first name basis

[Wahoo Redux]

This conversation fascinates me for a number of reasons, mainly that I have seen this rather destructive dynamic at work in my own nuclear family growing up.

And my friend Dr. 16 enacts many of the same tripping points that my parents did even though he and I are both of the Mtv Generation, whether we like it or not.

The problems of Biblical cherry-picking and hypocrisy aside, what is so interesting here is the hierarchy of entitlements that some people feel at a certain age, the sense that they are owed a certain response having now crossed a subjective threshold. 

And then this cherished chestnut----

Some years back, on the old fora, we had a long-running 'mother-in-law' thread, largely started by youngish academic women who did not like that their MILS disapproved of various aspects of their lifestyle and viewpoints.  Culture clashes, generation gaps, significant differences on attitudes towards religion, higher ed, etc., notwithstanding, I did try to suggest to some of these youngish DILs that, esp if they had a son, they would likely one day be MILs of DILs themselves, and, well...

----which is the ol' "you'll-understand-when-you-get-older" topos. 

My first MIL from doomed marriage #1 loved me and tried very hard to ingratiate me into the family; she and I got on famously and I would embrace her today if we ran into each other at the mall.  My second MIL from successful marriage #2 also loved me but had a pronounced personality disorder; nevertheless, she tried hard to make friends, which was an effort on her part, and mostly succeeded with some serious head-butting.  My own parents were highly critical of wife #1, which put tremendous strain on my marriage and my relationship within my own family; my folks apologized to me when marriage #1 went down like the Hindenburg and the healing took some time.  When I brought soon-to-be-wife-#2 out to meet them, my folks practically fell on their faces in their attempts to be welcoming and understanding of the new woman in the family. 

The point being is that the paradigm of elder dominance, Biblical or not, doesn't necessarily work all that well.  The DILs of today will hopefully learn what NOT to do from the MILs of today, and the DILs of today will therefore be better MILs of tomorrow.   

[Kron3007]

Kron reminded me of this scene relevant to proof-texting. (And I'm still waiting for a real-life Jed Bartlett.)

Yeah, that sums it up pretty well.

This also makes me think of the show Good Omens.  It dosnt really look at this in particular, but still comes to mind. 

[kaysixteen]

I suppose I could give a lecture on the principles of proper biblical exegesis, but, well, let's try this thought experiment first:

"Prof. Kron, I know that I did not actually do the reading for class, but I know that, properly understood, the reading means...."

Now as to today's DILs learning to avoid the mistakes of their MILs for when they themselves become MILs down the line, to an extent this is true, but it is also true that, when today's DIL disagrees with MIL, it might could be that DIL is wrong, now, and should adopt MIL's advanced knowledge and wisdom.   That is more likely than not, taken as a whole, to be the case.

[Wahoo Redux]

Now as to today's DILs learning to avoid the mistakes of their MILs for when they themselves become MILs down the line, to an extent this is true, but it is also true that, when today's DIL disagrees with MIL, it might could be that DIL is wrong, now, and should adopt MIL's advanced knowledge and wisdom.   That is more likely than not, taken as a whole, to be the case.

Of course.  One can never say a single demographic has the market on wisdom.  But no, it is not necessarily to be the case that MILs as a whole have "advance knowledge and wisdom"----not at all.  There are plenty of oldsters who have screws rattling around in their heads.  I've seen it.

In defense of Kron, it is hardly like the Bible is a recondite subject in the Western world.  Virtually everyone knows the stories and the concepts of the scriptures. 

What is interesting is how those who seek Biblical wisdom cannot or will not engage with the problem of slavery, sexism, clothing, diet, custom and ceremony from the Good Book that we as a society reject while wholeheartedly and didactically citing other scriptural doctrines that we nonbelievers should be following.  There is either a swerving away from the subject or simply a pretense that these problematic passages no longer matter. 

[Kron3007]

I suppose I could give a lecture on the principles of proper biblical exegesis, but, well, let's try this thought experiment first:

"Prof. Kron, I know that I did not actually do the reading for class, but I know that, properly understood, the reading means...."

