It's cool to see so many differing opinions on religious ideologies. Lots of faith here. Awesome. But religious ideologies should have nothing to do with government policy. The only ideologies the government should concern itself with are fairness and equality. Prohibiting two consenting homosexual adults from enjoying the same rights and freedoms that two heterosexual adults take for granted is unfair and unequal.
Uh, to honor your master was not to be respectful as of another human being. Telling them to obey as to God is not just good manners. These were slaves, people killed by right, people torn from their families, people sent to the galleys or the mines if their masters deemed it so. And even calling those who would not obey their master 'insolent' is itself an approval of the status quo of slavery. You enboldened a passage which says that slaves should behave thus because that is the dcotrine of the lord...do you realize what that is saying? What that led to for generations? That isn;t s trong point for your position, max, it's the weakest. That was the rationale people used for hundreds of years to approve of slavery.
A) I hpe this is a joke. Servants meant slaves at the time, and if there was any confusion about that they clarified it by including the ' under the yoke' reference. B) You might interpret that to be his deeper meaning, but without doubt his direct messae is for slaves to obey their masters as they would God. Direct approval of slaveey, to say nothing of being against it.
I think the "two" needs to be removed from your statement, otherwise please explain how your position is any less unfair or unequal.
E.J. Dionne on wedges... ______________ Wedge Hammer By E. J. Dionne Jr. Friday, January 23, 2004; Page A21 President Bush's State of the Union address had the flat tones of a campaign memo, a compendium of wedge issues. Polling and focus groups lurked behind almost every sentence. Wedge Issue No. 1 is, of course, terrorism. The campaign theme: Vote for Bush or stand with the terrorists. Consider this amazing sentence: "We can go forward with confidence and resolve -- or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us." Who, pray tell, held the "dangerous illusion" that terrorists and outlaw regimes were "no threat to us"? Certainly not the Democrats in the Clinton administration. Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton's national security adviser, explicitly warned the Bushies when they were coming into office that terrorism would be the chief foreign policy threat they'd confront. But Bush couldn't resist taking a swipe at Clinton (without naming him) by noting that after the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, "some of the guilty were indicted and tried and convicted, and sent to prison." He then added matter-of-factly: "But the matter was not settled." Would Bush have favored attacking Afghanistan and Iraq way back then? I never heard him say so. And watch out, Dems: When you say "internationalize" Iraq, Bush will say -- well, what he said in this speech: "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country." This clever cheap shot is easily answered. When your house is burning, asking neighbors for a hand and a hose and to call the fire department is not asking for "a permission slip" to fight the fire. It helps to have reasonably good relationships with those neighbors. Wedge No. 2 is the Patriot Act, the law passed in the post-Sept. 11 panic that vastly increased government's law enforcement powers. By calling prematurely for the act's renewal -- it doesn't expire until 2005 -- Bush hopes to turn Democrats' criticisms of the law into an excuse for labeling them "soft on terror." Fortunately, many mainstream and libertarian conservatives don't think civil liberties should be morphed into campaign fodder. "I'd say he's about a year early," Sen. Charles Grassley, an independent-minded Republican from Iowa, told the New York Times. "If I were running for president, I wouldn't have brought it up now." Wedge No. 3 is the oldest of them all, taxes. Calling for making his huge tax cut package permanent, Bush said: "Unless you act, Americans face a tax increase." The Democrats are ready for this one. The rising candidates in the presidential race -- John Kerry, John Edwards and Wesley Clark -- want to keep the middle-class tax cuts but roll back the giveaways to the wealthy. All the Democrats, including Howard Dean, are moving toward tax reform that would give low- and middle-income taxpayers a break. Bring this debate on! Wedge No. 4: Values. Bush proposed doubling funding for abstinence programs, a neo-Great Society marriage of Lyndon Johnson's approach to spending and Pat Robertson's priorities. On gay marriage, Bush was careful. He said he would favor turning to the "constitutional process" to ban it "if judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people." But haven't Massachusetts judges already acted? Why the hedging? Because this is a double-edged wedge. Gay marriage does split the Democrats, but most voters are tolerant and open and don't like this issue shoved in their faces. That's why Bush told us that "each individual has dignity and value in God's sight." Nice to know. I loved two other parts of this speech. One leaked the fact that the White House has some fantastic secret machine that turns weapons of mass destruction into bureaucratic mush. In last year's State of the Union address, Bush described the threat from Saddam Hussein vividly: "500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent"; "several mobile biological weapons labs . . . designed to produce germ warfare agents"; and "a design for a nuclear weapon." This year -- I've italicized the good part -- Bush said that weapons inspectors have "identified dozens of weapons-of-mass-destruction-related program activities." Aren't Republicans supposed to hate gibberish that sounds like it emerged from the office of the third assistant to the vice policy coordinator for the deputy secretary? Finally, Bush devoted more time to steroid use by athletes than to his tax credit to expand health coverage or to Social Security. (He didn't even mention that trip to Mars.) More evidence for what I have always believed: that this man would make a first-rate commissioner of baseball, a sport in which there are curveballs but no wedge issues.
