I haven’t done this before, but Opus’ comment on the 18th deserves recognition:
Somehow (and as at best a sceptic) I find it very hard to think that Christianity just happens to be a perfect fit for Feminism and that despite this no one these past two thousand years – that is until the last decade or two – even noticed.
This was in response to egalitarian pastor Wade Burleson, but it is equally applicable to pretty much all modern Christians, including the complementarians at TGC and CBMW. The only difference is that while egalitarians explain that headship and submission are vestiges of a barbaric patriarchal age (and therefore either no longer apply or never really had any meaning), complementarians explain that headship and submission are only offensive to our modern feminist sensibilities because we don’t understand what Peter and Paul were trying to get across. According to complementarians, if we only were able to shed our modern age’s barbaric patriarchal views and read the offending Scripture as the egalitarians of the ancient world understood them, we would realize that they don’t really contradict the feminist wisdom of our age.
Of the two, the egalitarian view is at least less internally contradictory.
See Also: Blinded by the times.
It’s “Progress”, don’t you know?
Progress right down the path to Hell.
Pingback: Comment of the month. | Neoreactive
Pingback: Comment of the month. – Manosphere.org
I like to point out that, despite the patriarchal culture” of the bible not once did Jesus nor the Father point out and condemn it. Someone must have been doing something right, eh? There was no grand sermon on how men need to stop holding back their women and should, instead, be lifting them up and empowering them to “be all that the can be”. I’m sure these guys could point it out to me, if I just hold my bible upside down and backwards while using the DaVinci code.
I keep forgetting to get around to asking this question:
“Thoughts from a happily married father on a post feminist world.”
Dalrock: “post” Feminist? Aren’t we so deep into the swamp that it’s swamp to the horizon in every direction? Or do you mean: let’s try to imagine what could come after (“post”), and how do we get there? That is, thoughts about what might lie past the horizon? Because, we’re still in the swamp.
Thanks.
According to complementarians, if we only were able to shed our modern age’s barbaric patriarchal views and read the offending Scripture as the egalitarians of the ancient world understood them, we would realize that they don’t really contradict the feminist wisdom of our age.
Actually, they should be emphasizing the “barbaric patriarchal” views of the era in which those Scriptures were written, attitudes that are clearly mo longer prevalent. Since the entire Bible was written during this ancient age of “barbaric patriarchy,” would that not logically imply to these folks that all of it is suspect?
Rather than attempt to pretzelize what Paul (to cite the prime example) had to say about submission and headship, creatures like Burleson and other modernists would be much more ideologically and epistimologically consistent to simply label the entire Bible a failure and a work of patriarchal propaganda. While acknowledging that Scripture hints at what are considered solidly progressive ideas by today’s standards, they would enjoy more credibility (among those who matter to them) by stating that the contents of the Bible are simply too primitive, barbaric, and overtly misogynistic to be taken seriously at face value and that far more “advanced” and “enlightened” versions of the same ideas are found in later works (the works of the philosophers of the Enlightenment would probably be their first choice). It would be somewhat akin to saying that while Adolf Hitler had a few good progressive ideas that ultimately benefitted his country, Mein Kampf is not a credible or reputable source from which to draw them. [Nota bene: feeriker is merely illustrating a point here and is certainly not comparing the Bible to Mein Kampf – although he wouldn’t doubt that some of the more extreme progs probably see a resemblance between the two documents.]
In other words, they’d come out ahead by just dropping any pretense of believing Scripture to be infallible and universally applicable and simply inventing a new Progressive religion that enshrined their egalitarian/complimentarian ideas as the new Scripture. At this point in the decline the fuss, if one were even raised, would be mild and short-lived.
Pingback: Comment of the month. | Reaction Times
I’m new to Christianity. Wife got baptized last week. Dunno if I’ll do it or not.
But in our church I’m not seeing any of this new age ass-hattery. I also note the place is about 1/3 of its capacity. The church is starving for membership. I suspect that is what is behind these efforts to reach out to queers, single moms, liberals and other bags of the douche. Ours is a community of good folk in and out of the church. As an agnostic I find these people to be a refreshing change from the moral and intellectual cripples that are the backbone of liberal atheism.
