submission

[Monica]

[Stanley Anderson]

[Monica]

[Leslie]

It might be the time zone thing acting up again. On my screen, postodave's post is timestamped almost three hours later than Monica's response. My time is showing as 7:32 am as I write this, but it is actually 12:32 pm.

[robsia]

I tried to reply to this thread several times this morning and kept getting the flood control mesage - even though I hadn't actually made any posts at all.

I think I said something like:

In Lewis's time, women probably were expected to be submissive to men in the erotic department. A woman who wanted to dominate or who was aggressive sexually or who, god forbid, enjoyed it too much, was probably seen as a slut.

Fortunately things have changed and that ain't necessarily so any more

[postodave]

[Bill]

Having read a lot of Jack's writings I do not remember this particular quote.

Perhaps it would help if you could give the actual source of this "essay" and perhaps more importantly the context of Jack's remarks so that people are able to make more objective comments instead of just shooting from the hip because of something which prima facie seems just a little out of step with modern thinking. Jack Lewis did of course live before I guess most of the people on these forums were even born and his views are bound to be somewhat anachronistic and reflect the thinking of his times rather than the "enlightened" views of bright young things living in the 21st Century!

Bill

[postodave]

[Stanley Anderson]

[rusmeister]

I'd just like to address the concept of "out-of-date" thinking. Lewis believed that the idea of rejecting thoughts as out-of-date or belonging to another time to be fundamentally wrong.

G.K. Chesterton, another writer who deeply inspired Lewis, said, "My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday." - New York Times Magazine, 2/11/23

Lewis and Chesterton shared the same general outlook - that there are timeless truths and teaching that do not become "old-fashioned" particularly concerning the Christian faith in general and its specific teachings.

It would be more accurate and truthful to say that you don't like a specific teaching in Christianity, or to find a church that picks and chooses what the people like in Christianity, than to call it "old-fashioned".

If we stuck to what we like in faith, we'd make a religion that lets us do pretty much what we want and blesses us in doing so.... oh, wait, some people have!
(Lewis made a reference to, rather than a Father in Heaven, a senile grandfather in heaven in regards to that idea. Which essay was that?)

And to take that thought to its logical conclusion, if you are in a faith where they pick and choose, you're not in a faith that holds all of the truth.

There is a hidden religion that many have been doctrinated into that places that idea that women have been oppressed by men throughout history, and that this should be a guiding principle in what constitutes "truth" and makes up good religion. That thought becomes more important than any teaching of religion, and places its holder as the arbiter of God's will.

A little blind Oyarsa. Bent, not broken. (OOTSP)

Oh, and another great post, Stanley! Honestly, you should write a book! (Even if you disagree with my post!)

[robsia]

I-yi-yi - but that is precisely the reason given BY Christians as to why they don't follow all the teachings in the Bible, such as women not speaking in church, women not teaching, not cutting their hair etc.

When challenged, they say that we need to understand that those teachings belong to a different time and are not relevant to them any more.

Are you saying that's wrong, that Christians SHOULD do everything in the Bible, regardless of whether or not it is still relevant to our time?

Do you still keep slaves?

[Monica]

[rusmeister]

I think Monica's correct.

I am speaking out against the specific idea that women's rights (or men's rights, or human rights, or 'democratic ideals') should trump Christian teachings based on Biblical or Church authority.

And yes, Linda, some Christian churches do that (I called it picking and choosing teachings) and that's the other thing I'm speaking out against. It does indeed turn Christianity into a relative faith, not one Faith throughout space and time, but that means whatever you WANT it to mean.

I don't like all Christian teachings. (I am a member of the Orthodox Church.) But either I believe and obey, or I do what I want to do. But then, that's what Adam and Eve did. Where I don't like them I do recognize that as my lack of spiritual growth.

[robsia]

[Bill]