Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
The same command was given to fish and birds in 1:22. In some fish species; they can change their gender, e.g., the clown fish.
I know. Like Adam, she was human. Unlike Adam, she was female. There was a new category of thing in the world requiring a name. The objection seems to be calling this new category of thing a new category of being. I think the authors of the note intended the word "being" to be a simple noun. Here is a new category of thing/being/creature that is also uniquely new in being both the same and different from Adam just like men and women generally are the same and different. Marie seems to be taking the word "being" at a more more philosophical level as though the authors of the note were declaring that men and women are not both ontologically human, which, we all agree, would have disastrous results for soteriology and other doctrinal disciplines.As with the TLSB study note, I think treating the word “being” as an ontological statement presses it into service beyond what anyone intended. Clearly male and female are categories. The first and typical female was Eve. Adam saw her and recognized her as a new category of… creature? Thing? All the note was getting at is that Adam recognized Eve as different from himself and that the difference was/would not be limited to them as individuals but as categories. She wasn’t just a different person, she was in a different category, a different kind of person. Mankind, not just the two of them in the garden, is male and female per God’s design. To make the word “being” in the note refer to an ontological statement that somehow denies Adam and Eve are both in same category as humans is not only to read into the wording way too far but also to assume the authors of the notes were quite foolish. Same with Ladylike. Let the book serve the particular purpose it was written for. It wasn’t written to be a Pieper-esque anthropological study. It was a popular defense of traditional feminine self-understanding and practical attitudes and behaviors against feminist criticisms.
Remember in the Genesis 2 story, Eve shows up after God had presented all the animals to Adam. They were the creatures who were different - not fit for him. The attraction of Eve is that she was like Adam in nearly all aspects. Certainly much more like Adam than all the other animals God presented to him. Adam's words about Eve are not, "She's so different than me," but "she's the same. Bone from my bone, flesh from my flesh."
Being female was not new. That category was present among animals and plants. What made this creature a fitting helper to Adam was not her femaleness (which was present among the animals,) but that she was human like him.
No one is suggesting, as you imply, that a woman is no different from a cow. The new category is woman.
God could have simply cloned Adam as a helper for him. He didn't. He created woman. Thanks be to God!
Before the woman, God formed all the animals to see if they would be perfect helpers for the human.
Then the LORD God said, "It's not good that the human is alone. I will make him a helper that is perfect for him." So the LORD God formed from the fertile land all the wild animals and all the birds of the sky and brought them to the human to see what he would name them. The human gave each living being its name. The human named all the livestock, all the birds in the sky, and all the wild animals. But a helper perfect for him was nowhere to be found. (Genesis 2:18-20, CEB)
What was different about this last creature was not that she was female, but that she was human like the man.
I know. Like Adam, she was human. Unlike Adam, she was female. There was a new category of thing in the world requiring a name. The objection seems to be calling this new category of thing a new category of being. I think the authors of the note intended the word "being" to be a simple noun. Here is a new category of thing/being/creature that is also uniquely new in being both the same and different from Adam just like men and women generally are the same and different. Marie seems to be taking the word "being" at a more more philosophical level as though the authors of the note were declaring that men and women are not both ontologically human, which, we all agree, would have disastrous results for soteriology and other doctrinal disciplines.As with the TLSB study note, I think treating the word “being” as an ontological statement presses it into service beyond what anyone intended. Clearly male and female are categories. The first and typical female was Eve. Adam saw her and recognized her as a new category of… creature? Thing? All the note was getting at is that Adam recognized Eve as different from himself and that the difference was/would not be limited to them as individuals but as categories. She wasn’t just a different person, she was in a different category, a different kind of person. Mankind, not just the two of them in the garden, is male and female per God’s design. To make the word “being” in the note refer to an ontological statement that somehow denies Adam and Eve are both in same category as humans is not only to read into the wording way too far but also to assume the authors of the notes were quite foolish. Same with Ladylike. Let the book serve the particular purpose it was written for. It wasn’t written to be a Pieper-esque anthropological study. It was a popular defense of traditional feminine self-understanding and practical attitudes and behaviors against feminist criticisms.