There’s still good churches out there.
Here is some Ev Dence of the rot
http://johnpavlovitz.com/2016/05/26/dear-offended-christian-from-a-very-tired-christian/
Pingback: The Catholic Church has lost the plot on marriage | Julian O'Dea
we don’t understand what Peter and Paul were trying to get across
Actually, it’s pretty simple, but you have to go all the way back to Eve. She was created directly by God for Adam, the greatest woman who ever lived. She lived in a world without pain and without sin. Naked and unashamed, they walked with God in the cool of the day. Every other woman born has been born of man in sin and transgression, cursed with hypergamy. Eve was truly the epitome of womankind.
The problem was, Eve blew it. Completely, she was totally deceived and transgressed.
So, God looked at this situation. What to do? We’ve got the greatest woman who will ever live, at the top of her game, living in paradise in a world that did not know sin. No children to chase, no job, no TV, cell phone, computer, social media, neighbors or other distractions and all she had to do was follow one, single, simple rule. What do you do when women, at their finest with only one rule to obey can’t even handle that? You appoint a guardian because they’ve proved they’re incompetent. So, God said:
“your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.” Genesis 3:16
The Reason Feminists Don’t Talk About Eve
Genesis 3:16 is the context for every verse in the New Testament on submission of wives. Because God ruled that women are incompetent and appointed a guardian for them. He’s called a husband and He said “he shall rule over you.”
Pastor Burleson’s views remind me of a comment by the Roman Senator, Tacitus;
“and where they make a desert, they call it peace…”
Glenfilthie @ 5:55 pm:
“I’m new to Christianity. … As an agnostic…”
Don’t get baptized until you’re certain where you stand. Are you agnostic or Christian? Can’t be both because Christians believe God lived among us in the person of Christ.
“The church is starving for membership. I suspect that is what is behind these efforts to reach out to queers, single moms, liberals and other bags of the douche.”
If the church is willing to accept these people without also trying to cure their evils then they deserve to starve for membership. It’s supposed to be a moral hospital, not a moral hostel.
“There’s still good churches out there.”
Such as?
…
Artisanal Toad @ 6:25 pm:
“Actually, it’s pretty simple, but you have to go all the way back to Eve. She was created directly by God for Adam, the greatest woman who ever lived. She lived in a world without pain and without sin.”
Where do you get this idea that Adam & Eve were the greatest humans who ever lived? Their behavior was representative of humanity, yes, but their only recorded accomplishment was screwing up perfection. With apologies to Yoda, stupid does not make one great.
Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment (“Yac-Yac”) says:
May 30, 2016 at 3:35 pm
I keep forgetting to get around to asking this question:
“Thoughts from a happily married father on a post feminist world.”
Yac-Yac (love the name) : Dalrock, I think refers to the fact that the socio-sexual revolutions collectively called feminism have passed through society. They have done so in successive waves, and life won’t be the same. As the wave passes, the era immediately following is “post-”
I personally am grateful that I’m not looking to marry during this time. I look at my peers at work. Generation X is married in intact but tenuously stable marriages. Gen Y / Millennials are all on social media, awkwardly bumping into each other, finding relationships risky, wasting time with the Cult of Romanticism and being generally unhappy.
There isn’t anything new under the sun. The revolutions didn’t spawn progress. They spawned regress.
@GunnerQ
Where do you get this idea that Adam & Eve were the greatest humans who ever lived?
1. Neither Adam nor Eve were born, they were directly created by God. Like all of creation I’d say He did a perfect job.
2. There was no sin in the world and sin corrupts everything.
3. Never having sinned, they were in perfect harmony with God.
Every other person is born of man into trespasses and sin with a sin nature and Eve’s daughters were all cursed along with her. Just going by that alone means nobody after Adam and Eve were that good. Observe also how long they lived and the fact that they had no defects of any kind.
