To_Mandalay
1yr ago
If that were true, we would expect traditional societies to be more willing to allow women to suffer and die in place of men, because they have less value.
Not necessarily. Women are valuable because they can give you sons.
"Female infanticide" is it's own phenomenon deserving of a name but not "male infanticide." The wiki article only gives the examples of India, China, and Pakistan, but gender-skewed infanticide was also not uncommon in pre-modern Europe. Not a lot of men in history were going "awwww man, another son?" when their wife popped out the latest kid.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
Horses are better than humans at running but the number of people throughout history who would disagree with the statement "horses are inferior to human beings" is very small.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
Counterpoint: Say something about someone's mom who is from a traditionalist culture and if you survive the reaction you should reevaluate women not being valued. Mothers and matriarchal figures are highly respected.
Of course women have value in traditional societies. More than livestock. But less than men.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
Is your argument that modern society values motherhood more?
No.
Complementarianism, may be expressed more now, I suspect for much of existence it went without saying, but was no less true.
I don't think so, I think for most of history it has been the standard belief of most men that women are an inferior order.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
To claim that modern society has devalued motherhood and femininity, or made them low status, is completely backwards. Motherhood and femininity in general have been devalued for as long as patriarchy has existed, so pretty much the whole of human history. I can't think of any human cultures, let alone any of the big-name European and near-eastern ones that the modern west is descended from, which have not considered the female sphere and female pursuits to be intrinsically lesser than that of men.* The "oh, women aren't inferior to men, they just have different strengths/they're made for different roles" line you hear from conservatives nowadays (what Christians call 'complementarianism') is itself an anti-modernist rearguard action. For the great majority of the history of western civilization, philosophers, theologians, and intellectuals, whether Pagan, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or atheist, have been happy to state that actually, women are just strictly inferior to men. It's the reason you occasionally get figures like Elizabeth I or Catherine the Great who are praised for being essentially men in women's bodies, but you never get men praised for being essentially women in men's bodies.
What happened in more resent centuries isn't that motherhood and womanhood were devalued. Motherhood and womanhood were devalued way back in the primordial past, and only recently have women been allowed to escape such devalued roles at scale.
You can't make motherhood 'prestigious' because motherhood has never been prestigious. Closest thing would just be banning women from doing actually prestigious things.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
Somebody could easily hold that a homophobic, misogynist, Islamist party ruling Gaza is a preferable to Gaza being wiped off the face of the earth.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
They have been holding 'LGBTQ+ for Hamas' rallies since October 8th.
Very few if any leftists have expressed support for Hamas' political, religious, and social program while also being pro LGBT+ which would actually be contradictory. A portion of them will express support for Hamas insofar as they fight the IDF without supporting their social program, which is a consistent position. A greater part of them will refuse to say either way, because they view calls to condemn Hamas as bad-faith attempts at distraction (the standard line being "I'll condemn Hamas when my government sends them billions of dollars").
Entirely from the correctness or incorrectness of the political views themselves, there's no real contradiction between "I support LGBT+/feminism/whatever" and "I am against Israel's actions in Gaza."
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
This isn't really true. Christianity expects the rejuvenation and perfection of the physical world after the Second Coming and the Resurrection. Progressivism is a secularized millennarianism. It's very Christian. What you're describing is more Gnostic.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
I doubt there are very many people who were angry about Trump disrespecting the troops and are now actively pro-Hezbollah.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
He did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them. The novelty of Jesus's teaching is entirely in the nature of Grace, not specific ethical teachings.
If that's the case, he wasted a lot of time delivering ethical teaching. I tend to think Jesus believed 'works' were a lot more essential to salvation than most Protestants (even most Catholics) would like.
Wait a second, why do twelve disciples have swords three years into Jesus's ministry if Jesus actually teaches unconditional pacifism like the literal words suggest?
