Questions on Patron/Client relationships

[Thersites]

And comparisons was not what I was intending. Merely an observation that fits like a glove with the works of the Context Group (Since they are the ones that constructed the scientific paradigms of the constitution of collectivistic peoples) , where the accumulation of honor tends to incite the envy of one's social equals (honor being a limited good). Tunisian peoples, that's it, was not bringing over any peoples of the Western Civilizations.

Okay, so when JP implied that I was blind for not seeing it... was there actually something blatantly obvious that I should have seen and didn't?

It may be true that infamy/celebrity has largely taken the place of honor in Western society, but we do have veterans, 9/11 first responders and their families, etc...

We also have Tim Tebow, a person who inspires all sorts of spiteful and foul emotions in people on account of his very public Christianity. You may not have the sort of physical abuse that interviewee and her family experienced, but western society has provided plenty of ways for those who envy the virtuous to vent their frustrations. I mean, have you SEEN the Internet?

[Andius]

I will take over in JP's stead then (Since he and I are quite alike in loads of things). Can't allow him to have all the fun.

... Fine. I'll set forward something that refers to a scholarly source. Don't bother telling JP. It's not like he'd respond to the substance of the thing anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralis...rapeutic_deism

If you want to put your finger on what exactly the problem with modern customs and values might be, you could do worse than to look at Christian Smith's work. I've met the guy and heard him speak on this multiple times. It's a bit more precise than "emotionalism" and Justin Bieber concerts and is probably more relevant to the sort of theological point that the patron/client argument ultimately makes.

Interesting survey. It certainly reinforces the notion that today's Americans are selecting their theistic belief systems based on "gut feeling" over sound reason.

How is it... more relevant to the sort of theological point of the patron/client system that it ultimately makes (what's this "ultimately makes" your referring to anyways?).

Additionally, on the subject of what might be called emotions leading the intellect, there's the work of Putnam and Campbell in American Grace. They have the "Aunt Susan principle" as a way of explaining why Americans whose churches teach some form of soteriological exclusivism embrace inclusivist or even pluralistic views of salvation. Why? Because everyone has an "Aunt Susan" figure in their life- someone whose behavior is saintly, but who belongs to another, "unsaved" religion- they don't accept that their saintly Aunt Susan could go to Hell, so they go against what church authorities teach. On some level, it is symptomatic of the general theological ignorance of the American people, but as something of an inclusivist myself, I think there is good theology behind the inclusivist position. They're right to reject exclusivism because, even if it has "biblical grounding," well, it CAN be questioned based on what is not an unsound feeling- namely, that your saintly Aunt Susan is not hellbound despite the fact that she is not a member of whatever denomination.

Aunt Susan Principle.... interesting, it fits like a glove with the North American temperament that I have witnessed so far, a notion to believe that saintly loved ones, don't really deserve hell, typical.... and to think such a weak minded notions has begun to spread in Latinamerica...

The sources you have listed are excellent books that reveal data in regards to the dynamics of the belief systems across the North American peoples. But they are mere surveys, nothing more, I don't see how the works of these brilliant sociologists aids you in your critique of the Patron/Client model between men and God.

[Thersites]

I will take over in JP's stead then (Since he and I are quite alike in loads of things). Can't allow him to have all the fun.

Interesting survey. It certainly reinforces the notion that today's Americans are selecting their theistic belief systems based on "gut feeling" over sound reason.

How is it... more relevant to the sort of theological point of the patron/client system that it ultimately makes (what's this "ultimately makes" your referring to anyways?).

Aunt Susan Principle.... interesting, it fits like a glove with the North American temperament that I have witnessed so far, a notion to believe that saintly loved ones, don't really deserve hell, typical.... and to think such a weak minded notions has begun to spread in Latinamerica...

The sources you have listed are excellent books that reveal data in regards to the dynamics of the belief systems across the North American peoples. But they are mere surveys, nothing more, I don't see how the works of these brilliant sociologists aids you in your critique of the Patron/Client model between men and God.

Surveys are certainly more than we have with regard to on ANE culture, but in any case, I figured y'all could use something more scholarly than pointing to Justin Bieber concerts as your example of what's wrong with the modern West.