There have been other things done, among them God limited lifespans and we have genetic issues these days that Adam and Eve didn’t have. To say other wise is to say that we’re getting better and observably we are not. I suppose it’s more reasonable to ask you why you think any who came after Adam and Eve would be better.
That, of course, says nothing of what happened that got them thrown out of the Garden, but the fact is, when you compare Eve to any woman since, how would you claim Eve is not better? Mary was perhaps more blessed (Eve, of course, was cursed), but that doesn’t make her a better woman than Eve. If you disagree I’d love to hear why.
Mary was born Immaculate (i.e., without original sin). So she too was born perfect. That’s Catholic (and I think Eastern Orthodox) theology.
The Catholic Church often positions Mary as the anti-Eve. Mary was obedient and humble, as opposed to the disobedient, “strong, independent” Eve.
“The Catholic Church often positions Mary as the anti-Eve.”
She’s the fulfillment of Eve, as Christ is of Adam. Obv, in Protestant theology Christ plays that role for both genders.
Red Pill Latecomer
The Easter Bunny claims he’s infallible. He also claims his turds taste good, so he paints them and gives them away for kids to eat. He claimed Mary was born without sin, lived without sin and stayed a virgin all her life and was taken up into heaven bodily where she now resides as the queen of heaven… where she nags Christ on behalf of those who believe in the Easter Bunny. Obviously I don’t believe in the Easter Bunny.
Examine the text and you will not find a hint of a “strong independent Eve” any more than you’ll find a strong, independent Mary. What we did see was Eve’s natural feminine rationalization at work and she allowed herself to be used as a weapon to take down the greatest man who ever lived, barring Christ, who was the “second Adam.” Adam knew what he was doing and he watched his wife bite into a death sentence. He decided to die with her. Men do that.
I’ll go so far as to say that Mary was the greatest of her generation, but she was still born with original sin (“All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God… If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. As it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” Romans 3:23; 1st John 1:10; Romans 3:10; 1st Corinthians 15:22). She was not superior to Eve. The fact that Eve blew it is why God appointed a guardian for women. The fact that Adam sinned is why Christ had to come, because if we were actually getting better then sooner or later we would have “evolved” into Christ ourselves… which is ridiculous, just like the Easter Bunny.
Artisanal Toad says:
May 30, 2016 at 6:25 pm
While I agree with your conclusions, your line of thinking sounds like God was making a ‘plan B’ for humanity. The events in the Garden of Eden unfolded exactly as intended. Before God created the heavens and the earth, He planned to reveal His salvation in His Son.
In my view, the obvious problem, if we can call it that, is that the Bible was canonized in a way that was designed to turn it into a univeral source of legitimacy for any government or congregation that called itself Christian. Simply put, the Bible can be used to justify anything, and its opposite as well. It was designed to be this way. That’s why it’s possible for Churchian white-knighting feminists to portray themselves as true Christians, and accuse their opponents of heresy, basically. In that sense, the Bible is markedly different from the Quran, I suppose, which has a more clear-cut, practical wording.
@Glenfilthie, the church of Jesus Christ is never starved of members since membership numbers are not its goal. God deals with those who are prepared to hear Him, and many times that has been the minority. Starting from Noah (8 people on the whole planet) and Lot, through the New Testament wherein Jesus said, “Fear not, little flock…” (emphasis on “little”). In light of this it is not at all surprising that the majority of Christianity can be so blind to the blatant sabotage of feminism. The majority went off the rails before feminism infiltrated it. First the wound is left untended, then the germs can infect it. Which brings me to…
@Red Pill Latecomer, sorry, but there is no scriptural basis for the immaculate conception of Mary. Finally,
@Hells Hound, I must disagree. The Bible is not written in a linear way like an instruction manual, so it does get confusing to understand. However anything contrary to it can be disproven by it. To use your own example, feminists can only claim their nonsense is biblical after careful twisting of scripture. Some of them go so far as to write reams of articles trying to convince us, but many times it reads like they are trying to convince themselves.
A form of neo-gnosticism. They discovered the hidden meaning that has eluded Christians for almost 2000 years (until the 1960s).
