Aconite
Questions:
How do you identify yourself, religiously?
Uh.....I dunno. Been thinking about that one a lot lately. Agnostic with leanings towards the Christian faith? Been working on figuring out this one the last couple months, so difficult for me to really explain.
What is your relationship status?
Single.
What, if any, questions do you have before we commence the interview?
Aconite: When they say Hebrew, are they talking about Jews in general? Or are they specifically talking about Semitic Israelites.
Me: Not Jews. It's a term of...ethnicity? I suppose you could call it. Denomination. To Israelitism. In the "modern" usage of "we are Hebrews". In the context of the past, they mean the tribes of Israel.
Aconite: Okay, that’s fine. Hebrew can be taken as an ehtnonym or a couple of other ways. I was assuming the semitic israelites, but people don't have any respect for language so it could've meant one of several things.
What is your general reaction to what you listened to?
The beginning felt incredibly unfocused and directionless (20+ minutes), which sort of set the tone to be annoyed with the podcast from the beginning. Wasn't excessively informative, but I grew up attending a church and reading the Bible, so perhaps it would've been more so if I didn't have a certain level of knowledge about the subject matter. The podcasters should definitely give definitions for certain terms as they are hard to follow. The one that bothered me the most was the continual use of "the American mind." At the beginning, it seemed as they were using this as a euphemism for materialism, but later it became a construct for, essentially, the modern world views that they disagreed with. Difficult to follow what they're talking about when a euphemism that has a moving target for a meaning is used almost every minute of the discussion.
Do you believe women are unable to understand men, and therefore unable to judge their actions?
I don't understand women, but does that mean I cannot judge an action?
We're told not to judge lest we be judged, but I think that this is not meant as, "do not condemn actions." Women may not understand men, but if the man is not following what they say they believe and acting on it, it would seem to me that their actions can be judged by their peers, male or female. Women may not understand men's motivations and vice versa, but the actions themselves can be good or bad and should be judged as such. The assessment that women should not judge men's actions reminds me of a geography class that I had in which a professor mentioned we cannot judge cultures. I called BS on it then, as I do now, because there are inherently wrong acts. If it is culturally sound to kill a child because the child was born a sex not to the parents' liking, shouldn't all people condemn that act?
React to the statement, “women are a possession”.
Don't really have a reaction. Have heard this before and it doesn't offend me, but I will say that Ephesians 5 is a good place to look if a man believes his wife is nothing more than property. In my mind, being called to love your wife in the same manner that Christ loved the church is a far higher calling than simple obedience. And if a man loves his wife in the manner Christ loved the church, wouldn't the woman WANT to be obedient, as we are asked to be obedient to God? This is ultimately where I think problems come from when considering women property. The men forget/don't care what their duty is to their wife.
How do sex slaves, like Bilhah and Zilpah, prevent “the lust of the world”?
I must be missing something, because as far as I can tell, they do not. If anything, I would venture to guess it would worsen it. If Bilhah and Zilpah are better in the sack than Rachel or Leah, the lustful desire is likely to be transferred from the woman/women you have claimed devotion to the other women. I don't know how this could be viewed as preventing "the lust of the world."
How do you define “love”?
Aconite: Be more specific.
Me: The love requisite for a good marriage.
Aconite: I'm thinking of it in the terms of the 4 Greek words for love: eros, philia, agape, and storge.
Me: Sure-Working with those, what do you think is the proper mix?
Aconite: Christ's love for the church was agape; in other words, a selfless love. I would tend to believe this needs to be the overall guiding love for marriage; however, if there is no eros in the relationship, there will almost definitely be problems. I have never met a couple who did not still have eros in the relationship and managed to actually show their love for one another. It would seem to me it is a requirement in some manner to have a fulfilling marriage that is good for both man and woman.
Additionally, man and woman were created as sexual creatures. If we were to not have eros in our marriages, it would seem that God would not have made this a part of humanity, but it is supposed to be good. The sexual nature, when in purity, is part of what God gave to us.
Does love create crippling, unmanly weakness in men?
Aconite: No. Is this a trick question?
Me: Nope. That was one of the arguments hinted at early in the radio show.
Aconite: I find it difficult to love (I think it may be part of the 100% thinking trait expressed). To me, it's not a weakness.
React “the American woman is the enemy of a man”.
THIS
THIS IS WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT
WTF DOES THAT MEAN
I apologize for my outburst.
I just got really tired of hearing about the American mind/woman/thing/whatever every 30 seconds w/o any explanation of what the heck it was they were referring to.