As for the patron/client model, I'm familiar enough with ancient roman culture to understand more or less how it worked, but I don't think it's the best way to understand our relationship with God simply because that's not how the Bible sets out the relationship. Marriage is a much better metaphor and is much more clearly present in Scripture itself. Yeah, you can bring up the point that a lot of marriages in that era were arranged, but if one is trying to argue (as it seems to me that JPH is) that God's relationship with Israel in the Old Testament is anything other than a deeply passionate relationship on God's part... well, I just don't think it's possible to hold to that. Maybe I'm not understanding JP's view correctly, but that seems to be the implication of the things he's said. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this point.

[Mountain Man]

... Fine. I'll set forward something that refers to a scholarly source. Don't bother telling JP. It's not like he'd respond to the substance of the thing anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralis...rapeutic_deism

Sorry, but you must be confusing JP with someone who would mistake a Wikipedia link for a substantive argument.

[Manwë Súlimo]

You're ignorant on marriage dynamics of the Bible. After reading "The New Testament World", I posted some things in another thread awhile back:

A wife, rather than being a full-fledged family member, is normally considered an almost-stranger in her new household. This has to do with how honorable a person was considered to be within this 1st century paradigm. Any close blood relative was considered behind reproach, completely trustworthy, and intrinsically honorable. Anyone outside the blood-bond was considered less so. Unless it was an endogamous marriage (such as a marriage between cousins), the honor-level of the new wife was considered iffy. She could improve upon this only through giving birth to a son. The son would grow up to be her advocate to the father's blood-family and the wife would secure her place into that household. Therefore, a wife that is barren or gives birth only to daughters stands no chance if there is some conflict in the household. Blood relatives will always win out because she has no advocate.

Quotes from the book:

The choice of mates is highly limited, normally arranged by parents because the marriage pair have to fit into an established kinship group with important and complex repercussions on many other individuals...from this perspective, marriage is both a sort of treaty between groups and a personal, dyadic contract between collectivistic personalities oriented toward two disparate groups. Further, these newly married, collectivistic personalities are in a complex and delicate state of mutual interdependence that tends to greatly limit personal emotional feeling....any considerable range of spontaneous affection would greatly impinge on the entitlements, obligations, and interests of too many others, causing disequilibrium in the system as a whole. This need to limit spontaneous affection (e.g., to mother and son, brother and sister) is a basic feature of those arranged marriages found in kinship systems where the newly married couples is incorporated into a larger kin group.

In the first-century Mediterranean world, the tightest unit of diffuse loyalty is the descent group of brothers and sisters whose spouses enter the king group as strangers and remain always somewhat so. They affection we expect as a mark of the husband and wife relationship is normally a mark of brother-sister and mother-son relationships.

In the first-century Mediterranean world, the tightest unit of diffuse loyalty is the descent group of brothers and sisters whose spouses enter the king group as strangers and remain always somewhat so.

...the new wife will not be integrated into her husband's family but will remain for the most part of her life on the periphery of his family. As a rule, she is like a "stranger" in the house, a sort of long-lost relative of unknown quality....

When does a wife shed the stranger's role? First of all, when she is the mother of a son; the birth of a son assures her security and status recognition in her husband's family. The son grows up to be his mother's ally and advocate of her interests, not only against his father, but against his own wife.

In the metaphor of marriage, the church as the wife of Christ, emotional love is anachronistic.

[Thersites]

Sorry, but you must be confusing JP with someone who would mistake a Wikipedia link for a substantive argument.

JP's the one with the degree in Library Science. There's more than enough information there for him to do some research of his own. Moreover, like I told Andius, this stuff should actually help him make his case about the modern West.

If all you're going to do is spout meaningless one-liners in response to everything I say, then there's no discussion to be had here. Either turn on a part of your brain other than the part that comes up with "witty" comebacks (the reading comprehension part would be particularly helpful here) or shut up.

[Thersites]

You're ignorant on marriage dynamics of the Bible. After reading "The New Testament World", I posted some things in another thread awhile back:

Have you read the Bible... you know... ever?

Also, I seem to recall asking a question about how this stuff fits in with the Parable of the Prodigal Son. Did I miss that post, or have you not gotten around to answering it yet?

In the metaphor of marriage, the church as the wife of Christ, emotional love is anachronistic.

Christ's apolitical Messiahship was also anachronistic. Messiahs were supposed to raise armies and overthrow empires. The Gospel is all about overturning our expectations- in the 21st Century as much as in the 1st. I'm no great fan of moralistic therapeutic deism myself, but returning to a pre-Christian mentality that willfully misreads much of Scripture won't save any more souls.

[Manwë Súlimo]

Have you read the Bible... you know... ever?

Looks like Augustine has a contender for Most Reprehensible Person on Tweb.