The problem with Opus’ comment is that it pretty much discredits all of Protestant theology and religion. Where he says “Christianity just happens to be a perfect fit for Feminism and that despite this no one these past two thousand years noticed”, one could say that for 1500 years, starting with the time of the Apostles all the way to Martin Luther’s day…no one noticed that the holy sacrifice of the mass, confession to a priest, infant baptism, the hierarchy of bishops, purgatory, prayers to saints, the authority of Holy Mother Church to pronounce on matters of faith and morals, etc were all wrong and heretical. And even that 7 books from the Bible that all Christendom had been using since (formally) 400AD – so more than a millenium – were actually not inspired!
So all the saints, mystics, martyrs, and holy men and women for all those centuries were in darkness. But it took a defrocked, excommunicated monk like Martin Luther to set us all straight! (Luther married a former nun, so both spit on their religious vows, and he stated that his “sole fide” theology meant he could commit adultery (or even murder!) 1,000 times a day and it wouldn’t effect his salvation.) Yeah…that’s what he taught. Not quite St. Thomas Aquinas now is it. (Luther also said the Letter of James in the NT wasn’t actually inspired – he called it “an epistle of straw – and he wasn’t much sure of Revelations either.
This is why C.S. Lewis (a Catholic convert) said “To be steeped in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” That’s why for myself, while I try not to be too sectarian or cause arguments, I don’t understand how anyone can be a Prot. Do you just have to pretend all the Church Fathers never existed? You must certainly have to ignore all their writings, as they all reflect Catholic teaching, e.g. “Blush not to confess your sins to the priest of God”.
So be careful with quotes like this one from Opus. They prove too much.
@Jeff:
“That’s why for myself, while I try not to be too sectarian or cause arguments, I don’t understand how anyone can be a Prot.”
It really helps to not contradict yourself in the same sentence. You’re clearly making a Catholic vs Protestant argument, when, technically, the Great Schism should be more of your concern.
While you’re trolling, I’ll leave you with something I’ve used on others a few times before: If the Roman Church hadn’t spent the 200+ years before the Reformation allowing the corrupt & perverse to infest the institutions, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
@Jeff
C.S. Lewis actually did not convert to Catholicism, though both Orthodox (like me) and Catholics like to claim that in his heart he was really one of us.
Looking Glass,
There’s a lot I could say about your last statement, and a lot I could say about this topic in general. But I’ll refrain because I don’t want to hijack the thread or abuse Dalrock’s patience…I really enjoy his blog.
So I’ll just suggest you go do some research and investigate the writings of the Church Fathers – say, from the time of the Apostles to about the time of St. Augustine in 400 AD. Compare their statements of apostolic teaching to what is taught by Protestants, versus Catholics (or even Orthodox, hat tip to Learner) and see how things shake out.
And I’ll just leave things there.
@Don Quixote
While I agree with your conclusions, your line of thinking sounds like God was making a ‘plan B’ for humanity. The events in the Garden of Eden unfolded exactly as intended. Before God created the heavens and the earth, He planned to reveal His salvation in His Son.
You just threw the entire concept of free will out the window, but in reality you’re damning with faint praise.
I explained facts as they occurred in an easy-to-understand way from a moral standpoint and the fact is, it isn’t *just* that women and men are not equal- rather that God declared women to be incompetent and placed a man in charge of them. However, He did so in a way that (more or less) allows women to choose who will be their guardian and it is God’s intent that in general, women are to be married. Within marriage the man will rule over her because God commanded it be that way.
That is the moral foundation feminism cannot abide because it denies feminism its power-claim to equality. To ignore this is to allow feminism. To deny this is to support feminism and oppose God’s command. The only way to destroy feminism is on a moral level and this- Genesis 3:16 -is where it happened.
