Mary And Martha

[davidk]

The bulk of your posts have to do with uniformity and understanding propositions as literal. Jesus did not document his intentions, this was left to others. We do not know the intentions of those writers for certain, they do not always agree. Intentionality and intentional causation are the issues.

 

I will ask you this question here, though it relates to other threads: Is it the case that knowledge of the Bible is a sufficient cause for an action?

The Bible's answer is totally unique. At one and the same time it provides the reason why a man may do what he must do, and it tells him the adequate reference point, the infinite-personal God.

All we know about the revelations of Jesus Christ comes from the Scriptures.

Jesus acted on His authority and the content of the Scriptures.

 

My answer is- yes.

[minsocal]

The Bible's answer is totally unique. At one and the same time it provides the reason why a man may do what he must do, and it tells him the adequate reference point, the infinite-personal God.

All we know about the revelations of Jesus Christ comes from the Scriptures.

Jesus acted on His authority and the content of the Scriptures.

 

My answer is- yes.

 

Sufficient cause denies free will.

[davidk]

Sufficient cause denies free will.

Interesting. Please, explain.

[minsocal]

Interesting. Please, explain.

 

I thought it was clear. Sufficient cause means what it says. You could not have acted otherwise. Free will requires that an agent must be able to act OR NOT ACT.

[davidk]

I thought it was clear. Sufficient cause means what it says. You could not have acted otherwise. Free will requires that an agent must be able to act OR NOT ACT.

Let me see if I've got this correct.

If I have knowledge of something, that something is sufficient cause for action. Therefore, I have no choice but to act in strict compliance to that something.

Reality check!

 

Let's replace that something with, say... a speed limit!

I have knowledge of the legal speed limit. And that legal speed limit is sufficient cause to restrict my driving to that limit of speed. However, ... !

 

How about: an instruction manual or, an order of the court or, the Bible?

 

Now, the Bible has a Commandment from God that tells us not to steal. Despite the overewhelming sufficiency of the cause, that knowledge of the Biblical commandment still doesn't keep everyone with that knowledge from stealing. I could even go so far as to say, anyone!

---

Knowledge of things that are a sufficient cause for action actually makes free will practical, because sufficient causes make known the consequences for right and wrong action or inaction. That is: it gives us a choice to make.

[minsocal]

Let me see if I've got this correct.

If I have knowledge of something, that something is sufficient cause for action. Therefore, I have no choice but to act in strict compliance to that something.

Reality check!

 

Let's replace that something with, say... a speed limit!

I have knowledge of the legal speed limit. And that legal speed limit is sufficient cause to restrict my driving to that limit of speed. However, ... !

 

How about: an instruction manual or, an order of the court or, the Bible?

 

Now, the Bible has a Commandment from God that tells us not to steal. Despite the overewhelming sufficiency of the cause, that knowledge of the Biblical commandment still doesn't keep everyone with that knowledge from stealing. I could even go so far as to say, anyone!

---

Knowledge of things that are a sufficient cause for action actually makes free will practical, because sufficient causes make known the consequences for right and wrong action or inaction. That is: it gives us a choice to make.

 

If you do not understand the basic concepts, do a little research. A heroin addict seeks heroin to satisfy an addiction. That is sufficient cause. Choice, or free will, requires more than sufficient cause. This is a matter of definition, long established. Choice requires the concept of final cause.

[davidk]

If you do not understand the basic concepts, do a little research. A heroin addict seeks heroin to satisfy an addiction. That is sufficient cause. Choice, or free will, requires more than sufficient cause. This is a matter of definition, long established. Choice requires the concept of final cause.

I understand what you're trying to say, perhaps you just chose a poor example; but the person always has a choice whether to start to continue or to stop. They know the possible consequences and they make their choices. They may give up on it, they may be more addicted to the addiction than to the heroin, but it is their choice whether to overcome it or not. We're speaking of human beings here, not machines. This sufficient causality theory may work fine for tracing how a fire got started but this determinist's perspective about people, which waxes and wanes in acceptance, it is as outmoded a philosophy as ever existed because it doesn't take the reality of the human personality into consideration.

 

Martha and Mary both had a choice and Mary, according to Jesus, made the good one. Whether it was a sufficient or a final is insignificant.

[minsocal]

I understand what you're trying to say, perhaps you just chose a poor example; but the person always has a choice whether to start to continue or to stop. They know the possible consequences and they make their choices. They may give up on it, they may be more addicted to the addiction than to the heroin, but it is their choice whether to overcome it or not. We're speaking of human beings here, not machines. This sufficient causality theory may work fine for tracing how a fire got started but this determinist's perspective about people, which waxes and wanes in acceptance, it is as outmoded a philosophy as ever existed because it doesn't take the reality of the human personality into consideration.