Also, I seem to recall asking a question about how this stuff fits in with the Parable of the Prodigal Son. Did I miss that post, or have you not gotten around to answering it yet?

The return of the prodigal son restored the proper working order of the family and the honor of both the son and the shamed father (a rebellious child reflected on the father).

Christ's apolitical Messiahship was also anachronistic. Messiahs were supposed to raise armies and overthrow empires. The Gospel is all about overturning our expectations- in the 21st Century as much as in the 1st. I'm no great fan of moralistic therapeutic deism myself, but returning to a pre-Christian mentality that willfully misreads much of Scripture won't save any more souls.

Jesus did oppose some of the cultural norms of the day.....but not this. There's no evidence in the Bible that our relationship with God is anything different than the common model presented here.

[Thersites]

Looks like Augustine has a contender for Most Reprehensible Person on Tweb.

When it really gets down to it... brother, I would welcome your scorn. Anyone who can't appreciate MLP obviously has no idea what love is in the first place, much less understand what St. John meant when he wrote that God is Love.

The return of the prodigal son restored the proper working order of the family and the honor of both the son and the shamed father (a rebellious child reflected on the father).

What peers does God have who could meaningfully honor or shame him? Does our rebellion reflect negatively on God, or is it actually just our own fault?

Also, if the father SHOULD have accepted his son back in for the sake of the proper working order and honor of the family, why does the son ask to be re-admitted as a servant? He should have expected to be taken back in with open arms, shouldn't he?

Jesus did oppose some of the cultural norms of the day.....but not this. There's no evidence in the Bible that our relationship with God is anything different than the common model presented here.

Genesis predates the 1st century model of marriage, and it doesn't quite seem to mesh with it. "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh" and all that.

There's also another Bible quote I tossed out earlier that actually does touch on and mesh with something Malina wrote... though I think it still tends to go against the view you advocate.

They affection we expect as a mark of the husband and wife relationship is normally a mark of brother-sister and mother-son relationships.

Matthew 12:46-49
46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

Doesn't that imply that there is some affection from Christ toward us, and that we ought to be expected according to this paradigm to likewise have affection for Him?

[Challenger Grim]

The return of the prodigal son restored the proper working order of the family and the honor of both the son and the shamed father (a rebellious child reflected on the father).

What peers does God have who could meaningfully honor or shame him? Does our rebellion reflect negatively on God, or is it actually just our own fault?

No, Manwe is right on this. One of the best lesson I ever heard was delivered by a preacher named Chris Bullard. (returned to the Lord too soon - but I recommend picking up any of his books or sermons that you get the chance to - he actually took trips to Isreal, and often called the Holy Land "the 5th gospel" - some days I think it a shame I never got to introduce him to JPH)

From the very START of the prodigal parable, the son is grossly insulting to the father (even at the end, the eldest is disrespectful). It would have been quite within the father's right to punish or refuse the son's request for his inheritance. That the father did not, but in fact, GRANTED the son's request, was a shock to the Jews of that time on a level we can barely comprehend.

Also, if the father SHOULD have accepted his son back in for the sake of the proper working order and honor of the family, why does the son ask to be re-admitted as a servant? He should have expected to be taken back in with open arms, shouldn't he?

Not exactly. IIRC, the father accepting the son back as a son was - again - above and beyond what was within his right as a father. (though I don't have the words at hand to adequately express just how much even the reconciliation was) We might talk about how this parable shows how generous God is, but we don't fully grasp just how generous it portrayed Him to Jews of that time.

The closest I can think of (but still far short) in our parlance would be like... Bill Gates tipping someone that mugged him.

[Andius]

Okay, so when JP implied that I was blind for not seeing it... was there actually something blatantly obvious that I should have seen and didn't?

Then allow me to enlighten you...

Your observation saying you see little difference between Tunisians and... X Western Peoples (who knows who you have in mind), demonstrates a level of ineptitude in recognizing how small changes make all the differences in the world. For example;

Tunisa (and to a certain extent, North Africa in general)
- Honor is limited (the rise of one's reputation will always come at the cost of someone else's)
- To rise above your social peers is asking to get yourself abused (which can be remedied by effectively switching to another "social class" of higher standing, or accrue enough to honor to dissuade less honorable peers back off).

The West
- Honor is nonexistant, and reputation is an unlimited good (reputation, as is conceptualized by the West, is FAR too different from what TRUE honor is. There is no preoccupation in depriving the reputation of another).
- When one rises above one's peers, proper social etiquette instills one to congratulate said person (a matter which is in truth, far far more optional than obligatory in Tunisia. It is usually to good idea to rub shoulders with honorable individuals, in the hopes that some of it might reflect back).