Me: I can give a rough explanation, if you want.
Aconite: Do so.
Me: An "American Woman" is, in short, a woman with a sense of self. She decides her fate, job-wise, schooling-wise, and family-wise. The contrast is between a woman with agency, as in the USA, and a woman from an ISIS or Taliban-controlled area, where every choice is made by the men in a woman's life. That's why they kept emphasizing, "If an American woman was listening right now, I shudder to think" when talking about giving up agency. Their belief is that woman is the enemy of all mankind.
Aconite: I guess what I would say is that women are not the enemy of men. When I'm looking for a potential mate (ha ha, hilarious thought), there are things beyond obedience that I desire. Women that want something more than to simply be a broodmare and homemaker for the husband (which is exactly what I viewed the women in the podcast saying their role was) seek out men that are willing to offer more than just bringing home the bacon. Great men exist because women don't settle for simply ‘good enough’. The primary motivation in a man's life is to woo the woman, a.k.a., men are basically here to chase tail. The point here should be that men need to find a single woman to devote their tail-chasing to, and marry that single woman. When I look at myself, if other people view what I do as good enough, I tend to view it as "good enough." Novel thought, right? But here's the thing, good enough may not be my best, and my best is what the Lord requires. Colossians 3:23: "Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as though you were working for the Lord and not for people." A wife that thinks I'm good enough, would be a wife that would not be helpful in pushing me towards fulfilling God's requirement of me; therefore, I want a wife that drives me to be ambitious. What I find that motivates me to do better, is a woman that is not content with simply backing up her husband, but a woman that desires to help people in general. When they do this without complaint, I have difficulty finding complaint with the work I do or any help I may provide to another. (I am apparently amazing at talking about myself, because that's mostly what I did instead of talking about the woman.)
^Also, very rambling.
Hope it made sense.
From this podcast, what is a “Biblical” marriage?
Any time a woman is married off by her father (with or without her consent) and irrespective of the suitor's status (married/unmarried). Woman is to be a broodmare and a homemaker and remember her place as property. That seems like it sums up what they were saying.
Blunt enough?
From this podcast, what makes a man? What makes a woman?
Man - property owner, makes money. Woman - property, broodmare, homemaker.
Oh, and whenever I say homemaker, I am including child-rearer in that.
What makes a good marriage?
Agape and eros, with agape being dominant. Ephesians 5.
How do you think this makes Israelites appear to non-Israelites?/ How does this make you feel about this religious sect?
That's not fair.
I don't like to generalize. Plus, I know you and Sven....so.....
Seems like another religious sect that I would not fit in as I do not share the interpretations that they have of the Bible.They also seemed very standoffish about their beliefs, which, I suppose indicates that they actually believe it rather than just say they believe it.
Any closing thoughts/comments?
Comments:
I'm assuming they are supposed to have some Biblical basis.....or.............am I just being an ass.
I've listened to 21 minutes. She/they is/are annoying me. Directionless and at times, what appears to be inherently hypocritical of previous statements.
"The Spirit is against an American woman." - Really not sure what to make of this. Needs better definition of American, as it stands, I'm assuming materialistic, but the more she talks the more it just seems like a catch all term for things SHE doesn't like. Primarily about herself in all likelihood.
Faith/Fear - We are taught to suppress?
American vs. Hebrew thoughts - We need to stop having an American thoughts. This doesn't even make sense. Are you talking about materialism, secularism, what?
Our culture and what it's done to me? (Does give caveat that it took place through her own will) - What do you hate about it? If you hate it so much, why let it abuse whatever sensibilities you think it's abusing? Sounds like the culture most ingrained is the culture of blame anything/anyone else but yourself for your own failures.
Men are effeminate, wives control, they're gay - Wow. So many things here to talk about. Do I agree that men have been beaten down...eh...to a certain extent. However, I disagree with the notion that a woman should not have more conversation with her husband. The thought of my ideal wife does not include someone that merely bends to my will and does not have true conversation with me as the woman in the podcast is suggesting. (18/19 minutes). I'm not upset with traditional gender roles, but what she is suggesting is a wife of home value, but without intellectual/emotional value. Also, isn't somewhat hypocritical to early on state that the American society has taught us to bottle things up, but then claim men are effeminate (which, in traditional gender roles, would mean they have become more open to sharing feelings)?