 

Martha and Mary both had a choice and Mary, according to Jesus, made the good one. Whether it was a sufficient or a final is insignificant.

 

Sufficient causation is not a theory. I gave you the definition of sufficient causation. Final causation is used where choice is involved and sufficient causation where choice in not involved. The terms have been in common use for 2,500 years or so. Both are forms of efficient causation. Both are needed to define the dynamics of a human personalty. Heroin is one of the most powerful subsatances known that overwhelms free choice. Go to your library and find a book on the human brain. Better yet, attend a few AA sessions and get a feel for what addiction is all about.

 

The story of Mary and Martha is not intended to have one meaning. That is really why the thread began.

[davidk]

Sufficient causation is not a theory. I gave you the definition of sufficient causation. Final causation is used where choice is involved and sufficient causation where choice in not involved. The terms have been in common use for 2,500 years or so. Both are forms of efficient causation. Both are needed to define the dynamics of a human personalty. Heroin is one of the most powerful subsatances known that overwhelms free choice. Go to your library and find a book on the human brain. Better yet, attend a few AA sessions and get a feel for what addiction is all about.

 

The story of Mary and Martha is not intended to have one meaning. That is really why the thread began.

Pardon me, I had been led to believe that sufficient causation is one among many enumerated possible causes in causality theory to answer the question "why". You may call it whatever you deem proper, I see no profit in any debate over it.

It seems under this concept in academic philosophy of "sufficient cause" involving humans, it would be, for example; if someone is hit by an automobile it would be sufficient cause for any injury of the victim who had no choice in being hit.

But it is not an applicable concept where man gains knowledge of something and bases an action on it. Therefore, in your question, "Is it the case that knowledge of the Bible is a sufficient cause for an action?" it seems the logical concept of "sufficient cause" can not even be reasonably applied. However, in layman's language, the knowledge gained from the Bible can be considered a sufficient cause for taking action and is an action involving the practical application of free will.

 

Personal history has me well aware of AA and heroin addiction, thank you very much.

 

I am open to hearing evidence of any other meaning you may attribute to "Mary and Martha".

[minsocal]

As the thread was about a defense of Martha, I would conclude that some are uneasy with the implications of the story. Just how much should be read into the story is up to the individual. True, Jesus does side with Mary. Verse 42 ends with Jesus saying that Mary had chosen "the better part" or "the better portion" (the better dish at the table).

 

In support of the thread's purpose, commentators have noted that a Church full of Marthas or a Church full of Marys would never work. Verse 42 does NOT say that there is an either-or choice to be made here. In fact, it is possible that this story is about choice itself where the object is not really the issue. Sometimes when we get drawn up in our fussing about this and that we fail to note that we are on "automatic pilot". I do not know exactly what Jesus intended here. If it is about choice, the story could easily reverse Mary and Martha and still domonstrate the principle. In other words, there is a difference between "needing" to fullful a role and "wanting" to do so. The distinction between the words "need" and "want" is important. Needs are unconscious and automatic, desires (wants) are conscious and deliberate. References to "sufficient" and "final" cause preserve this distinction in order to provide a coherent framework for dialogue.

[davidk]

As the thread was about a defense of Martha, I would conclude that some are uneasy with the implications of the story. Just how much should be read into the story is up to the individual. True, Jesus does side with Mary. Verse 42 ends with Jesus saying that Mary had chosen "the better part" or "the better portion" (the better dish at the table).

 

In support of the thread's purpose, commentators have noted that a Church full of Marthas or a Church full of Marys would never work. Verse 42 does NOT say that there is an either-or choice to be made here. In fact, it is possible that this story is about choice itself where the object is not really the issue. Sometimes when we get drawn up in our fussing about this and that we fail to note that we are on "automatic pilot". I do not know exactly what Jesus intended here. If it is about choice, the story could easily reverse Mary and Martha and still domonstrate the principle. In other words, there is a difference between "needing" to fullful a role and "wanting" to do so. The distinction between the words "need" and "want" is important. Needs are unconscious and automatic, desires (wants) are conscious and deliberate. References to "sufficient" and "final" cause preserve this distinction in order to provide a coherent framework for dialogue.

I think you could have a better argument here had the subject been something other than Jesus, Himself. He was the issue at hand. The good part had been addressed in v39, it's described as Mary listening to Jesus speaking.