They didn't. Jesus told them to go buy some swords earlier that same week, explicitly so that he could fulfill the prophecy that he would be 'counted among the transgressors,' and then forbids them from using the swords when he's arrested. There's not a single place in the New Testament where violence against one's enemies is encouraged or even sanctioned. Divine violence on the other hand is all over the NT, you might even say it's the whole point, but that's a very different matter.*
*I would say the pacifism of the early Christians is inexplicable without the apparently ubiquitous belief that Jesus was going to come back very soon to establish the kingdom and destroy Rome and the nations; in other words, earthly Christians didn't need to do any killing because God was about to do it for them. When this didn't pan out naturally doctrine had to evolve.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
You are not "steelmanning" the anti-Christian reactionary argument, which would be something like, "Christianity's inherently egalitarian and destructive elements were held in check by the natural ethnocentrism and aristocratic spirit of Europeans, but eventually the poisonous seed flowered, and resulted in democracy, socialism, egalitarianism, etc." The question to ask would not be "were Christian Europeans Based™?" but "Were Christian Europeans more or less Based™" than they would have been in a counterfactual where Europe was never Christianized.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
It goes back to Celsus:
They say to each of their hearers:—Believe, first of all, that he whom I introduce to thee is the son of God, although he was shamefully bound, and disgracefully punished, and very recently was most contumeliously treated before the eyes of all men. Believe it even the more, on that account. If these bring forward this person, and others, again, a different individual, while the common and ready cry of all parties is, ‘Believe, if thou wilt be saved, or else begone,’ what shall those do who are in earnest about their salvation? Shall they cast the dice, in order to divine whither they may betake themselves, and whom they shall join?
They declare the wisdom that is among men to be foolishness with God. The reason of this has been stated long ago: their desire to win over by means of this saying the most ignorant, servile, or uninstructed of mankind. These sorcerers flee away with headlong speed from the more polished class of persons, because they are not suitable subjects for their impositions, while they seek to decoy those who are more rustic.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
Three 19th century American Presidents were Irish, but they were Protestant Irish.
That's not really 'Irish,' though. Scots-English Yeomanry from Ulster vs Celtic peasantry from County Cork.
This sort of interpretation tends to strip Jesus' preaching of anything particularly novel or interesting. "Well when he said turn the other cheek he didn't mean you should let your enemies kill you, he just meant, you know, don't go off half-cocked, control your anger," "Well when he said 'it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye...' he didn't mean it's bad to be rich, he just meant don't love money too much." This is all stuff any Greek Pagan would have happily nodded along with. What was so hard or so shocking about the path Jesus offered?
I think Jesus' message probably was radically ascetic and self-denying. The story of Lazarus and the Rich Man is also interesting in this regard. It's from a different author than Matthew's gospel, so it's not necessarily going to agree on everything, but in the story, the rich man never actually appears to do anything wrong. You could kind of argue his sin was not being more charitable to Lazarus, but the text never actually says this. And when the rich man is being tormented in Hades and asks Abraham for a cup of water, Abraham tells him no, because "remember that during your lifetime you received your good things and Lazarus in like manner evil things, but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony." That's it. In other words, the rich man went to Hell just for being rich. It had little to do with his or Lazarus' deeds in life, but with a cosmic imbalance that had to be corrected. The story is kind of a didactic one even if it isn't literally a parable so it doesn't necessarily mean Luke thought every rich person was going to Hell and I'm sure he didn't think every poor person would have a share in the kingdom but the overall view of earthly wealth is very dim.
This is somewhat supported by what is known of the early church, it's self-imposed poverty and the lack of any violent resistance to persecution. People being what they are, this didn't last long and pretty soon theologians and church fathers were spinning all sorts of justification for why you can actually
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
Of course there was no mass immigration in 1500. Mass immigration didn't happen because there was a "do mass immigration" button just sitting there that nobody bothered to press until 1960, it happened because A) travel became unprecedentedly easy in the 19th - 20th centuries B) for a variety of reasons the politics of the west in the 20th century made western states fairly accepting of that influx.
The nuanced view is that Christianity ultimately is at the root of post-enlightenment left and liberal politics, which I think is pretty unambiguously true (and that's a good thing, thank you Christianity).
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
Jack Chick theory of politics.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
It is a familiar theme in the conversation and heart of the faithful, that in the last days before the judgment the Jews shall believe in the true Christ, that is, our Christ, by means of this great and admirable prophet Elias who shall expound the law to them.
(There is a list at that link of various church authorities over the centuries who have spoken of a corporate conversion of the Jews at the end of time, including Origen.)
And there’s 200 years from Melito to Augustine where there is never mention of corporate salvation
at His last coming He will favour with His acceptance and blessing the circumcision also, even the race of Abraham, which by and by is to acknowledge Him.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
It is not found in the church fathers. Read what Melito or Origen have to say. Hence, it is not found in traditional or historic Christianity, per my post.
Augustine talks about the corporate conversion of Israel at the end of the age. I don't think it gets much more Church father than Augustine.
