Woman gets booted from sunday school

[Calax]

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/churc...=NWS00010000000 001

[Laozi]

The price you pay for having an extremely stupid belief system.

[Judge Hades]

Just one more reason why religion is stupid.

[Dark_Raven]

 

Time for a lawsuit.

[Judge Hades]

You know, following a belief system that when it started people thought the world was flat or the sun revolves around the Earth seems a bit lame.

Edited August 22, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Cantousent]

You know, following a belief system that when it started people thought the world was flat seems a bit lame.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wonder, even as I write this, why I bother.

 

The ancient Greeks, before Christ, not only knew the world was essentially round, but had measured the size more or less accurately.

[Judge Hades]

Yeah, and when did Christianity hold the most power? The Dark Ages. Coincidence? I think not.

[Tigranes]

Hades, that's like saying western democracy is a flawed system because it's been known to produce corrupt leaders. Also, it has its precedence in ancient Athens when young men would parade around town naked as a coming of age event and old men would leer at their beauteous body.

[Hurlshort]

Yeah, and when did Christianity hold the most power?  The Dark Ages.  Coincidence?  I think not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's some bad history there. Christianity was a key factor in bring Europe out of the Dark Ages. It was the fall of the Roman Empire and the spread of barbarian tribes that led to the DA. Those tribes were typically pagan. Christian monks are responsible for preserving what little history we have from that time, and the church was also the backbone of the fledgling communities that arose out of the ashes.

[Blank]

Haha, I think it's funny when people judge all Christianity based on one church's weird belief system and/or actions. (When I said "funny", I meant "illogical").

 

If you guys were wondering what passage it was that the church took literally, it would be this one:

33b As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If 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.

 

Is it disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church? No. Did it used to be disgraceful during that day and age? Yes. Paul was writing practical rules to a Middle Eastern people 2000 years ago. Most churches understand that. I really haven't heard of anything like this before now.

 

Paul said some other stuff that certainly doesn't make sense now, but probably totally applied back in his day:

Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.

That passage doesn't make much sense. "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has a long hair, it is a disgrace to him," No, it doesn't. I mean, what the heck? I have never seen that in nature. Paul probably saw that these issues were causing division in the Corinthian church and therefore addressed them as an ex-Jewish zealot would.

 

I guess I am not a "fundamentalist" if being a fundamentalist means taking things out of context.

Edited August 22, 2006 by Blank

[alanschu]

You know, following a belief system that when it started people thought the world was flat or the sun revolves around the Earth seems a bit lame.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Did people actually think the Earth was flat? Pythagoras felt the Earth was round in 600 BC, and I think Aristotle proved it.

 

 

 

 

EDIT: In fact, according to good ol' Wikipedia, the circumference was measured in 240 BC.

 

There were people that refused to believe it, but by the middle ages it was widely accepted as being true.

 

The common misconception that people, especially the Christian Church, before the age of exploration believed that Earth was flat entered the popular imagination after Washington Irving's publication of The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828. In the United States, this belief persists in the popular imagination, and is even repeated in some widely read textbooks.

 

 

EDIT 2: My good friends Eldar and Hurlshot are Johnny on the Spot with this one

Edited August 22, 2006 by alanschu

[Bokishi]

History School Books are biased and dumb.

[tarna]

That's some bad history there.  Christianity was a key factor in bring Europe out of the Dark Ages. Christian monks are responsible for preserving what little history we have from that time, and the church was also the backbone of the fledgling communities that arose out of the ashes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One of the ways that Christianity worked it's way into key areas of culture and society was the fact that they promoted literacy so strongly. This is where the term clerical comes from BTW. Key areas of society were held by Christians because they were of the few that were literate and thereby help preserve history ( or at least their version of it ). I will grant that the promotion of literacy at the time was used to serve the Church's interests at the time but that would be only nateral and did help to shorten the Dark Ages by preventing a total decline into barbarism.

If you guys were wondering what passage it was that the church took literally, it would be this one:

33b As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If 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.

 

Is it disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church? No. Did it used to be disgraceful during that day and age? Yes. Paul was writing practical rules to a Middle Eastern people 2000 years ago. Most churches understand that. I really haven't heard of anything like this before now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unfortunately, we have a church in LaPorte, Colorado that still subscibes to this view. I don't remember that name of the church but it is run by Pete Peters ( Doin' the 'White Thing' ). Interesting character. A White Separatist in addition to his other sins. His wife Cherie ( I think ) adheres to it as well ( cheerfully, I might add ).