Remember in the Genesis 2 story, Eve shows up after God had presented all the animals to Adam. They were the creatures who were different - not fit for him. The attraction of Eve is that she was like Adam in nearly all aspects. Certainly much more like Adam than all the other animals God presented to him. Adam's words about Eve are not, "She's so different than me," but "she's the same. Bone from my bone, flesh from my flesh."
Being female was not new. That category was present among animals and plants. What made this creature a fitting helper to Adam was not her femaleness (which was present among the animals,) but that she was human like him.
It is true, for example, that one explanation for the Empty Tomb that was offered was that the disciples stole the body. Should we consider that as an equally reasonable interpretation as that Jesus rose from the dead? When one considers how the disciples acted in the immediate aftermath of Jesus' arrest, their resources, the guard at the tomb, the plausibility of this account suffers greatly. Also we have the eye witnesses to the resurrected Jesus.
Who are "we?" It's an old book steeped in patriarchy and used to enslave millions of people and oppress millions of others. And the symbol of the cross, meant to be a sign of forgiveness, was for century on century used as the symbol for conquering colonial brutality, including the Crusades. True truth means owning up to your own bad behavior. Or doesn't it?
Dave Benke
that's a rather shallow view of history. There were, by most estimates, 8 crusades between the 11th and 13th centuries. These came after several centuries and countless thousands of Muslim conquests, which nearly drove Christendom out of the Middle east, parts of Europe, and the Holy Land. I've yet to hear Muslims owing up to their bad behavior, that precipitated the crusades, or did I miss that?
Lest we forget that the Koran also clearly calls Christians inferior and has no law preventing the subjugation of and even murder of them, and in some instances even calls for it.
Sorry, this was in accordance with the LCMS Official Stylebook. It was also that way in the Reporter.J
...the Rev. Dr. ...
Like fingernails on a chalkboard. But it's become ingrained.
J
...the Rev. Dr. ...
Another way to look at this. Do our progressive siblings wish to contend that God could not have limited the pastoral ministry to men if He wanted to? Is it their intention to limit what God could decide?
God did not limit it. Men did. There are enough indications in the early scriptures and Jesus' ministry, and some in the early church that indicate women were in leadership roles. Something happened to push them out. Conclusion: men did it, contrary to God's wishes.
And, Tom Eckstein, how much does that matter? 500 years ago, people fought to the death championing one side or other side of that question. There may have been reasons, political and social as well as theological, to do that.
I wonder what the differences in understanding, not to mention even using the categories of substance or essence or accidence mean or matter today in terms of proclamation or ministry or outreach.
I, of course, endorse the confessional Lutheran description of what the sacrament is and how we approach it. Is “mine” only way? Must Someone fully, in every sense, endorse my way before we can share the Lord’s supper together? Does our salvation or the “purity“ of our faith depend upon such things?
It matters GREATLY! What the Lord's Supper IS is just as important as what the Gospel IS. Obviously, we should not hate those who disagree with us much less use violence against them! But we MUST, for love's sake, take a firm stand for the Truth. Just as we can't have various opinions about Christ (e.g., is He Creator or created?) that are equally true we can't have various opinions about Christ's Supper ("It IS His Body/Blood" versus "It's NOT His Body and Blood!") that are equally true.
Now, can someone have saving faith and be confused about what the Supper IS? Yes. But that's why we have catechesis! And we should not share the Lord's Supper together until we can say the same thing about what it IS!
Every full communion partner of the ELCA says "It is the body of Christ." That's enough for us. Not enough for you.
We also say, the church IS the one body of Christ. We believe that all the folks in those other denominations are part of that one body of Christ, and we are willing to indicate that by sharing Christ's supper with them. You aren't.
Just as important as what it is, is what it does. Matthew says it forgives sins. Paul says that it makes us one body.
Actually, Matthew has Jesus saying: τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.
According to Jesus, His Blood that we drink ( Πίετε ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες ) is connected to the forgiveness we receive in the Lord's Supper. Therefore, denying that His Blood is actually being drunk is problematic!
