All Activity

Seems like a selective appeal to authority that conflates one particular hyper-skeptical school of historical-critical reconstruction with the broader consensus of biblical scholarship. Your argument relies heavily on a specific history-of-religions paradigm popularized by radical apocalyptic reconstructions. While apocalypticism is a recognized component of historical Jesus research, the mainstream scholarship (E.P. Sanders, John P. Meier, Richard Bauckham) explicitly rejects the conclusion that Jesus advocated universal celibacy or viewed the family as a disposable earthly vice. I quoted E.P. Sanders who pointed out that Jesus' strict, unyielding prohibition against divorce demonstrates that He viewed marriage as an eternal, God-joined ordinance, directly contradicting the idea that Jesus viewed family as a disposable earthly arrangement. I quoted Dale Allison and Joseph Fitzmyer who explicitly refuted the idea that "like the angels" means humans become sexless. Jesus is explaining the immortal condition of the resurrected body, not declaring that personal relationships or covenant identities are abolished. Carey A. Moore (Tobit: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Yale Bible Commentary, Vol. 40A) Carey A. Moore commenting on Tobit 6:18 and 7:11 where the angel Raphael declares Sarah was set apart for Tobias "from of old" and "destined for him forever") "The union of Tobias and Sarah was not a matter of mere human arrangement, nor even simply of pious parental duty; it was a match made in heaven, predestined from eternity (apo tou aiōnos / eis ton aiōna). In the author's view, their marriage is an act of divine providence - prepared before the world was, sealed by angelic intervention, and intended to endure into the age to come." (Carey A. Moore, Tobit (Anchor Yale Bible), p. 218) On the Covenant of Marriage in Second Temple Judaism commenting on Tobit 7:12–13 "Marriage in Tobit is elevated far above a social contract or a utilitarian means of property inheritance. It is presented as a sacred covenant ordained by God from creation, protected by angels against demonic destruction, and invested with eternal validity. The story asserts that a true marriage, rightly contracted under God's law, possesses a heavenly reality that transcends the threats of death and mortality." (Carey A. Moore, Tobit (Anchor Yale Bible), p. 232) George W.E. Nickelsburg (Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction) One of the premier 20th-century scholars on Second Temple apocryphal and pseudepigraphical literature, his analysis of the Book of Tobit "The author of Tobit constructs the narrative around the theme of divine providence overriding earthly tragedy. The marriage of Tobias and Sarah is the central plot device demonstrating this principle: their union was decreed in heaven before it was consummated on earth. The angelic decree that she was 'destined for him from eternity' (Tobit 6:17–18) establishes marriage as an eternal ordinance belonging to the divine order, rather than a temporary arrangement dictated by circumstance." (George W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah, 2nd ed., p. 34) Analyzing Tobit's prayer in Tobit 8:5–7 "In Tobit 8, the marital prayer explicitly harks back to the creation of Adam and Eve. By grounding their union in the primordial creation order, the text presents marriage as God's original, ideal design for humanity. The union of man and woman is not an earthly concession to mortality, but a holy state ordained from the beginning, restored through covenant faithfulness, and destined to endure." (George W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah, 2nd ed., p. 36) The assertion that scholars think ancient Jews only viewed marriage as a temporary mortal contract is false. When Jesus engaged the Sadducees in Matthew 22, the concept of a divinely ordained, heavenly sealed marital union was not an anachronistic invention, but a recognized theological framework documented in mainstream Second Temple texts like Tobit. Raphael Patai the famed scholar of Jewish myth and temple symbolism provides evidence that directly reinforces the eternal marriage argument. In his landmark books The Hebrew Goddess (1967) and Man and Temple in Ancient Jewish Myth and Ritual (1947) demonstrates that in First Temple theology and late Rabbinic traditions. Yoma 54a in the Talmud, the two Cherubim atop the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies were sculpted not merely as sexless angels, but as a male and female figure locked in an indissoluble marital embrace. "The ancient Hebrew sanctuary was not merely a place of prayer or sacrifice, but the earthly locus of a divine bridal chamber (Nymphon), where the holy union of the male and female divine principles was solemnized into eternity." (Raphael Patai, The Hebrew Goddess, pp. 32–34) Patai’s analysis proves that in ancient Temple symbolism, angelic beings in the Holy of Holies were explicitly gendered and depicted in eternal marital union. Jesus’s claim to restore the original First Temple order connects directly to this framework, the ultimate sanctuary reality was not celibate isolation, but the eternal, holy union of male and female. In his examination of ancient Jewish Temple ritual, Patai details the Heavenly Union (Yichudim) "Human marriage was viewed not as a temporary worldly contract dictated by mortal necessity, but as an earthly reflection of the ultimate heavenly mystery (Yichud). The coupling of husband and wife in holiness on earth was believed to participate in and sustain the eternal, unbreakable union of the King and His Matronit in the divine realm." (Raphael Patai, The Hebrew Goddess, p. 142)

For the record, I take no offense to that statement (which is a false equivalent). Because I am not a prostitute it is not characterizing me and so there’s no reason to be offended.