When Paul speaks about mysteries they always defy a literal understanding, for instance —
I'm not sure how the following defies a literal understanding. He's just talking about the resurrection and the transformation of believers when Christ returns. It's a "mystery" because it's strange and incomprehensible to the pagans of the time.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
Many, if not most, Christian theological and doctrinal disputes are easily resolved as soon as one accepts the Bible was written by dozens (at the very least) of people over thousands of years who very often have wildly different and even flatly contradictory conceptions of faith, God, and just about everything else. When you try to force it all to cohere is when you run into trouble.
Who are the natural branches that are not spared
They are not spared insofar as they are currently severed from the "tree," which doesn't necessarily indicate their eternal separation.
The phraseology explains that the verdict on Israel is more severe, hence “fear, for if God did not spare natural branches he will not spare you”,
I'm not sure it indicates the verdict on Israel is more severe. It's the same verdict, separation, it's just that God presumably has a higher threshold for "cutting off" his chosen people than he does for cutting off gentiles.
We are now back to talking about the grafted in Israel, the Israel by faith, which was defined two chapters ago.
It doesn't make any sense for the Israel onto which the gentiles are grafted to be the "Israel of faith." There has to be a preexisting tree for a branch to be grafted into, but the "Israel of faith" did not even exist prior to the birth of the Gentile church, so the Israel onto which they are being grafted is by necessity the only Israel that did exist prior, the ethnic Israel. Hence it is not the voiding of the old covenant and the creation of the new, but the inclusion of gentiles in the old covenant, so they are now counted as children of Abraham.
“It is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel”. This makes no sense in your theology because it necessarily implies that not all of born-Israel are saved.
A corporate salvation of Israel at the end of time is not unique to Paul. It is a very common belief among "traditional" Christians, both Catholic and Protestant. It's even part of the catechism (CCC 674) It does not does not imply the salvation of literally every single Jew, but it does indicate that the Jews still have some special role to play in God's plan, and that all distinction between Jew and gentile has not been obliterated to make Jews just another ethnic group like any other. After all nobody is talking about the corporate conversion of the Afghans or the Japanese.
So which ones aren’t?
This first result on google from "catholic.com" seems a satisfactory explanation elucidation:
... corporate conversion of the Jewish nation to Christ, either involving every single Jewish individual alive at the end or at least a sufficient number that the nation as a body can be regarded as Christian.
I have no idea if Paul had in mind 100%, 99%, 95%, 90%...
Then why does he specifically mention a remnant?
Those are the Jews who believe in Christ during this parentheses God has opened in which he has blinded Israel as a whole to make time for the gentiles. Paul believed it would be a very brief parentheses, but it's lasted quite a while.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
When Paul says "all Israel will be saved" he is referring to ethnic Israel, since in the sentence immediately preceding he explicitly contrasts "Israel" with "the gentiles." This does not necessarily mean every single Jew but it does mean corporate Israel, not just a small remnant. Paul doesn't seem to think that God has voided his contract with the Jews, but that he is including gentiles in the promises to Abraham, which is different from creating a new covenant where the distinction between Jew and gentile is entirely obviated. Paul obviously doesn't think this since he states that when/if Israel is "grafted back in" it will be much easier for them who are "natural" branches than for the gentiles who are not. The mission to the gentiles is framed largely in reference to God's dealings with the Jews, "Just as you were once disobedient to God but have now received mercy because of their disobedience, so also they have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, [the Jews] may receive mercy."
If every Jew is saved at the end of days, then there is no reason to convert to Christianity as a Jew or to preach to Jews (which the original apostles did).
"What's the point of evangelism if God already knows who will and who won't be saved" is a general problem for the coherence of Christianity, not just in this particular instance.
The mass conversion of the Jews at the end of days is an ancient Christian eschatological belief that endures to this day.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
Paul appears to believe that in his infinite mercy, God blinded the Jews and caused them to reject Jesus en masse so that the gentiles would have time to believe and be saved before the imminent judgment. But this apparently was only supposed to be temporary, until "the fullness of the gentiles" had come in, and then "all Israel" would be saved. Paul even says in Romans that an important goal of his ministry is to make Israel jealous of the gentiles and thus spur their repentance.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
Depends on how "traditional" you want to get. St. Paul was pretty clear that God had not abandoned his covenantal promises to Israel.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
Here on some others. Some of the links are dead, but I found the scans of the relevant documents:
Inferior in the great chain of being, in absolute worth, closer, in the mind of a pre-modern, to the Imago Dei
More options
Context Copy link