To be technical, the Verba are about drinking from "the cup." They never state what's in the cup. "Wine" never occurs in any of the four Verba in scriptures. "Fruit of the vine" is mentioned afterwards in Mark and Matthew in a passage where Jesus says he will not be drinking it with us until the kingdom comes.
Oh please! Brian! Do I really even need to explain why it was WINE in "The Cup"? Nice way to totally avoid the point I made.
The landlord/tenant, unsatisfied judgment deduction is erroneous and, therefore, a false analogy. There is no free lunch, especially with the IRS.I think the income in the scenario was the amount of damages awarded by the court that could not be collected.
One cannot simply write off an unsatisfied judgment and make the government/taxpayers cover his loss. One can only write off that unsatisfied judgment if one claimed the lost rent as income.
I recall being at a house party with several other young attorneys. After a couple of drinks, someone suggested
the brilliant idea that we could deduct unpaid attorney fees on our income taxes. Everyone's eyes lit up, except for those of the former-CPA lawyer who quickly demolished that idea as explained above. There can only be a deduction directly related to income.
In the example above, perhaps one can deduct the damage to repair income-producing property not covered by insurance. But, again, there had to be some income from which to take the deduction.
I have often said that we live by perceptions - what we believe to be true rather than truth.
I have been unable to find any evidence whatsoever for the existence of "beliefs." Now what?
Correct. Beliefs exist without evidence. Thus, thousands of people believe the fake news.
Millions of Christians believe Christ was crucified and rose from the dead. There's no evidence whatsoever that it actually happened.
The U.S. tax code allows an itemized deduction for "unsatisfied judgments." For example, suppose that you are a landlord. One of your tenants falls behind on the rent, goes on a drinking binge, trashes the apartment, and leaves. You sue him for unpaid rent and damages, and the court rules in your favor. However, he has also lost his job, has no wages to garnish, and the court's judgment goes unpaid. Although no one except your former tenant bears moral responsibility for the wrong done to you, your loss is effectively partially defrayed by the taxpayers, essentially on the theory that you should be compensated for an injustice that the courts have been unable to remedy.Peter writes:That is always the case. But should all Democrats pay to rebuild the sections of Minneapolis that were destroyed by hate-filled rioters last year? Of course not. Somebody owes somebody something for every burned building and lost livelihood. We know that. That answer doesn’t address my question. Who owes whom? Who is in a position to forgive? What constitutes atonement? Foolish people who believe in identity politics think the Tulsa massacre is something that has to be resolved between me and my black neighbor. Christians think the guilty should pay restitution to the victims.
But who is to apologize to whom? Whose forgiveness is valid? How does one atone?
I comment:
The first and second generation descendants of those whose property and fortunes were lost in that event are known and are still alive. They are the people who would’ve owned those properties and benefitted from those fortunes today, had not the property and fortune been stolen from them.
Seems to me, someone owes them something.
Is this a just policy? If so, how do you distinguish this policy from a policy of using public funds to compensate people (or their heirs) who suffered documented loss of property to lawless rioters, whether in Tulsa in 1921 or in Minneapolis in 2020? In the landlord-tenant scenario, one could argue that you are less deserving of compensation, because you showed poor judgment in selecting a tenant. Yet under our current laws, this is the only scenario where compensation is available.
Peace,
Jon
1x1x1=1
Three things equals one thing.
No surprise here. Analogies don't work, especially this one.
"Remember, multiplication is repeated addition."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Juxcu5rGQ
It illustrates how three things can also equal one thing. You don't like it. Don't use it.
I found that it made sense to confirmation students. The Trinity is not: 1+1+1=1, which is mathematically illogical; but 1x1x1=1 is the way math works. Three different 1s can be put together to equal 1.
No, you err.
"Remember, multiplication is repeated addition."
I can't remember that, because I never knew it; and I still don't agree with it. My dictionary defines multiplication as: Mathematics the process of combining matrices, vectors, or other quantities under specific rules to obtain their product.
So, combining the quantities of the three persons of the Trinity, we obtain the product of One God.
