You might observe how many thousands of people there are the last hundred years that believe the Bible is the same yesterday, today and forever, in terms of dogma and relevent history, who don't kill their kids or won slaves.
I do observe that. I conclude that people are shoehorning, and am thankful that morality has progressed somewhat in the last 4,000 years.
You might also recognize that the same passage a lot of critics go to to say "See? The Bible uses the word 'slaves'!" also proscribes the death penalty for anyone who steals a person and forces them to work against their will.
Which is how most people react to people trying to make slaves of THEM, but then sets up circumstances where they can make slaves of others, such as through acquisition in war. The old testament blatantly sets one rules for the Israelites and one rule for everyone else.
And the bible condemns homosexuality in several places. And people aren't born gay.
Homosexuality has every indication of having biological roots. It is seen across species, across cultures, and across time, and has a heavy correlation in separated twin studies. You can make female rats lesbian with the injection of testosterone into the womb while they're in pre natal development.(those scientists REALLY need to get out more) Most of human behavior is biological, so the claim isn't all that extraordinary.
BNW: We have a word for the practice of shoehorning Bible verses into a preconceived belief. It's called eisogesis.
I have yet to meet, in person or online, a christian( or to be fair a jew or a muslim) that did not engage in this to some extent. People have an idea of what they think good is. They think god is good, and that conviction at the very least shades peoples interpretations. for some of the worse passages it means outright denial (god didn't say that), dismissal (that's the old testement it doesn't count anymore) or some impressive mental gymnastics.
Nature vs. Nurture?
Well, essentially yes.
While it is true that you must always address the issue of proper controls, your genes are your genes...birth order notwithstanding. On the other hand, the hormone hypothesis has to deal with the co-relation to a third factor -- birth order. That seems to make establishing cause much more difficult.
Nature vs. Nurture?Well, essentially yes.
Unless you do what most people do, and pretend that nature = genes, and nurture = parenting, and assume nothing else has an impact. Which of those categories would something like prenatal hormone exposure fit into? Or being hit by the school bus and rendered a vegetable? There are any number of major factors that don't fit neatly into that system.
How about exposure to soils with naturally-occurring elevated levels of lead? That's natural, but it's also environmental.
Nature vs. Nurture?Well, essentially yes.Unless you do what most people do, and pretend that nature = genes, and nurture = parenting, and assume nothing else has an impact. Which of those categories would something like prenatal hormone exposure fit into? Or being hit by the school bus and rendered a vegetable? There are any number of major factors that don't fit neatly into that system.
How about exposure to soils with naturally-occurring elevated levels of lead? That's natural, but it's also environmental.
I think lead in soil falls firmly under nurture, though I admit I'm a little confused by your post. Should it have began "Unless you DON'T do what most people do...?"
I really like to get your take on the correlation vs. causation w/ respect to birth order. Birth order itself seems like a factor that could affect behavior -- how does one control for that?
I think lead in soil falls firmly under nurture
Not seeing it -- surely something that's naturally-occurring, and has nothing to do with parenting, should fall under "nature," shouldn't it? Unless your personal definition of "nurture" is "everything except genetics." I could then just as easily say "Apples vs. Aardvarks!" and then define "Aardvark" as "anything that isn't an apple." The main difference being that my little saying hasn't caught on as a catch-phrase yet. The point of my post was that trying to split the universe into those two categories, while having the benefit of being an oft-repeated alliteration, really doesn't help our understanding of anything at all. Rather, it presents a trite oversimplification that has no real use.
As far as correlation/causation in these particular studies, if I understand it correctly, (1) males with older brothers have the signature for higher prenatal androgen exposure, and also have a vastly elevated tendency towards homosexuality. That in itself wouldn't mean as much, except that (2) lab rats injected with androgen actually became homosexual. I'm further led to undertand that (3) males with older sisters lack signs of elevated prenatal androgen exposure, and also statistically are not more likely to be homosexual than are, say, fistborn kids.
It's not a slam dunk, but it's suggestive enough to be worth an expenditure of research in trying to falsify it. So far, hypotheses like "they raised him like a sissy" have already been disoproven, no gene has been isolated, etc.
