Not so! Mordecai could do nothing if Esther doesn't listen to him. He would have probably ended up hanged by Haman and the Jewish people in Babylon slain. Esther is central to the story, because she does the work of talking to the King. She goes to the King even though he hasn't sent for her, and she could possibly die for her candor. Think about that!Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
God Bless
Pen
Last edited by Pendragon; 07-12-2008 at 10:56 AM.
Some of us laugh
Some of us cry
Some of us smoke
Some of us lie
But it's all just the way
that we cope with our lives...
All right. Either way, I've learned my lesson. I'll stop even trying to talk about or remember bible stories. It's totally not my specialty!....clearly....oh well....
Little one, Fate might miscarry.
Little one, why do you tarry?
Little one, When May I marry you?
My little one.
First let's put my response in context to the original post I was responding to.
The original post stated the following: "she definately shows the respecting relationship between husband and wife"
How exactly does the possibility that the king might lop off her head and she is brave enough to face that depicts a respecting relationship between husband and wife? Generally in a relationship of mutual respect one need not worry about their spouse threatening them with death.
I don't disagee that Esther is brave to confront the king, but she only does it after Mordecai tells her she will probably die anyway if Haman's plans come to fruition: "Do not imagine that you, of all the Jews, will escape with your life by being in the king's palace." - Esther 4:13.
Furthermore, Marc Zvi Brettler in his excellent How to Read the Hebrew Bible notes that although "Esther is a model of bravery when she aproaches the king to plead for the Jews . . . On the other hand, Esther does not risk her life on her own initiative, so arguably she is an agent rather than a primary character or hero. The book's true stance is likely revealed in its final verse, from which Esther is missing." She basically takes orders from Mordecai; likewise, the book ends by celebrating Mordecai's greatness (see Book of Esther 10:3).
I'm not trying to denigrate the status of women or even belittle Esther, but I am being factually accurate to what I think the story actually says and doesn't say.
What motivates her to confront the king? Mordecai and his arguments that she will die anyway if she doesn't.
What allows her to persuade the king? Her beauty and sexual appeal.
"You understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or bitter. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too." - Herodotus
https://consolationofreading.wordpress.com/ - my book blog!
Feed the Hungry!
Well, the "lop off the head" business was the rule for anyone for whom the King hadn't specificly sent, Esther included, not just for her. She invites the King to a feast, not to her bed, and brings ] Haman along as well. How is that sexual? The King was furious when ] Haman fell against the couch on which Esther reclined for the feast, accusing him of rape intentions. I don't know about respect in the sense that we would give to the word, but the King loved and respected her more than any other woman, I do believe. This isn't worth fighting about, however. It is this sort of arguments that cause people to break fellowship, and that is where people go wrong. This doesn't send to to heaven or keep you out. So there is plenty of room for either argument!
God Bless
Pen
Last edited by Pendragon; 07-12-2008 at 10:55 AM. Reason: Spelling!
Some of us laugh
Some of us cry
Some of us smoke
Some of us lie
But it's all just the way
that we cope with our lives...
Er-How many women disciples were there ?
How many Women at the Last Supper ?
Nuff said ?
Well that's it then. 2000 years of beautiful tradition down the tubes. More if you consider the Old Testament. Okay, everybody, you heard the man...nothing more to see here...move it along....show's over, folks....
As if these rhetorical questions prove something?
Christ came to Earth during a specific time in Earth's history; we do not know why He chose the time period He did, but we must assume that God's timing is perfect (as we should assume the timing of any omniscient Being to be). As such, Christ came to Earth during a time in history where equality between the sexes was not in existence. That Christ did not choose to "fix" this does not invalidate Christianity; He did not address slavery either, but it was Christians who initiated the beginnings of the end of that terrible insititution. Christ's mission was not to up-end society: it was to show people who God was and how they could personally know Him; how they could be saved from the burden of sin; how they could have eternal life. Christ's mission was focused on these points because His time on Earth was exceedingly short. However, the Bible that God inspired men to write, contains within it the principles that have guided good men and women to fight against injustice and wrong throughout the world.