Now as to today's DILs learning to avoid the mistakes of their MILs for when they themselves become MILs down the line, to an extent this is true, but it is also true that, when today's DIL disagrees with MIL, it might could be that DIL is wrong, now, and should adopt MIL's advanced knowledge and wisdom.   That is more likely than not, taken as a whole, to be the case.

If Christians had not been bleating all these contradictory messages all my life you would have a good point.  However, I have been extolled the virtues of Christianity all my life and judging others based on their mannerisms, dress, and appearance are not compatible with the general teachings. I have not read the Bible cover to cover, but have read enough to see the Emperor wears no clothes. 

The real issue, is that even religious scholars who have indeed read the Bible, disagree on some very basic aspects. People twist it to fit their narrative.

As attributed to Ghandi, "I like your Christ, but not your Christianity.". Seems to get right to the point.

[little bongo]

It's a fascinating conversation in many ways, but our personal investment in "right" and "wrong" runs pretty deep. And if we're using the Bible as a guide, how "biblical" do we want to be and when?

Would we be willing to sacrifice our son if God told us to, as Abraham was ready to do?

Would we offer our virgin daughters to young men who want to have gay sex, as Lot did, to prevent the gay men from so engaging? I mean, we'd be saving the gay men from hell, right, so shouldn't we have our kids take one or two for the team?

Would we curse fig trees because we are hangry, as Jesus did? (This one always puzzled me. I mean, God Jr. knew it wasn't fig season.)

The lines between exegesis and sophistry are pretty fluid--and the Bible gives us room to fill in blanks, explain away "uncomfortable" elements, and just engage in some tap-dancing as needed.

[bio-nonymous]

We could go even deeper into the old testament and remember that children who do not obey their elders should be stoned to death.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21:
"18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid."

I am all for it. ;)

Not to mention all the animal sacrifices and bloodletting, etc.

It gets a little dark...

[Wahoo Redux]

We could go even deeper into the old testament and remember that children who do not obey their elders should be stoned to death.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21:
"18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid."

I am all for it. ;)

Not to mention all the animal sacrifices and bloodletting, etc.

It gets a little dark...

Do we stone puffed-up adolescents in love with their own solipsistic wisdom who address their elders by their first names?

[little bongo]

Well, then the issue is solved by "grace"--those "dark" parts of Old Testament law that do not apply to followers of Jesus. But man, just try to suss out when grace applies and when it doesn't--to paraphrase Blanche DuBois in "A Streetcar Named Desire," present the rules to a budding biblical scholar with a bottle of aspirin. For example, Jesus gets into the issue of supposedly unclean food with his disciples, and starts a rant on eating and pooping--it's not one of His best or most logical parables (my personal interpretation is that Jesus just liked Him some shrimp).

But to bring things back (more or less) to how the issues of "first name basis" are or can be biblical, there are some general admonitions to treat elders with respect (including slaves respecting their masters, as was discussed on another thread), so yes, a younger person is encouraged (commanded?) to be deferential, even if the elder is not especially pleasant. None of this changes what has already been noted about changing social norms of course.

[Kron3007]

Well, then the issue is solved by "grace"--those "dark" parts of Old Testament law that do not apply to followers of Jesus. But man, just try to suss out when grace applies and when it doesn't--to paraphrase Blanche DuBois in "A Streetcar Named Desire," present the rules to a budding biblical scholar with a bottle of aspirin. For example, Jesus gets into the issue of supposedly unclean food with his disciples, and starts a rant on eating and pooping--it's not one of His best or most logical parables (my personal interpretation is that Jesus just liked Him some shrimp).

But to bring things back (more or less) to how the issues of "first name basis" are or can be biblical, there are some general admonitions to treat elders with respect (including slaves respecting their masters, as was discussed on another thread), so yes, a younger person is encouraged (commanded?) to be deferential, even if the elder is not especially pleasant. None of this changes what has already been noted about changing social norms of course.

