tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post5659025747353722405..comments2023-12-15T21:49:46.651+01:00Comments on Pluralist Speaks: Trust not HierarchyPluralist (Adrian Worsfold)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01922153724523820866noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-45036627168499609012008-11-14T20:20:00.000+01:002008-11-14T20:20:00.000+01:00All I am saying is if you use these texts there is...All I am saying is if you use these texts there is this kind of argument, but then there are other texts for that kind of argument. I have an interest in the two Pauls. But I never set out to prove a point via playing scriptural arguments against each other, or with each other, in that they are only consultative anyway and they do not, in my view, form some kind of unified whole. There is no proper way to read them - just these texts and those. All I've done is commented on those you used and what seem to be consequences. I'd do the same for texts in other books, other faiths and none. These biblical texts I regard as voluntary - and if they are unhelpful texts then I reject them.Pluralist (Adrian Worsfold)https://www.blogger.com/profile/01922153724523820866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-6205222457082446272008-11-14T19:10:00.000+01:002008-11-14T19:10:00.000+01:00What can I say Adrian? Your argument seems to amou...What can I say Adrian? Your argument seems to amount to, "I think you're wrong on the Bible texts, but the moment you try and draw more Scripture in to support your view, I'm just going to reject the Bible anyway as having anything authoritative to say". I can't argue against that.Peter Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06653736283239812968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-83117595922287236492008-11-14T14:57:00.000+01:002008-11-14T14:57:00.000+01:00I'm applying your hierarchical description of rela...I'm applying your hierarchical description of relationship and sex, but it is one I reject. And of course that means that if there are specific biblical texts that imply or more than imply a hierarchical description of relationship and sex then I reject them. I reject them because I regard them as cultural and limited, as indeed I regard either the Paul who did write various epistles or part, or the 'Paul' who is later on and hierarchical.<BR/><BR/>I think your view, and the selective literalism of the biblical view, does in the end imply a kind of violence. I am more than suspicious of these texts.<BR/><BR/>I'm also saying that your presentation has these side effects. Some may be covered by other texts, but given as given there are these side effects. The texts don't exactly improve the situation ethically, and so I reject them.<BR/><BR/>As for eternal Christ and all that, well I just take that as a form of myth - strong sense and weak sense.Pluralist (Adrian Worsfold)https://www.blogger.com/profile/01922153724523820866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-90196335246168573332008-11-14T12:15:00.000+01:002008-11-14T12:15:00.000+01:00Adrian,Once again you're not reading the Bible pro...Adrian,<BR/><BR/>Once again you're not reading the Bible properly. If we didn't have passages such as Rev 13:8 and Eph 1:4 you might have a point, but actually those references and others indicate a Christ who has been eternally committed to the Church, not hanging around being promiscuous waiting for it to turn up (as you seem to be suggesting). That just strengthens the analogy, not weakens it.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that when you raise issues of penis worship or aggressive patriarchy, you seem to be implying that ALL vaginal sex is by it's nature aggressive and domineering. If you yourself have vaginal sex and your partner doesn't view you as forcing yourself on her, why would you therefore imply that the only possible interpretation of this act of procreative sex as significatory for the union of Christ and the Church is of an aggressive forceful Christ?Peter Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06653736283239812968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-11432591649527012082008-11-13T00:06:00.000+01:002008-11-13T00:06:00.000+01:00It's not sloppy Bible reading: one is specific and...It's not sloppy Bible reading: one is specific and one is a general principle - and I am aware of that. But the specific one contradicts the general principle. The issue then becomes, first, and temporarily, who is the more authentic Paul, the equalitarian one that seems to be more his pen than the hierarchical one, and second, more than temporarily, what is the ethic being suggested by either, and which to choose. I am quite happy to reject Bible passages and the like where there is another Christian and ethical principle at work. My point then becomes trust over hierarchy.<BR/><BR/>I also think, as a matter of getting there, that your selective literalism and that close correlation you make beyond the metaphor of Christ/ Church husband/ wife has some strange side effects, such as the apparent difficulty of an eternal Christ with no subservient Church to which he can direct and limit his (spiritual?) promiscuity. It is quite bizarre in places.Pluralist (Adrian Worsfold)https://www.blogger.com/profile/01922153724523820866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-71975333857473710482008-11-12T19:23:00.000+01:002008-11-12T19:23:00.000+01:00If I could be bothered, I would point to the line ...<I>If I could be bothered, I would point to the line that in Christ there is no male and female, and then relationships can be undifferentiated, in the same sense Peter Ould demands difference. I cannot make this argument because it is the same method. It misuses text, and it crosses cultural and time boundaries.</I><BR/><BR/>Not so. The clear difference is that Eph 5 makes the specific Christ/Church, Husband/Wife connection. Gal 3:28 does not - in fact it talks about male/female NOT husband and wife. In order to make your argument work you either have to claim that the two passages are contradictory OR you need to make Eph 5 say something else when it compares Christ/Church to Husband/Wife.<BR/><BR/>Sloppy Bible reading Adrian.Peter Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06653736283239812968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-3284654425011593682008-11-12T11:22:00.000+01:002008-11-12T11:22:00.000+01:00Bravo. And thank you.Bravo. And thank you.Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.com