There are some troubling texts refering to women - that I'll acknowledge; what generally gets overlooked is the revolutionary ways that both Jesus and Paul told society to treat women. Christ attacked the casual way men would divorce/abandon women, reinforcing the life-time bond of marriage; Paul told men that they were to love their wives sacrifically - neither one a mainstream idea in Jewish (or any other culture for that matter) society. Why do those things get skipped over?
There were no "official" female disciples because Jewish culture forbid such a thing. However, the gospels make it clear that Christ had many females followers; as well, it also makes clear that Christ's ministry was largely funded by women - making their contributions essential.
Make sure to take cultural context into consideration - culture is very powerful. Christ challenged the portions of culture that distorted who God was - the rest (slavery, gender equality, etc) He left for us to deal with as His "hands and feet."
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
What's to explain? Paul and Moses were raging misogynists, like most men of their respective eras. To his credit, Jesus appears to have bucked the trend by not making any pronouncements about women knowing their place.
Completely wrong and a drastic oversimplification. You cannot condemn an ancient people for not passing our modern ideological "litmus tests." That's the kind of logic that makes people say that Mark Twain's Huck Finn is "racist" because it uses the "n word."
There's no evidence that either Paul or Moses hated women; making such careless overstatements puts the credibility of your argument in clear jeopardy. They held to the cultural values of their time periods - and Paul's teachings by and large benefitted women.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
To me, the explanation is that the Bible was written and compiled in ages that were unquestioningly patriarchal. They didn't know any better. As a document of particular cultures and times, the Bible is an interesting literary artifact.Can someone explain it to me?
This becomes a problem when the Bible is taken as the word of God, or as an ethical guide in modern life. The men of the time may not have known any better... but an omniscient god surely would have! And trying to pick kernels of ethics from this book, from among it truly appalling stories of violence and revenge, hatred and intolerance, is a task I gave up on long ago.
It's interesting to compare the Bible with some of the old Norse sagas. These latter were composed in truly savage times, by a piratical people who were virtually unrestrained by any effective law. Given the choice, I'd far rather have lived among the pagan Vikings...
If the Bible is not divinely inspired, than it's a waste of time to read it because the very premise upon which it is founded is the belief that it contains the revelation of God's character.
Second, don't be so sure that in the grand scheme of things, that an entity capable of creating all of the universe prioritizes certain social issues as high up the list as we do. We make a serious error when we decide that a God that doesn't pass our cultural "litmus tests" must not be taken seriously. Compared to the fate of our eternal souls, gender equality just may not have been something that God felt the need to address within the Bible. The Bible does contain - however - the principles within it that logically suggest that equality between genders should exist. While there are some cultural statements that suggest the 2nd class status of women, the truths the Bible puts forward do not suggest that woman are innately inferior to men at all.
Lastly - yes: the Bible is full of some pretty ugly stories - because it is largely the story of the consequences of rejecting God and pretending that His laws and His commands aren't important.
A careful reading of the Bible (preferably more than once) would reveal the validity of all three of my points.
It is amazing to hear sentiments expressed like this: what this means is that you've probably picked out all the negative stuff in the Bible and used it as "evidence" to condemn it, while fully ignoring the plethora of other passages throughout both the Old and New Testaments about God's love, mercy, long-suffering, justice, kindness, and compassion for humanity. In argumentation, we call that a straw man, and such an argument is only effective if your opponent doesn't catch it.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
NOT TRUE. The Bible is one of the greatest works of literature ever written. I read it as a mix of allegorical myth and historical novel, and I LOVE it.
OK - let me clarify myself: as literature, the Bible has many interesting and meaningful things within it - but if it is not the transcendant word of God, then it cannot function as a text that is meaningful in terms of revealing God - which is its implicit purpose. The Bible does not remain one of the most purchased and read books of all time because it's good literature: it retains this status because it changes lives through its divinely inspired narrative. The book reveals God; that's what makes it powerful. Dismiss that, and it becomes merely another story-book.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
Might I add that Mary & Mary were some of the few present at his crucifixion?Er-How many women disciples were there ?
How many Women at the Last Supper ?
Nuff said ?
Or that Mary, the Mother of God, was the first person accepted into heaven? The first sinless human being?
She seems to have been given the highest place in Christianity that has been given to a human.
Why is God refered to in the hebrew as a 'man' with 'feminine' traits?Could you elaborate on this in a small off-topic?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