@Looking Glass
You’re clearly making a Catholic vs Protestant argument, when, technically, the Great Schism should be more of your concern… If the Roman Church hadn’t spent the 200+ years before the Reformation allowing the corrupt & perverse to infest the institutions, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Within the context of feminism, this is not a Catholic-Protestant argument, this is an Easter Bunny vs God’s Word argument. It wasn’t 200+ years of corruption, it was the claim of infallibility (absurd and inherently false) along with throwing out what the Bible had to say about sex and marriage, replacing it with a combination of pagan belief, stoic philosophy and roman law. Then calling it the holy, righteous and infallible teachings of the Easter Bunny.
The great schism of 1054 was all about power and nothing else (the leavening of the bread was a side-show) with the question of who ruled the church. The issue of marriage was all about power and if you examine the canons of the various councils you’ll see that, because the church was engaged in a power struggle with the nobility and sought their control through sex. Every time you see a canon on consanguinity (who you can marry) and public marriage blessed by the church (is the marriage valid WRT inheritance) that’s what you’re looking at. You should read “The Establishment and Maintenance of Socially Imposed Monogamy in Western Europe” by Kevin MacDonald. That’s available online and a rather short read compared to “Law, Sex and Christian Society in Medieval Europe” by James Brundage.
It was, and continues to be, all about power. Then it was a fight with the nobles, today it is feminism’s desire to conquer all men because God caused women to be that way. It always has and always will devolve to an Easter Bunny vs God’s Word argument and the Easter Bunny laid the moral foundation for feminism in the fight against the nobility. The question is whether you believe in the Easter Bunny or God’s Word, because you can’t do both.
@ Dalrock
Got a new one for you.
http://www.farbeyondthebeltway.com/dear-daughters-dont-be-that-kind-of-feminist/
@Don Quixote
@Looking Glass
Observe:
So I’ll just suggest you go do some research and investigate the writings of the Church Fathers – say, from the time of the Apostles to about the time of St. Augustine in 400 AD. Compare their statements of apostolic teaching to what is taught by Protestants, versus Catholics (or even Orthodox, hat tip to Learner) and see how things shake out.
Notice that Jeff asks that we focus our attention on the church fathers instead of on the Bible. “Hey guys- focus on the commentary instead of the underlying truth and see where it takes you. Don’t pay attention to what the Apostles wrote, pay attention to how the Easter Bunny spun what they said! The Easter Bunny has the secret sauce of understanding!”
Instead of comparing the patristic writers with what is taught today, compare ANY current or ancient church teaching produced by or derived from patristic writers (such as that perverted Manichean named Augustine) to what Scripture actually says. The claim is there was a super-secret special sauce that got passed down by tradition and the Easter Bunny claims that sauce trumps what Scripture says. In fact, the Easter Bunny claim is “We decided what the Bible is and we decide what the Bible says, which means you must take the Scriptures in light of the teachings and traditions of the Easter Bunny. Now, have and egg, sit down and shut up. Sauce Boy! Bring the bucket, I feel the need to pass more sauce.”
Jeff Strand says: “…C.S. Lewis (a Catholic convert) said ‘To be steeped in history is to cease to be a Protestant.’”
RIght quote, wrong man. It was John Henry Newman, not Lewis.
Looking Glass says: “…If the Roman Church hadn’t spent the 200+ years before the Reformation allowing the corrupt & perverse to infest the institutions, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.”
Very possibly true, but abusus non tollit usum all the same. Sin has temporal consequences as well as spiritual consequences. Wonder what the bill will be for the current corruption by the Feminine Imperative?
Opus’ comment was very timely. I have been asking myself for probably the last 6 months the same question. Namely, if feminism is truly Biblical, why did it take the church 2000 years to crack this code, as though it is some type of mystery to be unlocked at the end of the age? We live in the most empowered female chapter in history, yet you would think we are the most oppressive culture in history to listen to the SJWs.
A few months ago, I spent some time with my sibling. A gave her a pretty stern rebuke when she quoted some Christian leader I never heard of, with his supposed message from God about each of the presidential candidates and what the spiritual significance of their election would mean. He claimed that if Hillary Clinton was elected, it was some sort of message to the church that God is emphasizing the equality of women and judging men for being so chauvinistic. I basically said, “Bull***t – if elected, it is not God’s endorsement of her – it is precisely the opposite: God’s punishment that we are so wayward as a country and culture that we would actually prefer someone like her. He is giving us what we crave until we vomit it out our nostrils. Don’t you dare lay responsibility for such an outcome at God’s feet.”