Depends on what method of exegesis you take. Here I would say that Paul is emphasizing the role of servitude to God, The Church's servitude, and so the wording seems correct. But hey let's just deconstruct it to say "class struggle".
these sound like "issues" to me- the wedge modifier is unnecessary. sin't the purpose of a campaign to differentiate your policies w/ those of your opponent/s?
"wedge" is just a slur democrats employ to attempt to obscure their real views on a given subject from the voters.
Ephesians 6;5-8 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bound or free Colossians 3;22-25 says the exact same thing. Timothy 6; 1-2: Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, becase they are bretheren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. You can think that he's emphaisizing whatever you choose, but he is clearly saying to obey...with fear and tembling, no less...as you would God. You can add whatever post applied modern day morality rationalization that makes it easier to reconclie this, but the direct message to slaves, slave owners, and those in the generations to come asking themselves whether slavery was an evil or the way things should be was clear: Slaves, obey your master! That it was perhaps also saying ...and obey God! is really secondary to the issue of where the Bible stood on slavery. And, sorry, to slough it off as class struggle is a grave disservice to the millions upon millions who lived and died under the auspices of church approved slavery which owes a great deal to these passages. This is why the Bible as a direct catalogue of what is right and wrong for us to this day is unacceptable to me. It is a snapshot of contemporary morality from the time and place in which those who wrote it lived, times in which slavery was an unquestioned fact of life, honor to your parents was a given, homosexuality was a wrong, and premarital sex was immoral. Those who site the Bible to condemn homosexuality are treating the Bible like a menu, from which you can pick and choose that which we want to apply to modern life and that which we don't. This is particularly true of Christians in America...for what does Jesus tell men of wealth they must do before pursuing a holy life? I know, camels and needles are antiquated beliefs, but the comment on homsexuality was clearly meant to last...
Here's Jack Welch's (former chaiman of GE) impressions of four of the dem candidates and their leadership potential based on his "4-E's"., four essential traits of leadership. "One, successful leaders have tons of positive energy. They can go go go; they love action and relish change. Two, they have the ability to energize others--they love people and can inspire them to move mountains when they have to. Three, they have edge, the courage to make tough yes-or-no decisions--no maybes. And finally, they can execute. They get the job done." for the record, he's pro-bush. the whole article is here: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004596 -- Just for an example, let's use the Four E's to look at the leadership potential of four Democrats, John Kerry, Wesley Clark, Howard Dean and Joe Lieberman. • John Kerry is easy. Without a doubt, he passes the two preliminary questions with flying colors--tons of integrity and intelligence. (His emotional intelligence, by the way, is what won in Iowa; it came through when he refused to lie down after being written off for dead.) Now, consider the four E's. He's got energy--his prodigious work in the Senate and his stamina on the campaign trail prove that. And surely he must be strong on edge and execution--consider his two decades in the Senate. What supporters need to consider, then, is John Kerry's ability to energize others, and his passion. I'm not saying anything new here. Pundits have long wondered out loud about Mr. Kerry's "charisma" and his inner fire. Yes, they say, he's thoughtful and earnest; but can he inspire others--millions of others, as president--to relentlessly pursue tough goals? Voters have to ask that, and perhaps in the coming months Mr. Kerry's main job is to answer them convincingly. • Now Wesley Clark. On this one, let's start with the Four E's themselves. Gen. Clark appears to have them all. His 34-year career in the military--as a leader in several high-powered roles--makes that case. But here, it seems to me, voters have to look at the first two questions and the passion thing before pulling the lever for him. Doubts about Gen. Clark's integrity--his "character"--have been raised by a few of his peers. I don't know if these doubts are right, but the matter needs to be nailed down. Similarly, voters need to assess if Gen. Clark has the breadth of knowledge and passion about nonmilitary subjects to make him the right leader for this country. The job of president is so hard he'd better. • Moving on to Howard Dean, he passes the Four E's, along with plenty of passion. And when it comes to integrity, I've seen nothing to suggest he hasn't got it through and through. His emotional intelligence may be another matter. Not unlike a lot of strong-willed managers I've had to let go--even ones with all Four E's--he seems to have some problems handling stress. In any big job, you get knocked off the horse a few times. It's how you get back on that proves your real mettle. Voters evaluating Mr. Dean as a leader may do well to ask themselves if he has the ability to lead not just in good times, but in the bad times that any president is certain to encounter. • Finally, let's consider Joe Lieberman. Here's a man with more integrity and intelligence--in particular, emotional intelligence-- than you can shake a stick at. What a terrific person! But when you evaluate him on the four E's, leadership questions arise. Does he have the "what, me sleep?" kind of energy it takes to run this country? And more pressingly, can he get others zealously excited about his causes? He is such a contemplative person, you have to feel concerned over his ability to show edge and to execute. The world is filled with gray, but great leaders are often forced to act as if it were black and white. Joe Lieberman, it turns out, may need to spend the next few months showing voters he is as much about action as he is about ideas.