Key point reputation is NOT the same thing as honor, and they are barely related. To think that the two are alike, based solely on the notion of what other's think of you, is a baseless and pathetic appeal of "universal expression" that quite frankly does not exist, because the dynamics that affect reputation and honor, are radically worlds apart. This is a thing I have noticed, since I grew up a good deal of my life in the United States, which forever imprinted on me the impression that North Americans are fundamentally completely carefree individuals of what others think of them, a notion that exists only as a minority and within the cities of Latinamerica. (Despite North America and Latinamerica being highly similar, Latinamerica still maintains the notion of honor and shame, even though it's nowhere near to Easterners).

Surveys are certainly more than we have with regard to on ANE culture, but in any case, I figured y'all could use something more scholarly than pointing to Justin Bieber concerts as your example of what's wrong with the modern West.

Well I suppose there is hope for you (and quite frankly, I had no expectation for any said sources anyway, JP as well as yourself, being legit informants of North American customs).

As for the patron/client model, I'm familiar enough with ancient roman culture to understand more or less how it worked, but I don't think it's the best way to understand our relationship with God simply because that's not how the Bible sets out the relationship.

How the Bible sets out the relationship? Oh I can't wait to hear this one...

Marriage is a much better metaphor and is much more clearly present in Scripture itself. Yeah, you can bring up the point that a lot of marriages in that era were arranged, but if one is trying to argue (as it seems to me that JPH is) that God's relationship with Israel in the Old Testament is anything other than a deeply passionate relationship on God's part... well, I just don't think it's possible to hold to that.

and "don't think" is as far as you will go (and not far enough to demonstrate that your thesis is true). Putting aside the arranged dimension of it (a dimension that hardly concerns me), the more important point lies in the importance of the mutual faithful observance of a covenant. Jesus' parables in describing the Kingdom of Heaven/God , all of them have a common dimension (a dimension, that personally, struck me hard into my heart and mind, makes me weep and beat my chest even to this day), God's genuine and objective commitment in keeping his promises and vows with those who have expressed their servantship/clientship to Him. His commitment to seek out all who are lost and restore them into the fold (Lost son, lost coin, lost sheep), the importance of thriving in all good things under the covenant (mustard seed), the aspects of servanthood under said covenant (Faithful Servant, Unjust Servant, Talents, the Vineyard), etc. In all of them, passion is hardly mentioned (and to read in passion, merely on the basis on the reaction of the Father of the prodigal son, or the Shepard looking for the sheep, demonstrates a shallowness of understandment of what motivates personhood, treating passion as a necessary prerequisite for the greatest of actions) commitment is what is objectively demonstrated. Genuine and demonstrable commitment to something is far far more precious and valuable than deep passion, a notion that is fleeting and unreliable.

OH!! And speaking of marriage... truth be told, yeah, the marriage metaphor actually favors our paradigm quite better over your paradigm in regards to deep passional relationship Spartacus (Both in it's Eastern and Western Incarnations); Case in point;

http://science.nationalgeographic.co...true-love.html

This goes hand in hand with one of my grandparents. On the surface, they weren't passionate at all. But those two were deeply committed for each other, give each other's lives if the other was in danger. Yet they NEVER exhibited passion (especially since my mother, being his daughter, always told me that wasn't particularly emotional fella, but he still loved her and raised her with impressive commitment to be a righteous woman).

Maybe I'm not understanding JP's view correctly, but that seems to be the implication of the things he's said. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this point.

Above I have shown you where your understanding of it falls abysmally short. The Patron/Client Relationship is the type of relationship that places commitment FIRST above all else, for to commit is to truly demonstrate genuine love (agape). And said commitments involve ALL the things that Christ taught us to value; love, repentance, mercy, grace, patience, wisdom, etc. etc. (Fruits of the Spirit of course). Deep passion can serve as a means to facilitate the commitment, but to stay true to one's commitment to God, even in the midst of uninspiration, motivation, heck, lack of passion, THAT is what awaits in a genuine relationship between one's self and God.