Your parents give you food: nurture
Your parents give you shelter: nurture
Your parents give you a room with lead paint: nurture.
mmmm... paint chips.
I just meant psychologicly, birth order or lack thereof is used as a template to understand a child's mentality at a glance. Ie Only children usually act his way/have these issues, while children with siblings have others (first born vs. middle child vs. youngest).
So this birth order thing making a difference isn't a new concept, and it seems parents with very little exception treat all of their children differently, for different reasons, consciously or not. This is a "nurture" issue, as geneticly it doesn't matter what order you were born in, or at least it shouldn't, hormone levels not withstanding, apparently.
If the above has an effect on whether a person is gay, then theoreticly it could be corrected with therapy, if the person wanted it to be. It was "understood" for a long time that homosexuality was a mental illness, and our understanding of it has changed several times over the last 50 years. It will probably change more as new things come to light.
It's also interesting, on the flip side, that the avg child rate is 1.85 kids per couple/home, and yet the third child is where the likelyhood increases (because of the hormones). It'd be hilarious to tell a catholic that multiple children does in fact rapidly increase the chances they would have gay children...above and beyond the odds.
Not seeing it -- surely something that's naturally-occurring, and has nothing to do with parenting, should fall under "nature," shouldn't it? Unless your personal definition of "nurture" is "everything except genetics." I could then just as easily say "Apples vs. Aardvarks!" and then define "Aardvark" as "anything that isn't an apple." The main difference being that my little saying hasn't caught on as a catch-phrase yet. The point of my post was that trying to split the universe into those two categories, while having the benefit of being an oft-repeated alliteration, really doesn't help our understanding of anything at all. Rather, it presents a trite oversimplification that has no real use.
It seems to me that you're using "nature" in quite different ways. Whether the lead in the environment is "naturally" occurring or not, being provided a safe environment in which to grow up seems pretty much like the definition of being nurtured to me.
Either way, it's probably not worth arguing about. You pissed at me? :P
BNW, I wonder if you have more specific examples of eisogesis than simply saying you don't knwo anyone that didn't engage in it. In my experience you're much more likely to encounter folk theology {I believe all dogs go to Heaven} than eisogesis (women were exchanged as property so the Bible advocates exchanging women as property). In one, a sort of conventional wisdom develops without reference to a Biblical position on the issue. In the other, someone uses a verse to sort of speak for the Bible, without responsible textual analysis or context.
In reality, the Bible doesn't present a perfect church or a perfect response to God. It's brutally honest, even about the failures on God's people. The example I used in the other thread is that God didn't want Israel to ahve a king, but they still dead. To avoid eisogesis, we evaluate the culture of the Hebrews, place them into the context of the neighboring cultures, but we extract timeless principle. Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son to test his willingness to please God, test his understandnig that his own son was under God's protection, etc. But we don't go offering our kids on the altar. We see that from the beginning redemption and favor is about Grace and not about a laundry list of rules and laws. But is your study of those laws is casual, or worse, designed to go cherry-picking what's wrong with God instead of understanding God, you'll misunderstand.
Other things: We don't have a gay gene (the one we thought we had turned out to be a hoax). If studies without genetic controls tell us the third boy is more likely to be gay, I think that's one indicator. But then if I say that men raised by single mothers are more likely to spend time in prison, are we going to say there's a genetic component? I am not trying to oversimplify the issue. I know it's complicated and good people on both sides disagree. But a statistical anomaly doesn't nearly get us to genetic causality. And after that, there'd be the issue of whether it's stil a choice.
And not to make this the main issue, because I came here to talk about the Bible and textual criticism, but homosexuality in the animal kingdom is considerably different. It occurs largely when there aren't enough able females to support the child population. The uncoupled males exhibit the tendency when extra personnel are needed to raise the young. So animals have wing-men, who then babysit on Friday nights.
If homosexuality were genetic and no one had a choice, wouldn't identical twins be both straight or both gay? Or wouldn't straight men refuse partners in prison? On some level it is a choice.