Society took away our family life - Again, this would, on the surface, appear to be a hypocritical view. The only way to become a MAN is to leave your home and begin your own family. You are supposed to want to leave. Additionally, the millennial generation statistics do not support this particular notion. Men and women both are taking longer to leave their parents' homes (though, this would appear to be a function of economic woes rather than any value set, though it is possible that Millennials overall have less initiative to leave home).
Zeal & passion against - You need passion for marriage truth? Children have no emotional pain (What is she talking about?). Angers her that she did. I really don't even understand this part at 21 minutes. It's just so random and nonsensical.
Upset that people will turn her away because she has 7 people living under one roof. Then calls the people lawless. Question, does she understand that biblical law is not the only law of the land? Even Christ said to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Christianity said to follow the laws of God above all, but nowhere in the Bible does it say that man may not govern. There are likely property reasons for not allowing 7 people to live under one roof. I really don't understand what her complaint is other than she didn't get to do what SHE wanted to do. And I'm sympathetic to the position, but it seems obvious that no one always gets to do their number one option. Then she asserts that this was basically discrimination. First of all, no one says we don't discriminate, there are laws prohibiting certain types of discrimination, number of people under one roof does not fall under any of the prohibited types of discrimination. Also, if I were landlord, I personally would not want to rent to a multi-family unit under one roof. The unit is then being overused, not only that, but with multiple people arranging payment, it means that evictions and things of that nature for failure to pay (or general collection costs) become much higher and much more difficult to track. This is a logistics thing, this has nothing to do with your religious beliefs and everything to do with what's best for making money for the property owner. You can have debates about the merit of that, but calling it discrimination is patently absurd unless you truly believe a property owner should never want to make money, which is antithetical to a capitalist society, which, again, you can have a debate about those merits.
Says America is against polygamy - I feel like this has been covered and I'm not certain that Biblically polygamy generally works out, so I'm not certain what she's upset about when it comes to America being against polygamy.
It is their choice to live in America. You dislike the laws? That's fine, you have several options, appeal to have laws changed, or move somewhere that those laws are not enforced/do not exist. Seems pretty simple. This is like the Tiebout model applied to social law rather than tax law.
All right. Finished that podcast. All notes below. Some are incoherent, some aren't.
"The Spirit is against an American woman." - Really not sure what to make of this. Needs better definition of American, as it stands, I'm assuming materialistic, but the more she talks the more it just seems like a catch all term for things SHE doesn't like. Primarily about herself in all likelihood.
Faith/Fear - We are taught to suppress?
American vs. Hebrew thoughts - We need to stop having an American thoughts. This doesn't even make sense. Are you talking about materialism, secularism, what?
Our culture and what it's done to me? (Does give caveat that it took place through her own will) - What do you hate about it? If you hate it so much, why let it abuse whatever sensibilities you think it's abusing? Sounds like the culture most ingrained is the culture of blame anything/anyone else but yourself for your own failures.
Men are effeminate, wives control, they're gay - Wow. So many things here to talk about. Do I agree that men have been beaten down...eh...to a certain extent. However, I disagree with the notion that a woman should not have more conversation with her husband. The thought of my ideal wife does not include someone that merely bends to my will and does not have true conversation with me as the woman in the podcast is suggesting (18/19 minutes). I'm not upset with traditional gender roles, but what she is suggesting is a wife of home value, but without intellectual/emotional value. Also, isn't somewhat hypocritical to early on state that the American society has taught us to bottle things up, but then claim men are effeminate (which, in traditional gender roles, would mean they have become more open to sharing feelings)?
Society took away our family life - Again, this would, on the surface, appear to be a hypocritical view. The only way to become a MAN is to leave your home and begin your own family. You are supposed to want to leave. Additionally, the millennial generation statistics do not support this particular notion. Men and women both are taking longer to leave their parents' homes (though, this would appear to be a function of economic woes rather than any value set, though it is possible that Millennials overall have less initiative to leave home).
Zeal & passion against - You need passion for marriage truth? Children have no emotional pain (What is she talking about?). Angers her that she did. I really don't even understand this part at 21 minutes. It's just so random and nonsensical.