Artisanal Toad @ 9:15 pm:
“1. Neither Adam nor Eve were born, they were directly created by God. Like all of creation I’d say He did a perfect job.”
The devil is also part of creation so that argument doesn’t work.
“2. There was no sin in the world and sin corrupts everything.”
Adam & Eve were sinful from the beginning. God gave them a breakable command to reveal the sin inside them, not create sin. Romans 5:12-14, 5:20, 7:7-13. Had A&E been perfect then they would not have failed the test. They were innocent before the Fall, yes, but not perfect.
So what makes A&E great? No achievements are listed in the Bible. They set no example we can follow aside from blaming each other. Meanwhile, the Bible calls other men great such as Job and John the Baptist, and Sarah is upheld as a female paragon.
“3. Never having sinned, they were in perfect harmony with God.”
All Christians today are also in perfect harmony with God because of the Atonement. Although we do not yet see it.
…she quoted some Christian leader I never heard of, with his supposed message from God about each of the presidential candidates and what the spiritual significance of their election would mean. He claimed that if Hillary Clinton was elected, it was some sort of message to the church that God is emphasizing the equality of women and judging men for being so chauvinistic
Yet more evidence of how deeply entrenched in the modern church is culture worship, often laced with liberal doses of nationalism. I never cease to be amazed at how fixated American churchians are, whether they’re reich-wing evangelicals or libtard heretics, on temporal politics. To hear them talk, you would think that the future of the Kingdom of God depended on the outcome of the first Tuesday in November. If only they spent a fraction of their energy fixated on Scripture that they spend on politics, we might be living today in a quasi functional society.
I once read, somewhere, that Christianity was like a well, in that whoever peers down into the well sees his own reflection. Does that not fit exactly the present Church which seems to have more in common with French revolutionary ideology (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity) which is the ideology of globalisation than with any version known heretofore of The Christian Religion. We all like our religion to reflect ourselves. In my own lifetime I have seen the following incarnations of Jesus – as The Right Honourable Member for Galilee South, as a Hippee, and now as the ultimate Metrosexual Mangina, though a few years ago I was informed by one somewhat dissolute middle-aged Christian female that Jesus is the sort of person who were he with us would ‘be down the pub having a drink and a smoke’. It is at that point that I conclude that I prefer His Father who is of course an English Country Gentleman and substantial Landowner (Dawkins who in my view dislikes rather disbelieves in God really has missed the point with his castigation of God the Father as an out of control School-House master – which is, presumably thinking of his adolescence, where he gets it from. God would hardly after-all be a God worth taking seriously if he did not – like the housemaster – do a bit of smiting) yet to cast Jesus’ mother as a strong empowered Single-mother and welfare recipient would surely shock even Voltaire.
Artisanal Toad says:
May 31, 2016 at 2:45 pm
@Don Quixote
Dear Toad, I was just ratlin your chain.
Think about the “concept of free will” for a few moments, and ask the question: Does the tail wag the dog? Our ‘wills’ are our expression of our own beliefs [good and bad] and desires [good and bad]. Does “free will” mean arbitrary will? Of course not. It is our choice, and it is not arbitrary. Eve was deceived. She was no match for the tempter. Adam was not deceived, but he deliberately disobeyed God. [for whatever reason].
@Gunner_Q
“1. Neither Adam nor Eve were born, they were directly created by God. Like all of creation I’d say He did a perfect job.”
The devil is also part of creation so that argument doesn’t work.
This is a non sequitur. We aren’t comparing Satan with his children because he didn’t have any children. If we want to talk about the serpent, well, prior to being cursed serpents did not crawl on their bellies but since then they all do. As far as humans go, the children inherited the curse that Adam and Eve did not have when God created them: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.” Psalms 51:5.