excellent use of "exegesis." my wife's dissertation was something like "The Preface as Hermeneutical Vehicle in Canon Law Collections, 1075-1175," and i know there was a bunch of research on medeival biblical exegesis, but i suspect the latter is in a box under the bed somewhere...
I will grant to you that it does not mean that the Bible was for slavery when it speaks of it; liken it to the Gospel quote where Jesus says to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to give to God what is God. This doesn't neccesarilly mean that Christ was pro Caesar, its just that he's making a distinction between the two, and obligations that one must sometimes endure, yes suffering, yet we should always do things for the lord. Man is sometimes placed in not so nice circumstances, and it is important that we do not turn those circumstances to hate. Things I don't buy and that you'll have trouble convincing me of, is your philosophy of history attitude towards morality. I don't feel like going much into it right now but I'll just say this. The fullness of morality is expressed in Genesis, simply when God tells Adam and Eve not to eat of the Tree of Life. Man disobeys, yada yada History of man bada bing bada boom. Now, whether or not there was an actual tree or an actual snake or an actual apple is all very entertaining and one can lean whichever way they please on those issues, the fact still remains that morality, this idea of what to do and what not to do, is there from the very inception of the earth. Looking at the Gospel of John, the Word (Christ) of God, the Word of creation, the word that he spoke and continues to speak to this day...is source of all, Christ, and as such we see the same "legal" structure laid out in the Ten Commandments, and then reinforced by Christ. This morality, is what helps us to love God to the fullest of our natures, which then takes upon Christ to go above our natures to Divine love, or Agape. The structure is always there for man. Slavery is always an evil. Abortion is always an evil. Murdering someone is always an evil. Being greedy and placing money and or power as your God are always an evil. I don't buy into this whole issue of an evolving morality that you speak of...and I do agree with your point that those who pick and choose from the Bible are incorrect and heretical in doing so. This of course is not to say that we as humans don't evolve. It is always our goal to have this return to the fullness of the faith, to take up the New Adam (Christ) and the New Eve (Mary) as that which is the fullness the completes of the Word that God spake and still speaks. It is us who must then hear it fully as well, not just picking up on bits and phrases. Basically MacB, please stop sounding like Hegel, its getting kind of scary. Anyway, I'm just ramblin.
My girlfriend thesis was on the Exegesis of Ephensians 6 I do believe and whether St. Paul was a mysogonist.
MacB, I guess we'll just have to disagree on this. Say you're reading of turn the other cheek. I had a priest do an exegesis on that at mass one, and he said the turning of the cheek was a thing where if one man was slapping you, you'd turn the other cheek to make his hand hurt when he went to slap you the second time, thus; you don't really do anything wrong, he feels the hurt in his hand as result, and who knows, maybe he'll think a little different about the next time he goes to slap you. That's the basic premise behind that. Sorry you read it so poorly. (he he -- sorry had to get that one in, I read it your way at first also) All I'm saying is, maybe the same could go for the slavery issue? I'd hate for you to go on thinking the Bible was an advocate of slavery. I hope you will quit being a slave to that idea. But this is the danger in just picking up the Bible and reading it without a good knowledge of what it is. Truth lies everywhere MacB, sometimes its the hardest to see when its right on you.