Upset that people will turn her away because she has 7 people living under one roof. Then calls the people lawless. Question, does she understand that biblical law is not the only law of the land? Even Christ said to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Christianity said to follow the laws of God above all, but nowhere in the Bible does it say that man may not govern. There are likely property reasons for not allowing 7 people to live under one roof. I really don't understand what her complaint is other than she didn't get to do what SHE wanted to do. And I'm sympathetic to the position, but it seems obvious that no one always gets to do their number one option. Then she asserts that this was basically discrimination. First of all, no one says we don't discriminate, there are laws prohibiting certain types of discrimination, number of people under one roof does not fall under any of the prohibited types of discrimination. Also, if I were landlord, I personally would not want to rent to a multi-family unit under one roof. The unit is then being overused, not only that, but with multiple people arranging payment, it means that evictions and things of that nature for failure to pay (or general collection costs) become much higher and much more difficult to track. This is a logistics thing, this has nothing to do with your religious beliefs and everything to do with what's best for making money for the property owner. You can have debates about the merit of that, but calling it discrimination is patently absurd unless you truly believe a property owner should never want to make money, which is antithetical to a capitalist society, which, again, you can have a debate about those merits.
Says America is against polygamy - I feel like this has been covered and I'm not certain that Biblically polygamy generally works out, so I'm not certain what she's upset about when it comes to America being against polygamy.
Story of Jacob - Wives are husband's property (Hebrew thought). Deceit is not the point of the story for purposes of this discussion. "...accept that place as property." The big issue with her point really comes down to what the man is called to do. The deceit inherently matters for one primary reason, Jacob loved Rachel. That is the point. God sees that Leah was not loved equally (Genesis 29:31). This is an issue because it shows that Jacob is not doing as he is called to do by the same passage in Ephesians that states women must submit themselves to their husbands (Ephesians 5:21-33). There is an inherently higher calling than obedience for the husband. He is to love his wife. Men are called to love their wives as Christ so loved the church. Obedience does not require the same devotion, nor are wives supposed to as men are supposed to be willing to lay down their lives for their wives just as Christ did for the church. A man is also supposed to love his wife as he loves himself, meaning he is to take care of her. A woman is to obey her husband when he is a man that follows these principles, but that obedience is dependent on the husband being a man of God that upholds the devotion necessary to love a wife in the same manner that Christ did the church. I suppose I'm not taking issue with the interpretation of the wife as property, but at least through the first hour they haven't mentioned that there is more to the relationship than owner/property.
Man obligated to marry woman if brother is deceased - Based on how loosely they gloss over this, I'm going to guess they don't have a good grasp on the meaning of this. It's been covered in Kat's blog previously, but the way it is glossed over, the women in the podcast would appear to believe that if they become widowed without an heir (w/o a son), then it is their husband's brother's duty to take the widow on as his own wife. This is not entirely accurate. It is only accurate if the men are dwelling together at the time of death. This is situational and it is all about carrying on the name of the family and seeing the rarity with which this situation could occur, it would seem that either they didn't spend enough time to articulate their beliefs, or the podcasters believe something that does not appear to be Biblical.
Wasn't time for romance/no such thing as dating - Romance existed in the bedroom. Passion was unleashed. It was meant to be. Though, the point about not being around each other as much and having more specific defined roles in life is accurate, but this brings us to a fork in the road. A central question should be, "Is this the function of Biblical law or a function of technological advancement?" Traditional gender roles would appear to have basis in Biblical relationships, but as for spending time together....that would appear more as a function of time, at least to me. Work is very different, it is not simply farming, gathering, hunting, raising livestock any more. If you want to live in a way that you can go back to that simpler time, there is an option to do that and forego this question as a whole, but that is sort of a non-answer masquerading as an answer. As for courtship, the way people tend to court now is quite different, for sure, but to say there was no form of courtship before is.....questionable at best. Biblical courtship was conducted by the man seeking out the family of his desired bride to be and initiating discussion of a relationship designed with the intent of marriage. It is courtship, just not in the normal sense we think of. If, during this process, the father of the bride to be is not satisfied with the potential suitor, the father can tell him no.
"Love is duty, obligation, discipline, and honor" - Haven't figured out what I would want to say about this. Need to think about it and read about it before I can really give a thought on it.
Proverbs 7 - I'm going to differentiate here, as the podcasters view this as a romantic love. I hate the way they are deciding to use this because this passage is a perversion of romantic love (eros). Perfect eros occurs within marriage. A perverse eros should, in my mind, always be referred to as lust. I differentiate, simply because there is a place for eros; whereas, there would not appear to be a place for lust as it is confined to sexual immorality.
The spirit drives us to be discontent - I don't know if she just misspoke or what, because she immediately follows this up with its all about being content with the Father, etc.
"Polygamy is the Father's way" - No. I'm not going to go into this one, but just no. If you feel the need to ask, let me redirect you back to June 13th post by Kat. I don't feel like going through and finding the examples, it's just the place that immediately comes to mind for why this perspective is incorrect.
