Saturday, November 28, 2009
Friday, November 27, 2009
mid-90's "intellectual" Jewish romantic comedies are not. intelligent.
I'm living with this middle-aged liberal, knit-scarf owning, food co-op enthusiast until I find a place next semester. He might be upset that I just called him "middle-aged," because maybe he's 35. Well, I don't know how old he is. Anyway, he's the only person I can think of who doesn't care about anything the way Sam and I don't. He doesn't care when I pay the rent or what temperature I want to keep the house, or how long I stay, or whether or not I lock the house. He doesn't lock the house. He doesn't know where he puts anything, he writes memos to himself, and it takes him all day to pack for a trip because his mind wanders and he forgets that he still has to do laundry. In sum, he is GREAT, and we should NEVER be allowed to live together.
I am going through his VHS collection while he's traveling, and it's a bizarre world of 90's Jewish romantic comedies. They are all about so-called liberated intellectual women with hot mess-hair and blood-colored lipstick (why did they think that was a good idea?), and usually Billy Crystal makes an appearance. And they are just horrible, though fascinating. Probably the worst thing you can do to the romantic comedy is to try to pass it off as something for the intelligentsia. What is going on here? No one was funny in the 90's, either. No one was romantic, and no one was funny. The 90's weren't so long ago. How were we so wrong- about hair, about love? And why is it so obvious only ten years later?
I need fresh air. I need cable. The 90's have ended...the 90's have ended...the 90's have ended...
I am going through his VHS collection while he's traveling, and it's a bizarre world of 90's Jewish romantic comedies. They are all about so-called liberated intellectual women with hot mess-hair and blood-colored lipstick (why did they think that was a good idea?), and usually Billy Crystal makes an appearance. And they are just horrible, though fascinating. Probably the worst thing you can do to the romantic comedy is to try to pass it off as something for the intelligentsia. What is going on here? No one was funny in the 90's, either. No one was romantic, and no one was funny. The 90's weren't so long ago. How were we so wrong- about hair, about love? And why is it so obvious only ten years later?
I need fresh air. I need cable. The 90's have ended...the 90's have ended...the 90's have ended...
I am writing in my blog! are you happy:>!!>!#
I am really good at missing people for the rest of our lives. It is my #1 skill.
My #2 skill is thinking up Ray-J contestant names.
My #3 skill is wondering if terrell owens wants to marry me.
My #4 skill is roller skating. backwards. just kidding, frontwards. backwards is hard.
My #2 skill is thinking up Ray-J contestant names.
My #3 skill is wondering if terrell owens wants to marry me.
My #4 skill is roller skating. backwards. just kidding, frontwards. backwards is hard.
Friday, November 6, 2009
this is interesting. from the most recent Christians for Biblical Equality e-letter.
Does Genesis 1-3 teach hierarchy?
The creation and fall of Adam and Eve, found in Genesis 1-3, is often used to justify hierarchy of men over women. Here Allison Young (MDiv, Princeton Theological Seminary and former intern of CBE) responds to a few of the common arguments.
Adam named Eve:
Adam calling Eve “woman” does not indicate Adam's authority over her; rather, it is an expression of the similarities that they share, as Adam exclaims “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called woman, for out of man this one was taken” (Gen. 2:23). In the Hebrew, the man is called ish and the woman ishsha, the similarity in the names being intentional. This is a word play, for just as the man (adam) was formed from the ground (adamah), so the woman (ishsha) was formed from the man (ish). These designations refer to the unity of the relationship to one another. To suggest that when Adam called Eve “woman” implies his authority over her is superimposed on the text. Scripture gives no indication that God gave Adam authority over Eve. Rather, by exclaiming “this one shall be called woman, for out of man this one was taken” Adam was expressing joy at the similarity and unity he shared with Eve, a joy he did not exhibit when encountering the animals.
Adam and Eve had different roles:
Those who claim that Adam and Eve had different roles are referring to the roles of male authority, or “leader,” and female submission, or “helper.” The Scripture contains nothing that suggests that Adam and Eve had different roles before the fall. Nowhere in the text is Adam called to be in authority over Eve or to be her leader. Genesis 1:26-30 clearly indicates that both Adam and Eve were made in God's image and both were given dominion over the earth and its creatures. Eve was made because Adam was in need of a partner to help exercise dominion over the earth (Gen. 2:18). But, the text does not suggest that Eve's identity or role was in that of a subordinate helper (see below for meaning of “helper”). The point of the narrative is not that the woman was created to be a helper, but that one male human being was insufficient, and Adam's momentarily aloneness was the only “not good” in a perfect world! The creation of Eve is to fulfill Adam's lack and need for a partner who was like him. Hierarchy in human relationships came as a result of sin (Gen. 3:16).
