cultural Christian there are many positive thoughtful and helpfull tentents to the mythology but.... I will not debate hoe many angel can,could or shall dance upon a head of a pin or what Paul said or did not say. Hey Moses got written tablets, like Dah couldn't Jeus get a scribe?

<>

My guess is, they'd resolve it amicably... but really, I haven't disputed with anyone, myself, so the question's never arisen. The most important sentence in what you've said abouve, is this one: "But is not someone formulating their own ideas about 'how things fit" - a Christian won't decide for herself what a passage means, and go off on a tear trying to make everyone else accept it. God is in our midst, and enables that 'sanctified common sense', which is why it's called "sanctified"...

<>

Honestly, no.






<<. The one thing you are correct about is that I have not read Campolo's book and have no plans to do so. I therefore don't know what his opinions are, but I do know that he was prosecuted for heresy for those views by the Baptists>>
Excuse me? Proof please!


<>
Who?
<< 'women are the devil's gateway' or 'not made in the image of God', that kind of thing. >>
Oh yes, every atheist's favourite (mis)quotes. I refer you to the site Taliesin (!) brought to my attention.
http://www.tektonics.org/af/bogusq.html





<< <>
You: What happens when they/we try? Screaming, ranting, raving abuse, threats and insults. (See Mr Angry-man (zoomer's) post above for a perfect example. )

Thank you for proving my point for me. Nice to see you have a sense of humour. >>

I suppose your point is intended to be that I am guilty of the behaviour I ascribe to your side... I admit, my besetting fault is my temper and Mr Angryman really riles it up something awful, which given that's his intent, must make him very happy!

But you know, because you are *not* stupid, much though you seem to want to appear to be sometimes, that any attempt to talk peacably and to engage with fact, results in the kind of splenetic ranting found here, for instance.

http://ravingatheist.com/

Not to mention this guy, who wow, surely has some serious issues...

http://rantingatheist.blogspot.com/2005/11/wow-for-omniscient-deity-you-sure-are.html

azahar, I was told once by a fellow countryman of yours, that if a joke had to be explained, it was ruined... but what is the point? What are we supposed to be seeing?

Vicky

<>

Yes, it's *for* theology, which is why it's called "sanctified" common sense!

Vicky

<>
I'm sorry Caesar, but I am with Effers on this one! To use an analogy, I have no right to call myself a Sikh whatsoever, as I don't believe (and in many cases, I am not even certain about) what they believe. IMO, there's really no such thing as a 'cultural Christian'. A Christian is someone who believes in a literal Ressurection, and believes in Jesus to save them from their sins.

<>
Yes, I do, pretty much as any Imam, or any Muslim here on hootoo, could rightly claim to judge whether I am a Muslim...
<>
On the basis of your already-stated lack of belief in God.
<< Is there some list of beliefs and/or behaviors on which all who term themselves Christian agree? >>
Check out A231931, you'll find a lively discussion there...
<>

The generality of Christians, as is also the case with Muslims, Jews and Sikhs (afaik, regarding the latter..)

<
Most of the Anglican hierarchy notwithstanding, belief in God is a pretty big prerequisite!

<<>
On the basis of your already-stated lack of belief in God. >

I'm afraid you've misunderstood that part of the question or the meaning of 'authority'. My stated lack of belief in God is not an authority: it is evidence that you might bring before an authority for the sake of judgement.

What is the authority which judges a belief in God as necessary for the use of the term Christian? Despite your dismissal of the Anglican hierarchy, that hierarchy is certainly a portion of the generality of Christians.

Vicky; have you ever read anything written by the Rev. Spong?

<>

True.

>

No, it's a tiny part of Christianity, and not the generality at all. Why, I've always wondered, do people who don't believe in God, or equally importantly, any other of the main tenets of Christianity, *want* to be called Christians? All you have to do is look around the 'net, to see what sort of rep Christians have out there - that ranting atheist site is a good indication.

It's obvious that a belief in God is, at the very least, a defining characteristic of a Christian. Atheist Christians, even though such groups exist, are a bigger oxymoron than military intelligence!

<>

Yes, I have, and I have to say, I was neither impressed nor moved. He's very learned, but he fails to convince, rather like Mr Ehrman.

Vicky

Vicky; I do not wish to placate or condecend, I do wish for you to please step aside from your view and to consider another prospective, understand that one can share the tolerate and thoughtful side of any religion/belief system without believeing in a deity. Yes I do agree that naming oneself a cultural Christian or insert diety here is inconcurant but language what it is....

<>

Sorry, that doesn't work! Try this...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/U231931

(Silly me, it should have U231931, not A )

Vicky

I, for one, don't *want* to be called a Christian -- that just happens to be one of the terms that I feel fits me when *I* think of *myself*. I don't much care what other people call me -- stick and stones, etc. I'm just trying to understand why anyone would try to say that I shouldn't be calling myself by that term.

and

what are the main tenets of Christianity? Who says?






it is absolutely not obvious at all. It is a part of your chosen definition, as far as I can tell, but it is in no way obvious. And Christian Atheism is in no way an oxymoron. (nor, in fact, is military intelligence)