If homosexuality were genetic and no one had a choice, wouldn't identical twins be both straight or both gay? Or wouldn't straight men refuse partners in prison? On some level it is a choice.
And a hawt one.
Hubba hubba.
If homosexuality were genetic and no one had a choice, wouldn't identical twins be both straight or both gay? Or wouldn't straight men refuse partners in prison? On some level it is a choice.
I don't think it's that simple. Genetics aren't destiny. A particular genetic background might make something more likely, but not assured. Take a pair of twins, one of whom gets cancer, the other of whom does not. Clearly both share the same genetic risk, but we wouldn't expect a hypothetical "not-having-cancer-reorientation-therapy" prove to be an effective means of treating the cancer, would we? This is probably a terrible analogy, as I'm certainly not trying to imply homosexuality is a disease -- only that we wouldn't claim that genetics weren't a factor for the poor twin who got cancer, or that the diseased twin could just "decide" to stop having cancer.
I'll just add this: I can't imagine "deciding" to be gay one day -- can you? It seems to me that a little empathy kinda shoots down that whole idea. I can't decide to be gay any more than I can decide to be 6'8". And even if I could, why the hell would I, given the enormous social stigma?
But a statistical anomaly doesn't nearly get us to genetic causality.
There are causalities -- some occurring before birth -- that are not genetic. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Fetal alcohol syndrome -- prenatal exposure to alcohol. Not genetic, physical (chemical) cause with profound psychological effects, not a "choice" for the person who has it, present at birth.
BNW, I wonder if you have more specific examples of eisogesis than simply saying you don't know anyone that didn't engage in it.
Sure. Michelle Bachmann's bit were putting her husband as the head of the household was a matter of mutual respect, not subservience is one example
ANYTHING dealing with the slaughter of Amelekite children and the enslavement of the women. Its pretty rare to find someone who will take the bullet and say "God wanted 2 year old males dead". Apparently god telling moses to take vengence and then not interupting him to say "hey man, what are you doing? Thats going waaaay too far"
Suffering witches to live.
Explanations for the flood.
Slavery somehow being wrong.
In the other, someone uses a verse to sort of speak for the Bible, without responsible textual analysis or context.
Or people use an overabundance of "context" to reach the conclusion they want.
Other things: We don't have a gay gene (the one we thought we had turned out to be a hoax). If studies without genetic controls tell us the third boy is more likely to be gay, I think that's one indicator. But then if I say that men raised by single mothers are more likely to spend time in prison, are we going to say there's a genetic component? I am not trying to oversimplify the issue. I know it's complicated and good people on both sides disagree. But a statistical anomaly doesn't nearly get us to genetic causality. And after that, there'd be the issue of whether it's stil a choice.
-It doesn't get it to genetic but it does get it to something you're born with: your brains pre natal development in response to hormones. We know, with absolute 100% certainty, that hormones play a very important part in determining the sex of a child (which is how you can have a genetic male that looks female if their cells are immune to testosterone) . We know that you can make lesbian rats that mount females by injecting testosterone into the womb. We know that the brain is just as, if not more, susceptible to hormonal changes than other organs and we know that the brain controls behavior.
I have to go with the evidence here. The bible's track record on scientific accuracy isn't all that great.
but homosexuality in the animal kingdom is considerably different. It occurs largely when there aren't enough able females to support the child population. The uncoupled males exhibit the tendency when extra personnel are needed to raise the young. So animals have wing-men, who then babysit on Friday nights.
Dolphins will mate anything with a hole, and some sheep will be more or less exclusively homosexual even without the conditions you describe above.
If homosexuality were genetic and no one had a choice wouldn't identical twins be both straight or both gay?
Hold on now, thats a false dichotomy there. Biology does NOT often do complete either or choices. Its pretty rare that you get say, fur coloring that's black or white with no grey or brown in between.(which is why mendel lucked out with pea plants.)
There seems to be a biological PROCLIVITY for homosexuality, a predisposition, bent... call it what you want. Biology just tugs in one direction, however strongly.
If there were NO inclination, the correlation with homosexuality in twin studies would be at roughly the level of homosexuality. Instead its around 40%.