Then yes. This is actually great advice is some circumstances. If I had a single friend that just won 100 million in the lottery, then the advice that people approaching him/her are all potential gold diggers is probably great. If I was an attorney advising a very wealthy client (whose wealth is well known), I’d give the same advice. Do you disagree?

Thank you for this! For some reason I never realized the perfectly obvious fact that the Savior would be in favor or the multiple millions of child sacrifices that have been performed in these latter-days under the glorious banner of unlimited abortion rights, right up to the very moment of birth! If only the Savior were here today to set the callous church leaders straight with regard their backward, anti-progressive stand on abortion! With this realization, my faith in the love of God has increased exponentially!

You haven’t elicited anything. I offer it willingly to the board as a real life example of the very topic we are now discussing. If it is too real for you and you are uncomfortable engaging, I’m OK with that. I offer it to anyone else who might take offense, though we have not heard from anybody else who does. But should there be anyone else, I’m hoping it bridges a bit of a gap between us and offers some clarity.

Pretty cool that man on the large sized ring! My hope for heaven is much like it is on earth. The beauty in the world is astounding to me. I hope to eat actual food and speak actual words. I can't wait to be with my deceased loved ones as well. Just came home from St. George Utah and we hiked a little bit of Zion's National Park. I hope to one day climb Angel's Landing, but don't know if I'll ever make it. Can't hurt to have a goal. Swimming is sooo good for you, I'm glad you do that Calm!!

Like the Saviour, he'd be progressive.

No, I didn't understand the word differences or hadn't at the time. But sure hope I empathized as well as sympathized in situations.

I didn't take it as a personal dig. You said the argument is "silly," not that I am a silly person. Nevertheless, the response looks like an appeal to ridicule. The argument is "silly," ergo you don't need to address its substance. Okay. An explanation as to how you reached this conclusion would be interesting. I'm not sure such a discussion would be worthwhile, as it would entail you providing details about your private life, and I don't want to elicit such information. Thanks, -Smac

- I’m sorry I didn’t intend that as personal. Please accept my apology. I’d like to scratch from the record and instead say, I find the statement to be unhelpful and false equivalent in this conversation . The gold digger comparison works, makes a LOT more sense. Regardless, let’s get back to the topic. I described my actual experience of feeling unsafe with men, would like to know what you think of it.

I fixed the hypothetical to add "potential." Should've been in there in the first place. Thanks, -Smac

If that was the only context given, quite possibly. How is context relevant? The denigration is categorical (all women are "potential" prostitutes / pedophiles / rapists). I'm genuinely curious what you have to say. What sort of context would justify denigrating all women everywhere in these ways? Thanks, -Smac

Again if you were listening or understanding, that would be "All women are **potential** golddiggers" based on the nearly universal experience of all men having countless unpleasant experiences with women in relation to money issues. And if all that was true, it would parallel the issue here.

Appeal to ridicule. Oh, well. Thanks, -Smac

Feel free to talk about this. I am not the one that is endorsing the "all men are potential rapists" slogan. That's your gig. If the point to be made is some sort of variation on how women need to take a defensive self protective posture "given precarious situations," including heightened situational awareness (my wife does that when she is out at night) and modified behaviors (my wife sometimes carries her keys protruding from between her fingers, as a sort of makeshift brass knuckles thing), then I endorse such plainly sensible sentiments. But instead, we get "all men are potential rapists." That some are advancing this ugly and prejudiced posture to purportedly convey this other idea is, in my view, indicative of something else going on. Thanks, -Smac

And putting aside the emotional response, I think the potential and/or likely adverse effects of categorical denigrations along these lines are serious and deserve some attention and consideration. We see all sorts of commentary about "toxic masculinity," about how (some) men sexualize women, and so on. Categorically disparaging all women everywhere by describing all of them as "potential" prostitutes or pedophiles or rapists is not going to improve categorical relations between men and women. And no amount of ad hoc revisionism ("Hey, when I say that 'All women are potential golddiggers' what I mean is that some men have had some unpleasant experiences with women in relation to money issues, such that men need to be on guard about that...") doesn't rehabilitate or justify the accusation. Thanks, -Smac