The longest verse in the story is Martha's distraction and her complaining.

Jesus gently scolded Martha about how she was behaving at that moment, and having her priorities out o' whack. We need to be workers as well as listeners, there is a proper time for each.

[minsocal]

I think you could have a better argument here had the subject been something other than Jesus, Himself. He was the issue at hand. The good part had been addressed in v39, it's described as Mary listening to Jesus speaking.

The longest verse in the story is Martha's distraction and her complaining.

Jesus gently scolded Martha about how she was behaving at that moment, and having her priorities out o' whack. We need to be workers as well as listeners, there is a proper time for each.

 

Yes, that is one interpretation. Keep up the good work, you sound more like a Progressive every day.

[davidk]

Yes, that is one interpretation. Keep up the good work, you sound more like a Progressive every day.

Thanks? Save for the fact that I left out the detail of Martha's distraction this time around, it was no different from my original post on the subject, to which you had written this scathing response: "Well, what it seems to you IS what it seems TO YOU. There is NOTHING PROFOUND in such an observation. NOTHING! I see A. you see B ... you see B and claim superiority. SO WHAT? YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM TO SUPPERIOR KNOWLEDGE ... give me the credentials, give me YOUR credentials. Are you Jesus? Are you God?" What happened? Have you mellowed?

[minsocal]

Thanks? Save for the fact that I left out the detail of Martha's distraction this time around, it was no different from my original post on the subject, to which you had written this scathing response: "Well, what it seems to you IS what it seems TO YOU. There is NOTHING PROFOUND in such an observation. NOTHING! I see A. you see B ... you see B and claim superiority. SO WHAT? YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM TO SUPPERIOR KNOWLEDGE ... give me the credentials, give me YOUR credentials. Are you Jesus? Are you God?" What happened? Have you mellowed?

 

Oh davidk, perhaps the distraction is yours?

[davidk]

Oh davidk, perhaps the distraction is yours?

Well, what it seems to you IS what it seems TO YOU. There is NOTHING PROFOUND in such an observation. NOTHING! I see A. you see B ... you see B and claim superiority. SO WHAT? YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM TO SUPPERIOR KNOWLEDGE ... give me the credentials, give me YOUR credentials. Are you Jesus? Are you God?

[minsocal]

1. Must rescue others versus must be rescued by others (rescue - attach) (care - be cared for) (altuistic - lovable)

2. Must achieve goals versus must surrender goals (assert - adapt) (strength - acceptance) (successful - tribute)

3. Must remove danger versus must move from danger (fight - flight) (threat - retreat) (heroic - refugee)

4. Must obtain scarce essentials versus must create scarce essentials (compete - cooperate) (power - love) (honored - beautiful)

For what its worth, I think it would be a fairly easy task to find the pairs (1-4) all represented in the Bible. The point I wish to make here is summed up in the following example:

 

-----------------------------------

I loved the example minsocial. Do you want to move the 4 characteristics to another posting and we can work on the exercise of finding those teachings in the Bible? Then we would all be prepared to counsel like the rabbi.

 

I used to be confused when I read conflicting messages in the Bible, like "Honor thy father and mother" and "let the dead bury their own dead." Now I understand that because life is so complex, one answer does not fit all situations or all people. That is why people can use the Bible to justify opposing positions on the death penalty, human rights, etc.

 

However, I believe there is value in taking some time for the Mary side if one tends to operate on the Martha side most of the time. The author of the Mary in a Martha World book suggested that Martha had grown in her faith between the time she was complaining in the kitchen and the time she ran to meet Jesus after her brother, Lazarus had died. At that point she chose to give her time and energy to Jesus, to put her trust in Him.

 

Yes, we all have a Martha side and a Mary side. In this sense, the story asks us to look inside ourselves.

 

It seems to me that the Martha - Mary story is a mix of three of the four categories above. Martha the caregiver and Mary being cared for [1]. There is also the element of achieving and surrendering goals [2]. Finally, there is the element of scarce essentials [4]. Simply use the words to the right to generate an interpretation of the story. This give the story a great deal of flexibilty. Sort of like being your own Rabbi.

 

As stated elsewhere, the key is to look at the words associated with the categories and note that they all have positive conotations. For far too long now we have demonized "the animal" part of human nature. I think this is a distortion of Paul and not associated with the teachings of Jesus, but I could be wrong.

[davidk]

The Martha and Mary story is really very simple. I find no advantage in over-analyzing it.