“2. There was no sin in the world and sin corrupts everything.”
Adam & Eve were sinful from the beginning. God gave them a breakable command to reveal the sin inside them, not create sin. Romans 5:12-14, 5:20, 7:7-13. Had A&E been perfect then they would not have failed the test. They were innocent before the Fall, yes, but not perfect.
This is an Easter Bunny argument. Adam and Eve were not sinful from the beginning because “sinful” implies the presence of sin and prior to the fall they were without sin. God did not create either of them with a sin nature, which all the sons and daughters of Adam have as a result of the fall. Adam, like Satan, made a perfect free-will decision to sin (albeit for much different reasons) without *any* propensity to sin on his part because God did not create him sinful. No-one since then has been able to say that because as his sons and daughters we are born with it. Those are the ones Paul was talking about when he said the commandment was given to reveal our sinful nature. Adam and Eve didn’t have that.
Your assertion they were in sin prior to the fall is thus not only demonstrably false, but to claim they were sinful because they eventually sinned is like calling some man a rapist because he has sexual desire, the equipment and the knowledge necessary to rape. To follow your logic we need to lock up *all* men because it’s just a matter of time.
What this leaves out is free will. Adam was described as a “type” of “Him who was to come” because they were both without sin and both faced tests in which they had to give up something very precious in order to pass the test. For Adam, the choice was to give up his wife. For Jesus, the choice was to give up His life in a particularly gruesome way. Adam failed, Jesus passed.
You say “Had A&E been perfect then they would not have failed the test.” You are equating “perfectly created” humans with “unbreakable” humans. That begs the question of design limitations and free will. I’m sure that had God desired He could have created loving automatons who did not have the capacity to be unrighteous, unloving or unworshipful, but they would not have had any choice *but* to love Him. If someone is required to love you and has no choice but to love you and obey you then their love and obedience is worthless. When they choose to love you in the face of options, their love is valuable. You treasure someone’s love when it costs them to keep loving you and the more it costs them the more they prove their real love.
“3. Never having sinned, they were in perfect harmony with God.”
All Christians today are also in perfect harmony with God because of the Atonement. Although we do not yet see it.
There is a tremendous difference between *being* righteous and being *judged* righteous. Adam and Eve *were* righteous having never sinned. We, as Christians, are *judged* (imputed) as being righteous even though we have definitely sinned and will continue doing so. Adam and Eve had never sinned and had no need for forgiveness. We, on the other hand, require forgiveness because we do not have a choice about sinning because we were born with a sin nature as a result of what Adam and Eve did in the beginning.
So what makes A&E great? No achievements are listed in the Bible. They set no example we can follow aside from blaming each other. Meanwhile, the Bible calls other men great such as Job and John the Baptist, and Sarah is upheld as a female paragon.
That was a strawman argument. Was I talking about achievements? No, and you should know better. Even if I had been talking about achievements, you still don’t see the point. In Luke 21:1-4 Christ said to observe the poor widow who tithed out of her meager income, that her tithe was greater than all of the others. It’s not the performance achievement but the fight. Do you think any husband since Adam has loved his wife more than Adam loved Eve?
Adam went head-to-head with Satan in a fight in which Satan deceived Eve and used Eve’s life as a weapon against him. Condemning Adam because he lost the fight is like speaking badly about the loser in a professional heavyweight championship fight when you don’t even qualify to get in the ring against an amateur lightweight. “Where’s his achievement? He lost the fight!” He was more qualified than any of his sons will ever be to take on Satan and the fact he is best known for losing the fight is irrelevant. The sons and daughters of Adam inherit the sin nature. The daughters of Eve inherit hypergamy as well. None of them measure up to their parents.
The thing that makes me most curious is whether you’re arguing with me because you feel like you should oppose me (I’m an iconoclast when it come to Easter Bunny doctrines) or whether you truly believe what you’ve written.