This has to be one of the weirdest parts.  Christians acknowledge that the old testament is the word of god, yet it does not apply to them?  Why would God release a false document, only to go on to correct it?  I would think that even a moderately competent god would be able to release a single edition without needing a rewrite.   

It takes some major mental gymnastics to make this work.

[Ruralguy]

Don't tell anyone: (This  is just between you and me) None of it works. None of it.

[apl68]

Well, then the issue is solved by "grace"--those "dark" parts of Old Testament law that do not apply to followers of Jesus. But man, just try to suss out when grace applies and when it doesn't--to paraphrase Blanche DuBois in "A Streetcar Named Desire," present the rules to a budding biblical scholar with a bottle of aspirin. For example, Jesus gets into the issue of supposedly unclean food with his disciples, and starts a rant on eating and pooping--it's not one of His best or most logical parables (my personal interpretation is that Jesus just liked Him some shrimp).

But to bring things back (more or less) to how the issues of "first name basis" are or can be biblical, there are some general admonitions to treat elders with respect (including slaves respecting their masters, as was discussed on another thread), so yes, a younger person is encouraged (commanded?) to be deferential, even if the elder is not especially pleasant. None of this changes what has already been noted about changing social norms of course.

This has to be one of the weirdest parts.  Christians acknowledge that the old testament is the word of god, yet it does not apply to them?  Why would God release a false document, only to go on to correct it?  I would think that even a moderately competent god would be able to release a single edition without needing a rewrite. 

It takes some major mental gymnastics to make this work.

On the off chance that there's some honest curiosity in this question, and not just invective about how "Christians are stupid and hypocritical," I'll try to answer this.

The Old Testament and New Testament are in a sense like two different courses in a major.  The latter is meant to build on the former, like a prerequisite course.  Broadly speaking, the Old Testament teaches that God created the Earth and its people.  God has standards.  People failed to meet those standards.  In the Mosaic Law, God chose one specific people, Israel, and gave them a codified set of rules to follow and codified rituals to keep--which is how people have usually tried to pacify whatever divine forces they believed in. 

Israel's subsequent history demonstrated that they couldn't keep the laws.  Even the Old Testament's greatest figures of faith were deeply flawed individuals who messed up a lot.  Both Christians and Jews have long understood that a lot of the descriptions of the conduct of OT figures were often meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive.  The Old Testament in effect establishes that human beings are too fundamentally bent toward sin to fix themselves.

In the New Testament, we get the second course for the major.  Jesus is born.  A man who is in some way that can't really be explained both a human being and God.  He taught that, since human beings couldn't fix themselves, as established by Old Testament history, they must instead rely on God to fix them.  And how does God do that?  By sending Jesus, who was both God and human, to suffer and die for sins that he himself did not commit.  He paid the just penalty for sin so that we don't have to.

How do we gain the forgiveness of sin that Jesus offers?  By admitting that we, ourselves, are sinners in the sight of God, and asking for God's forgiveness based on Jesus' sacrifice.  And then devoting the rest of our lives to serving God by following Jesus' teachings.  New Testament teachings preserve the essence of the Old Testament's ethics and morality, but don't insist on Mosaic Law's various ritual and dietary laws.  Many early Christians who were also Jews continued to practice these laws (and some Jewish Christians still do).  But Gentile Christians weren't forced to follow all of those rules.  The New Testament explicitly says as much.  There are no mental gymnastics about it.

[Wahoo Redux]

So, the OT has nothing to teach us then, right?  Everything valuable is in the NT?

[marshwiggle]

So, the OT has nothing to teach us then, right?  Everything valuable is in the NT?

It's probably a bit like Newtonian mechanics vs. quantum mechanics and relativity. The newer ones are more technically correct, but for many situations they give basically the same answers as the older, simpler one. Physicists who understand all of them know which situations can be adequately dealt with by the simpler one and which ones reflect situations requiring one of the newer ones.

[Wahoo Redux]

Physicists who understand all of them know which situations can be adequately dealt with by the simpler one and which ones reflect situations requiring one of the newer ones.

Marshman: master of the analogy.

But you've essentially said that we are back to picking-and-choosing which Biblical laws we abide by.