- From Luke 10:

Jesus and His crew were on the road and were just hitting town when Martha saw them and invited them into her home. Jesus was making Himself comfortable when Martha's sister, Mary, sat down with Him to listen to what He was saying.

 

Meanwhile, Martha, distracted with running around trying to get everything ready for her guests, looked over and saw Mary sitting, listening to Jesus, and not making any attempt to help her out.

 

With that, he she walked up to Jesus saying,"Lord, don't you care that my sister has left me all alone to get everything done? Tell her to get up and help me!"

"Martha, Martha," Jesus said, "you're worrying about too many things. There's only one thing for you to really be concerned about right now, and it's the same thing your sister's concerned with; and it's not the house. Mary's chosen wisely, don't take that away from her."

-

That's it! We don't know what happened after that. Did Martha huff back to the kitchen or did she get the message and sit down with her Lord? We don't know.

 

It's all to often complex interpretations miss the point of this simple little story: our first priority is to love the Lord! As long as you understand this universal truth, you can just worry about all the little stuff you want.

That's it, folks!

[minsocal]

"If Gen 2:25 defines sexual intimacy, it is explicit in its reference to be solely between a man and women as man and wife."

 

A man and a women saw each other naked and were not ashamed. That's it. Get over it.

[davidk]

"If Gen 2:25 defines sexual intimacy, it is explicit in its reference to be solely between a man and women as man and wife."

 

A man and a women saw each other naked and were not ashamed. That's it. Get over it.

This doesn't really apply to the Martha and Mary story, as far as I can tell.

[minsocal]

This doesn't really apply to the Martha and Mary story, as far as I can tell.

 

There you have it, you missed my point. Again. Let me step through this very simply.

 

You said not to read too much into the story of Mary and Martha.

 

I said, in response, not to read too much into your quote from Genesis.

[davidk]

There you have it, you missed my point. Again. Let me step through this very simply.

 

You said not to read too much into the story of Mary and Martha.

 

I said, in response, not to read too much into your quote from Genesis.

(Gen 2:25- it explicitly says man and wife. How much should I leave out so as not to be reading too much into it, in your opinion. There's no direct accusation of your having over-analyzed M & M, but you have written several posts on it.)

 

see post #42

[minsocal]

(Gen 2:25- it explicitly says man and wife. How much should I leave out so as not to be reading too much into it, in your opinion. There's no direct accusation of your having over-analyzed M & M, but you have written several posts on it.)

 

see post #42

 

Yep, a man and his wife saw each other naked. It refers simply to "a man and his wife", nothing more. Or ...

 

Micah 1:8

 

"For this I will lament and wail; I will go stripped and naked; I will make lamentation like the jackals, and mourning like the ostriches."

 

and ...

 

Isaiah 58:7

 

"Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter-- when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?"

 

hmmm ?

[davidk]

Yep, a man and his wife saw each other naked. It refers simply to "a man and his wife", nothing more. Or ...

 

Micah 1:8

 

"For this I will lament and wail; I will go stripped and naked; I will make lamentation like the jackals, and mourning like the ostriches."

 

and ...

 

Isaiah 58:7

 

"Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter-- when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?"

 

hmmm ?

I really wish I knew at what point you were driving toward.

I'm not arguing with you about Genesis 2:25, for pete'e sake! Why do you continue to write as if I am?

Your Micah is so out of context that your point is unclear for its inclusion into this Martha/ Mary dialogue.

The first part of Isaiah could have some smidgen of relevance, but there seems to be some fascination about the word 'naked'. In this I can find no relevance to Martha and Mary.

[minsocal]

The story of Mary and Matha disturbs some due to implications of hegemonic patriarchy. That is one view. Another view, far more subtle, has to do with adult intimacy. The subject of 'intimacy' has been corrupted by negative sexual connotations that did not surface until a very long time after the Bible was written. To be "naked" before the other simply means this is who I am. That is adult intimacy.

[davidk]

The story of Mary and Matha disturbs some due to implications of . That is one view. Another view, far more subtle, has to do with adult intimacy. The subject of 'intimacy' has been corrupted by negative sexual connotations that did not surface until a very long time after the Bible was written. To be "naked" before the other simply means this is who I am. That is adult intimacy.

Luke 10:38-42 makes no reference, neither specific nor inferred, of any hegemonic patriarchy. Nor is there any form of "adult intimacy" remotely approaching the level of a husband and wife relationship as described in Gen 2:25. It is so sublte as to be nonexistent.

Reading into this passage in Luke any accusation of hegemonic patriarchy or being naked only leads to the corruptions that's continually mentioned here and it is inapplicable to Martha and Mary.