[Blank]

Is it disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church? No. Did it used to be disgraceful during that day and age? Yes. Paul was writing practical rules to a Middle Eastern people 2000 years ago. Most churches understand that. I really haven't heard of anything like this before now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unfortunately, we have a church in LaPorte, Colorado that still subscibes to this view. I don't remember that name of the church but it is run by Pete Peters ( Doin' the 'White Thing' ). Interesting character. A White Separatist in addition to his other sins. His wife Cherie ( I think ) adheres to it as well ( cheerfully, I might add ).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's people like Pete Peters that ruin Christianity. For one thing, Jesus was far from beng a white separatist, and Christianity is based on being like Christ. How stupid can people be? Edited August 22, 2006 by Blank

[kirottu]

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/churc...=NWS00010000000 001

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Does that apply to sex life as well? I don

Edited August 22, 2006 by kirottu

[Hurlshort]

History School Books are biased and dumb.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Although I don't word it that way, I tell my students something similiar. Textbooks are a great way to get a little bit of information on many subjects, but they are horrible at telling the whole story. You should never rely one a single source, particularly a secondary one, when forming notions about historical events.

 

Also, bias is less common in recent textbooks, but the politically correct solution is to eliminate all viewpoints, which is terribly boring. I prefer to use the textbooks as a canvas and supply supplemental materials to paint the picture.

[Bokishi]

Trouble is that different stories and focuses come from different viewpoints. It might be boring to eliminate them all, but you get the full picture if you do.

[Cantousent]

You can't remove bias. It is a mistake to believe it is possible. It is a lie to suggest that you have succeeded in doing so.

 

History is so dreadfully boring, lifeless, and devoid of any soul whatsoever these days, it simply doesn't matter anyhow.

 

What amounts to removing bias today is to take first hand accounts, which are invariably biased in the first place, and substituting the scholar's bias for that of the witness. Using statistical information is another cute way of getting around bias. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.

 

We should treat history as a narrative. We should see it as something grander than a simple catalogue of events. It's richer, grander than what passes for history among academic circles today.

 

What academes have done to history is a crime. They exhort the reader to look at history with a dispassioned eye. Certainly, their writing lacks passion, but not for lack of an impassioned perspective. They sit in ivory towers grind, GRIND, GRINDING their axes and then tell us to ignore the metal shavings on the floor.

[SteveThaiBinh]

You can't remove bias.  It is a mistake to believe it is possible.  It is a lie to suggest that you have succeeded in doing so.

Certainly, and that's the inherent problem in school textbooks. By their very existence, they purport to be neutral and to give equal prominence to all points of view. However, their authors are probably sincere in trying to create the best textbook they can, and if the government isn't prepared to fund state education so that each school can have a decent library, it may be unavoidable. I imagine the internet provides interesting opportunities, as more and more material is made available online, but that depends on the school having computers and internet access for history classes as well as the quality of material available.

 

I don't really know what academic circles you're talking about, but I don't see how history can be constructed as anything other than a narrative. When I studied history, I remember reading plenty of modern authors who wrote with passion and conviction on their subject, with bias, certainly, but with proper historical care of the evidence as well.

[Cantousent]

Funny, I find most of the scholars are more interested in the method than the events. I also find them more interested in the events than the story. Narrative is a long way down the list.

 

As you get farther into the study of history, you get farther away from cogent story of the events and closer to the scrutiny of mind-numbing minutia. That's my experience, but I suppose there might be a scholar in our number who might want to set me straight on the matter. From my perspective, the drift of focus away from narrative is one of reasons I prefer Classics to History.

[Fenghuang]

I'm late to the game, but I just wanted to point out that Job, the oldest book in the Bible; describes a round earth in Chapter 26.

 

Also, I'd like to point out that you can make a pretty good argument using Blank's logic that homosexuality is no longer a sin; I mean, since the disciples writing the early Christian churches were the only ones in the NT to condemn it. Jesus never said a word, one way or the other.

Edited August 22, 2006 by Fenghuang

[SteveThaiBinh]

Funny, I find most of the scholars are more interested in the method than the events.  I also find them more interested in the events than the story.  Narrative is a long way down the list.

 

As you get farther into the study of history, you get farther away from cogent story of the events and closer to the scrutiny of mind-numbing minutia.  That's my experience, but I suppose there might be a scholar in our number who might want to set me straight on the matter.  From my perspective, the drift of focus away from narrative is one of reasons I prefer Classics to History.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's fair to say that the study of history in the twentieth century saw more historians taking a narrower focus, either in terms of topic or of timescale, and there was much bemoaning the lack of writers willing to look at, and try to make sense of, the broader sweep of history.