Eve was created to be a helper (Gen. 2:18):
The Hebrew words used here to describe woman as a helper are ‘ezer kenegdo. The word ‘ezer means “helper” and is never used in the Old Testament to refer to an inferior or to a subordinate. In fact, the word is used in reference to God as our helper (Psalm 10:14; 30:10; 54:4; 70:5; 72:12; 121:2). Clearly God is not our subordinate. ‘Ezer is a sign of strength and power. Kenegdo is a Hebrew preposition and adverb meaning “corresponding to” or “face to face,” so it is best understood as meaning that Eve was a fitting partner for Adam, for she was like him. Eve was created as an equal to Adam. She was given equal authority and dominion over the earth (Gen. 1:28).
Eve was responsible for the fall/The fall occurred because Eve attempted to usurp Adam's authority:
Both Adam and Eve knew not to eat the fruit (Gen. 2:16-17; 3:2), both disobeyed (3:6), and both were held responsible (3:15-22). Nothing in the text suggests that the fall happened because Eve attempted to take authority over Adam. Also, nothing in the text suggests that Adam had authority over Eve before the fall. The snake challenged God's authority, not the man's (Gen. 3). The narrative makes it clear that the sin was disobedience to God (Gen. 3:11).
“Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you” (Gen. 3:16):
This verse reflects the consequences of sin due to disobedience. It is not a prescriptive statement about how man and woman ought to relate to one another, nor is it God's original intent for male and female relationships. Rather, the subordination of women is the result of sin.
The creation and fall of Adam and Eve, found in Genesis 1-3, is often used to justify hierarchy of men over women. Here Allison Young (MDiv, Princeton Theological Seminary and former intern of CBE) responds to a few of the common arguments.
Adam named Eve:
Adam calling Eve “woman” does not indicate Adam's authority over her; rather, it is an expression of the similarities that they share, as Adam exclaims “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called woman, for out of man this one was taken” (Gen. 2:23). In the Hebrew, the man is called ish and the woman ishsha, the similarity in the names being intentional. This is a word play, for just as the man (adam) was formed from the ground (adamah), so the woman (ishsha) was formed from the man (ish). These designations refer to the unity of the relationship to one another. To suggest that when Adam called Eve “woman” implies his authority over her is superimposed on the text. Scripture gives no indication that God gave Adam authority over Eve. Rather, by exclaiming “this one shall be called woman, for out of man this one was taken” Adam was expressing joy at the similarity and unity he shared with Eve, a joy he did not exhibit when encountering the animals.
Adam and Eve had different roles:
Those who claim that Adam and Eve had different roles are referring to the roles of male authority, or “leader,” and female submission, or “helper.” The Scripture contains nothing that suggests that Adam and Eve had different roles before the fall. Nowhere in the text is Adam called to be in authority over Eve or to be her leader. Genesis 1:26-30 clearly indicates that both Adam and Eve were made in God's image and both were given dominion over the earth and its creatures. Eve was made because Adam was in need of a partner to help exercise dominion over the earth (Gen. 2:18). But, the text does not suggest that Eve's identity or role was in that of a subordinate helper (see below for meaning of “helper”). The point of the narrative is not that the woman was created to be a helper, but that one male human being was insufficient, and Adam's momentarily aloneness was the only “not good” in a perfect world! The creation of Eve is to fulfill Adam's lack and need for a partner who was like him. Hierarchy in human relationships came as a result of sin (Gen. 3:16).
Eve was created to be a helper (Gen. 2:18):
The Hebrew words used here to describe woman as a helper are ‘ezer kenegdo. The word ‘ezer means “helper” and is never used in the Old Testament to refer to an inferior or to a subordinate. In fact, the word is used in reference to God as our helper (Psalm 10:14; 30:10; 54:4; 70:5; 72:12; 121:2). Clearly God is not our subordinate. ‘Ezer is a sign of strength and power. Kenegdo is a Hebrew preposition and adverb meaning “corresponding to” or “face to face,” so it is best understood as meaning that Eve was a fitting partner for Adam, for she was like him. Eve was created as an equal to Adam. She was given equal authority and dominion over the earth (Gen. 1:28).
Eve was responsible for the fall/The fall occurred because Eve attempted to usurp Adam's authority:
Both Adam and Eve knew not to eat the fruit (Gen. 2:16-17; 3:2), both disobeyed (3:6), and both were held responsible (3:15-22). Nothing in the text suggests that the fall happened because Eve attempted to take authority over Adam. Also, nothing in the text suggests that Adam had authority over Eve before the fall. The snake challenged God's authority, not the man's (Gen. 3). The narrative makes it clear that the sin was disobedience to God (Gen. 3:11).
“Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you” (Gen. 3:16):
This verse reflects the consequences of sin due to disobedience. It is not a prescriptive statement about how man and woman ought to relate to one another, nor is it God's original intent for male and female relationships. Rather, the subordination of women is the result of sin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