[Thersites]

Key point reputation is NOT the same thing as honor, and they are barely related. To think that the two are alike, based solely on the notion of what other's think of you, is a baseless and pathetic appeal of "universal expression" that quite frankly does not exist, because the dynamics that affect reputation and honor, are radically worlds apart. This is a thing I have noticed, since I grew up a good deal of my life in the United States, which forever imprinted on me the impression that North Americans are fundamentally completely carefree individuals of what others think of them, a notion that exists only as a minority and within the cities of Latinamerica. (Despite North America and Latinamerica being highly similar, Latinamerica still maintains the notion of honor and shame, even though it's nowhere near to Easterners).

You're right in that I guess I really do have trouble conceiving of honor as a limited good.
Aw, heck, I'm on winter break. We'll see if I don't look into it some...

Well I suppose there is hope for you (and quite frankly, I had no expectation for any said sources anyway, JP as well as yourself, being legit informants of North American customs).

I give you not one, but two possible sources to bolster your argument against the theological illiteracy of Americans, and there is "hope for me?"

and "don't think" is as far as you will go (and not far enough to demonstrate that your thesis is true).

That's what I get for being modest, I guess

Putting aside the arranged dimension of it (a dimension that hardly concerns me), the more important point lies in the importance of the mutual faithful observance of a covenant. Jesus' parables in describing the Kingdom of Heaven/God , all of them have a common dimension (a dimension, that personally, struck me hard into my heart and mind, makes me weep and beat my chest even to this day), God's genuine and objective commitment in keeping his promises and vows with those who have expressed their servantship/clientship to Him. His commitment to seek out all who are lost and restore them into the fold (Lost son, lost coin, lost sheep), the importance of thriving in all good things under the covenant (mustard seed), the aspects of servanthood under said covenant (Faithful Servant, Unjust Servant, Talents, the Vineyard), etc. In all of them, passion is hardly mentioned (and to read in passion, merely on the basis on the reaction of the Father of the prodigal son, or the Shepard looking for the sheep, demonstrates a shallowness of understandment of what motivates personhood, treating passion as a necessary prerequisite for the greatest of actions) commitment is what is objectively demonstrated. Genuine and demonstrable commitment to something is far far more precious and valuable than deep passion, a notion that is fleeting and unreliable.

OH!! And speaking of marriage... truth be told, yeah, the marriage metaphor actually favors our paradigm quite better over your paradigm in regards to deep passional relationship Spartacus (Both in it's Eastern and Western Incarnations); Case in point;

http://science.nationalgeographic.co...true-love.html

This goes hand in hand with one of my grandparents. On the surface, they weren't passionate at all. But those two were deeply committed for each other, give each other's lives if the other was in danger. Yet they NEVER exhibited passion (especially since my mother, being his daughter, always told me that wasn't particularly emotional fella, but he still loved her and raised her with impressive commitment to be a righteous woman).

And yet God is eternal and unchanging. Either Eros is one manifestation of divine Love, along with philia, storge, and agape, or eros is just a function of our created nature. It doesn't mean that agape is not the greatest form of love, but as passing as other forms of love may be for us, I see no reason why other forms of love cannot also be fully present in the Divine Nature.

Above I have shown you where your understanding of it falls abysmally short. The Patron/Client Relationship is the type of relationship that places commitment FIRST above all else, for to commit is to truly demonstrate genuine love (agape). And said commitments involve ALL the things that Christ taught us to value; love, repentance, mercy, grace, patience, wisdom, etc. etc. (Fruits of the Spirit of course). Deep passion can serve as a means to facilitate the commitment, but to stay true to one's commitment to God, even in the midst of uninspiration, motivation, heck, lack of passion, THAT is what awaits in a genuine relationship between one's self and God.

I think you're reading too much emphasis on passion out of my argumentation... unless you mean passion in the sense of the original Latin (suffering, i.e. The Passion).

[Mountain Man]

JP's the one with the degree in Library Science. There's more than enough information there for him to do some research of his own.

He has done the research, you pretentious twit, and he's been beating you over the head with it ever since you stuck your nose in here.

[Thersites]

He has done the research, you pretentious twit, and he's been beating you over the head with it ever since you stuck your nose in here.

I meant researching Christian Smith's work, and that would have been quite evident to anyone who actually read the whole post, just as it is evident to anyone reading your posts that it will not be worth my time to keep responding to you.

[Mountain Man]

And what makes you think JP is the one who needs further research to support his thesis? You're the genius who cited Wikipedia when asked for a scholarly source.

As for not responding to me, you stopped doing that way back on page 20 when I asked "in what practical way can you have a close, intimate relationship with an unseen deity that doesn't walk the same road as the Mormons with their 'burning bosom' theology".