@webbles @Calm Muslims seem to hold to a traditional view of "virgins", although they paint a more sensual view of paradise. "So; and We shall join them to Companions with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes" (Yusif Ali, Quran 44:54). "They will recline (with ease) on Thrones (of dignity) arranged in ranks; and We shall join them to Companions, with beautiful big and lustrous eyes" (Yusif Ali, Quran 52:50). "In them will be (Maidens), chaste, restraining their glances, whom no man or Jinn before them has touched" (Yusif Ali, Quran 55:56) "And (there will be) Companions with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes, Like unto Pearls well-guarded, A Reward for the deeds of their past (life)" (Yusif Ali, Quran 56:22–24). Quran 56:35–37 describes women of a special creation, whom God has made anew ("We have created (their Companions) of special creation, And made them virgin - pure (and undefiled), full of love, well-matched". About 84 english translations are provided for each chapter and verse at https://islamawakened.com/quran/#gsc.tab=0 Then there are other writings (the hadiths, accepted by Sunnis) which describe polygamy in Paradise. 1.] Jamiʿ al-Tirmidhi 1663 - Regarding The Rewards For The Martyr 2] Sunan Ibn Majah 4337 - Description of Paradise Teachings from Islamic scholars (the tafsirs) indicate some women remain perpetual virgins. 1] Al Islam, chapter 7, Her Other Names 2] Maʿarif al-Quran, commentary on 56:36 The English commentary states: “The sense is the creation of the maidens of Paradise will be of such a nature that, even after every sexual intercourse, they will remain like virgins". 3] Tafsir al-Quran al-Karim on 56:36. “All will always remain virgins; whenever their husbands unite with them, they will find them virgins.” Some other commentary by Dr. Suad Joseph, a Roman Catholic, was provided in her "Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic Cultures".

Returning to topic: I find walking out to a parking lot alone in the dark to 100% of the time puts me on high alert because of my experiences with men. So whenever I see a man walking towards me in that situation, I suspect that I am in danger. I never feel this way when a woman is walking towards me. Every man is suspect to me in that scenario. it’s sad because I know not all men are actually threatening, but in that scenario, I have to assume that any man is threatening. so in my mind, I’m assuming that any man approaching me in a dark parking lot is potentially very dangerous to me and so I have to quickly get in my car and lock the door and prepared to scream and kick and fight as necessary. There are zero exceptions to this, unless that man is my husband, my father my brothers or my sons. Why is this? My experiences with other humans who happen to have all been men. Unfortunate isn’t it?

I can only speak for myself and I think it’s a silly argument. I’m unaffected.

‘Mormon Land’: Would Joseph Smith be a progressive or conservative in today’s political landscape? A Grok summary: The article, being promotional, is pretty thin. Nevertheless, labeling elements of an 1844 platform “progressive” or “conservative” using 21st-century categories is almost always anachronistic. Joseph's platform (detailed in his “Views of the Powers and Policy of the Government of the United States”) included proposals such as a national bank, gradual compensated emancipation with colonization, annexation of Texas, prison reform, and a stronger federal role in protecting minority rights against state-level mobs. Those positions can be described in period terms (Whig-adjacent economic nationalism, limited anti-slavery sentiment short of immediate abolition, minority-rights advocacy born of persecution). Mapping them onto today’s left-right spectrum requires selecting which modern associations to emphasize and which to ignore. Park’s broader scholarship (especially Kingdom of Nauvoo) emphasizes Smith’s late-period theocratic Council of Fifty, his criticism of existing constitutional arrangements as insufficient to protect the Saints, and his willingness to contemplate a more centralized, revelation-guided political order. That is a legitimate historical observation. It is also easy to read in ways that flatter contemporary preferences for activist government or minority-rights rhetoric while downplaying Smith’s repeated affirmations of the Constitution as inspired (D&C 98, 101), his practical experience of mob rule and political betrayal, his patriarchal and polygamous family order, and his expectation of a theocratic millennium, none of which would seem to mesh well with modern notions of a secular progressive state (modern notions of conservatism likewise don't map very well). Anyway, thoughts? Thanks, -Smac

@Kenngo1969

If that was the only context given, quite possibly.

If you will let me talk about what I am actually talking about without trying to fit me into your square hole, sure. I am specifically speaking about C, or more precisely C(1): can’t tell good guys from bad guys while you switch it out to C(2): latent rapist Don’t know how to do superscript yet

Same here. It’s an understandable position in that case. Also if that was the reality for where someone lived, using that phrase to teach young men and women or even adults depending on their attention levels to prepare themselves for being approached would be reasonable, if not the best way to go about it.*** I can even see using it as a quick reminder if someone was headed out the door needing to go to an area where they would likely be solicited or pressured to join the trade. A refresher that primes their mind and body could help prevent being frozen or unable to make a decision in the moment about what to do when confronted or at least shorten the lack of response, which can help moving to a more effective tactic (fight, flight, or fawn). Of course, any refresher would be much more effective if a solid foundation was laid exploring circumstances and signs to look for and especially options of response, what works and what won’t, and practicing those responses, etc. Hmmm….sounds familiar. ***bolded so less likely to be missed

Is this supposed to be offensive? Seems like a reasonable statement on global nature of rape culture to me. I think many women would take offense at being characterized this way. If I thought your headspace was due to women actually soliciting you on the regular as often as men cross boundaries with me, I would not be offended because I know I’m not prostitute. Okay. Again, though, I think many women would take offense at being characterized as "potential prostitutes," or "potential pedophiles," or "potential rapists," and so on. Thanks, -Smac