[Vision2020] Submission

Tue Jun 20 21:53:40 PDT 2006

Yes, I would embrace the third of Michael's three options, noting that women 
are not "enslaved" to any physical weakness other than the size of our 
muscles.  We live longer, we seem to survive longer after the death of a 
spouse, and when men kill us, it's not usually just an accident of greater 
physical strength.  Having experienced menstruation, childbirth, and 
breastfeeding myself, I don't consider them signs of weakness or anything 
but a God-glorifying demonstration of physical, spiritual and emotional 
strength -- but I wouldn't say we're "stronger than," because that implies 
that there is but one strength, and that greater physical strength is 
"better."  It isn't better, it isn't worse; it just is.  And, of course, 
varies greatly within and between genders.

Thank you, Michael, for the dignified, respectful and honest tone you've 
engaged in during our discussion.  That's how it's supposed to be, and 
you've done it well.

keely

From: "Michael" <metzler at moscow.com>
To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>, "keely emerinemix" <kjajmix1 at msn.com>
Subject: [Vision2020] Submission
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 19:05:11 -0700

Keely Writes:

I am not a "Biblical utilitarian," that is, someone who wants to conform the
Bible to a particular view of culture or practice in the desperate -- and
vain -- hope that more souls will be won.  The truth of Scripture will, I
believe, not only stand on its own virtue but is also a far more effective
means of societal and individual transformation than my desperate attempts
to mold it into something that seemingly would help the process along.

Sharing Keely's premises, I'm content exploring this new argument against
Christianity.  This is kind of like a suped up, more focused Problem of Evil
argument, and I invite our fellow atheists to the discussion.  If some of
the fundamental assertions in the New Testament with respect to the nature
of the Godhead and the nature of the gospel offend our most basic, a priori
moral judgments about submission, then we would know that the God of the New
Testament gospel is some kind of patriarchical creep.  God cannot be the
source and standard of all that is good and lovely while also explicitly
commanding women, for the purposes of illustrating the nature of the gospel
itself, to live in precisely the way we do not think women ought to live.
Andreas' personal distinction between ethics and reality will be of no use
to the Christian when confronted with this beast of an argument.

I think these are the three options for us:

1:

Merely proposing that there is a unique kind of submission exhibited by only
women as directed to only their own husbands within the institution of
marriage does not put us in a position of embracing the oppressive and ugly
aspects of traditional patriarchy.  My muscles are bigger than my wives.'
My wife is better at bearing children than me. And there is a form of
feminine submission (spiritually and biologically based) that I'm not
encouraged to exhibit the way my wife is - we can say "big deal" to all
three of these possibilities.  Absolute 'equality' with respect to every
possible attribute need not be a fundamental moral notion for the social
liberal.  Therefore the New Testament commands for women to submit to their
husbands in a way their husbands are not commanded to submit to them do not
offer an argument against the truth of Christianity.

2:

The unique kind of submission of a woman toward her husband as found in the
New Testament really is not sufficiently different enough from the
patriarchical creepiness that we have gladly freed ourselves from.  Any kind
of unique form of submission that might be required of a wife that would not
be required of a husband - at least to the same extent - is by definition
the partaking in an institution of oppression.  Therefore, Christianity
cannot be true; God explicitly commands women to partake in activity we know
to be morally wrong, hurtful, and God even explains that this illustrates
the very nature of the gospel in doing so.  So much for Christianity.  We
had better move on to something a bit more liberal: at the very least
something more liberal than Keely's exegetical and doctrinal conservatism.

3:

The New Testament does not encourage any kind of unique submission of a
woman toward her husband.  The pursued/pursuer construct is not exhibited
and fostered by the New Testament teaching; and women are not understood to
have any kind of unique roles that might limit them in any way from
experiencing full equality with men on every level and in every way -
outside of the biological slavery of having weaker bodies, menstruation, and
the possibility of being chained to a household bed via pregnancy and
nursing.  What we have come to believe in the most liberal and secular areas
of society, fostered since the enlightenment progressively by those who
spurned the Christian faith, really is in hind site the teaching of Jesus
and Paul.  So the growth in our moral intuition independent from religion,
and because of our rejection of it, ends up confirming the truth of
Christianity.

I choose the first option. I'm hoping Wayne chooses the second option; and I
imagine Keely embraces at least something like the third option. Perhaps Joe
will propose a fourth option : -)

Yes? No?

Thanks

Michael Metzler

=====================================================
  List services made available by First Step Internet,
  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
                http://www.fsr.net
           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
====================================================

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/