>All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…
How many of you guys even know this is a re-quote of the Old Testament? In the original context it is a King lamenting that he can’t find any righteous subjects who fear God. Paul quotes it- in context- and it is immediately assumed that it fell from God’s mouth that “there is nobody who is righteous in the entire world.” That is not what Paul meant when he wrote this passage which is a common rhetorical device in ancient scripture.
Much of what you self righteous men quote is similarly misplaced. If you want to start following the EXACT words of the book then you need to start stoning adulteresses, and killing homosexuals, and on balance follow AT’s advice on marriage and polygamy. Not to mention that you better NOT have sex with your wife if you might “expose her fountain.” If you want to rely solely on the New Testament then understand that ALL liars are going to Hell.
These are all specific commands and you guys dodge and ignore them.
Meanwhile, suggestions like “I do not let a woman speak in church” (a suggestion because he could have said: “Thou shalt not permit a woman to speak in church” but instead simply gave a suggestion that “I don’t let them speak in my churches”) are treated as Gospel (literally).
Other men (and especially women) ignore the CLEAR commands to not deny one another sex.
You take Jesus’ forgiveness of the woman caught in adultery as excusing all sexual crimes! Just ask for forgiveness each time you commit adultery and it will be fine- just so long as you intended to go and sin no more you are forgiven.
Speaking of Catholic beliefs, you guys just straight up make up stuff about the perfection of Mary and confessing your sins to a Priest and the infallibility of the Pope and baptizing babies. None of that is in Scripture and NONE of it is necessary for the message. All of it was made up later to establish traditions and perfect the social control powers of the Church.
TLDR: Read the WHOLE Book for context.
Craig, good catch with the quote!
…
Opus @ 2:50 am:
“I once read, somewhere, that Christianity was like a well, in that whoever peers down into the well sees his own reflection.”
Hardly. Christianity teaches we are hopelessly evil and spiritual charity cases. Nobody likes to see himself like that yet accepting that is step #2. (#1 Being that God is real, of course.)
…
Artisanal Toad @ 6:26 am:
“Adam and Eve were not sinful from the beginning because “sinful” implies the presence of sin and prior to the fall they were without sin.”
You didn’t read Romans 5:13 and 7:8.
“So what makes A&E great? No achievements are listed in the Bible. They set no example we can follow aside from blaming each other. Meanwhile, the Bible calls other men great such as Job and John the Baptist, and Sarah is upheld as a female paragon.
That was a strawman argument. Was I talking about achievements? No, and you should know better.”
It is not a strawman argument to say Adam was not great because the Bible describes other men as great but not him, or because the Bible records no notable actions of Adam other than the Fall.
“The sons and daughters of Adam inherit the sin nature. The daughters of Eve inherit hypergamy as well. None of them measure up to their parents.”
Okay, I see where you’re coming from… that A&E were the greatest humans because they were perfect and sinless… but even if that was true, anybody can be perfect before they’ve given the chance to become imperfect.
“The thing that makes me most curious is whether you’re arguing with me because you feel like you should oppose me or whether you truly believe what you’ve written.”
I don’t play gotcha or hold grudges. You’re the first I ever heard to describe Adam as great and I was curious. The fact that sin can exist apart from law was worth bringing up, too.
Gunner Q says: “You didn’t read Romans 5:13 and 7:8.”
I know AT is a loose cannon where scriptural interpretation is concerned, but here he’s right. St. Paul is talking about the state of the world after the Fall but before the Law was given to Moses. Knowledge of the Law brings responsibility (5:13) and additional opportunity for temptation (7:8).
Adam and Eve walked with God and were in His grace before meeting up with the serpent; in order to exist in His presence they had to be actually righteous and not merely imputed as righteous, which is why they had to be driven out of Eden after the Fall. To say they were sinful while in Eden is to say they were fallen before ever having eaten the fruit, which makes the whole account incoherent.
“St. Paul is talking about the state of the world after the Fall but before the Law was given to Moses.”
God’s command to Adam was not a law?
Only Adam and Eve were in Eden, so God’s command to Adam could not apply to anyone coming later. Besides, it’s a safe bet that whenever Paul talks about law (in any of his letters) he is talking about the Mosaic law specifically.