 

However, this was an important development in the improvement of our understanding of the past - a serious problem with some of the great narrative histories of the past was that they focused on the deeds of great men and ignored many of the other forces at work in history: economic, social, environmental or otherwise. They were incomplete. Now, greater diversity in a discipline is probably a good thing, and there have always been a few great writers who have taken a broader view. It's a while back now, but have you read AJP Taylor?

 

I believe that history occupies a unique position between the arts and the sciences. It relies on scientific methods for reliability of the evidence it presents, yet it also demands skill in writing in the construction of a narrative. If the twentieth century was too relentlessly scientific, it may be that previous eras weren't scientific enough. The best histories balance the two to great effect. I will have to go back through my notes and pull out a few authors for you to try, but thinking of the Americas, my favourite was probably Piero Gleijeses writing on events in Guatemala before and after the CIA-sponsored coup. Give it a try.

[Pidesco]

Question to Blank: What's the point of following a holy book, if you have to disregard large parts of the book on account of it being hopelessly silly?

[Blank]

I'm late to the game, but I just wanted to point out that Job, the oldest book in the Bible; describes a round earth in Chapter 26.

 

Also, I'd like to point out that you can make a pretty good argument using Blank's logic that homosexuality is no longer a sin; I mean, since the disciples writing the early Christian churches were the only ones in the NT to condemn it.  Jesus never said a word, one way or the other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. Therefore, I should focus more on evangalizing to homosexuals as opposed to classifying their mindsets as sinful.

 

Jesus also wasn't homosexual though. In my eyes, Jesus has always been everything good, embodied in a human form. So also using my previous logic, homosexuality at best is not good. That is not to say that anything new after Jesus is wrong, but homosexuality was during Jesus' time, and he didn't practice it.

[Blank]

Question to Blank: What's the point of following a holy book, if you have to disregard large parts of the book on account of it being hopelessly silly?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did I disregard large parts of it? No, I am saying that one passage was directly addressing an issue in one church in Corinth many years ago, and that it isn't applicable to my church based on the fact that my church is in a culture that has no divisions when it comes to allowing women liberties whereas it did in Paul's day.

 

For the sake of rebuttal, let's say one was to take this issue (the issue of women in the church), and replace it with homosexuality. Let's pretend that one day, we lived in a society where homosexuality was very commonplace, and there were no problems with it. So let's rewrite what I said in the previous paragraph: "Did I disregard large parts of it? No, I am saying that one passage was directly addressing an issue in one church in Corinth many years ago, and that it isn't applicable to my church based on the fact that my church is in a culture that has no divisions when it comes to allowing homosexuality whereas it did in Paul's day." That paragraph becomes flawed for a few reasons. There are a few different places in the new testament where homosexuality is cited as wrong, so it would indeed be a larger portion of the bible, as opposed to one passage. Also, it would be disregarding the spirit of all the laws in the old testament, and it would bring into greater question God's choice of destroying Sodom and Gomorrah (one of the main reasons of its destruction being the prevalence of homosexuality).

 

Despite all this, let's say I was sure of myself that homosexuality was okay for Christians. The bottom line is that God would judge me when I die. Am I willing to be judged for not silencing women in the church? Hell yes, I am 100% sure that women should be talking in the church, as equally as men.

 

I am forced to "allow" homosexuality to exist anyway, just as we're forced to allow murder on the other side of the world. I can't stop either, but I do classify both as a sin. Murder, I easily concede, is the more egregious of the two, but they both separate a human from God.

 

Jesus was amongst sinners, and he didn't stop them by force (with exception to his driving out of people who were buying and selling in God's holy temple). I am amongst sinners, and I won't stop them just the same. I will try to show them Jesus, I will try to persuade them to change their ways, but first and foremost, I will try to show them Jesus. I see homosexuals as sinners, but I won't stop them. I will try to show them Jesus, just like I would any other non-believer, and I would try to persuade them to change their way, based on the idea that God is glorified through the keeping of his law, which is one thing that separates Christians from the rest of the world (the other is the spreading of the salvation of Christ from our sins, our sins being the absence of adherence to the law).

 

Also, none of the bible is silly to me, as I consider all of it to be there on purpose. Call me dumb, but I have faith in that, and I have faith that the Holy Spirit will help me to interpret it.

Edited August 22, 2006 by Blank