Or wouldn't straight men refuse partners in prison? On some level it is a choice.
Evolution made people want to have sex. The correlation with having babies is pretty much unnecessary since they've been one and the same for 3 billion years.
I think as an asexual (orientation wise) i have a pretty rare look at this. At some time around the age of 12 the guys suddenly found that girls were interesting. Even though they were strange, weird, didn't want to do anything fun guys wanted their attention anyway. It was as if something hijacked their brains to say "you will pay attention to girls" even though every other rational response would be "keep ignoring them"
This is so prevalent that no one questions it. When i was younger people told me it was inevitable (hah! showed them!) Its BIOLOGICAL. Now what if, instead of being attracted to girls, the same things happened and you were attracted to boys.. then what?
A lot of things we attribute to choice sometimes aren't. Most murders are a matter of choice -- that bit of conventional wisdom is fairly undisputed. Surprisingly, though -- and tragically -- not all murders are a matter of choice, it turns out. Read up on the U.T. sniper, his pleas to doctors before the event, and the results of the autopsy performed afterward.
and, accordding to Paul, it's also a sin to be turned over to a sexual orientation you weren't born with.
I do not believe that that interpretation has enough evidence to be used as the basis of an argument. And i have no dog in that fight on at least 2 levels.
I guess I'll wait and see, and look up the research ;)
Simon LeVay's research, especially on possible correlations between hypothalamic morphology and sexual orientation, might be a good place to start. He's best known for some work he did with cadavers, comparing certain areas of the hypothalamus in people of different sexual orientations. As an aside, whenever people talk about "being born gay" I think of 5:15-5:27 .
I guess I'll wait and see, and look up the research ;)Simon LeVay's research, especially on possible correlations between hypothalamic morphology and sexual orientation, might be a good place to start. He's best known for some work he did with cadavers, comparing certain areas of the hypothalamus in people of different sexual orientations. As an aside, whenever people talk about "being born gay" I think of 5:15-5:27 .
Thanks, I'll take a look.
No other interpretation (at least none that I can think of) makes more sense.
Paul thought homosexuality was wrong and unnatural?
It's flatly wrong to turn Paul's writings about homosexuality into "wrong to have sex outside the rientation you were born with".
As far as the false dichotomy goes, I don't wish to be misunderstood. There are maybe a lot of factors that roll up into a person adopting a gay lifestyle. There might eb a genetic predisposition that doesn't seal the deal, but makes certain factors more influential. I am not saying there aren't many things to consider. I am actually just saying that we can't make the broad-brushed claim "people are born gay". I don't reject that it's a complicated subject. I reject that there's no hope or choice, that a person is consigned at birth to be gay and there never was an element of choice, or nurture or somesuch.
As far as why would a person adopt that lifestyle, I guess it depends on your opinion. Some people engage in self-destructive behavior because of low self-esteem. Why would they? Some people start life left-handed and train themselves to be right handed. Why? We have our own scissors now.
People adopt a variety of behaviors for a variety of reasons. If you and your circle of friends don't think there's a holy God that wants more for you, than there's no challenge to a number of lifestyle choices that other might consider self-destructive or misguided. One might ask why I'd adopt a faith that places tough moral restraints on me when I could really get ahead in business or achieve a lot more pleasure if I just cut myself loose. It's a matter of perspective.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's flatly wrong to turn Paul's writings about homosexuality into "wrong to have sex outside the rientation you were born with".
As far as the false dichotomy goes, I don't wish to be misunderstood. There are maybe a lot of factors that roll up into a person adopting a gay lifestyle. There might eb a genetic predisposition that doesn't seal the deal, but makes certain factors more influential. I am not saying there aren't many things to consider. I am actually just saying that we can't make the broad-brushed claim "people are born gay". I don't reject that it's a complicated subject. I reject that there's no hope or choice, that a person is consigned at birth to be gay and there never was an element of choice, or nurture or somesuch.
As far as why would a person adopt that lifestyle, I guess it depends on your opinion. Some people engage in self-destructive behavior because of low self-esteem. Why would they? Some people start life left-handed and train themselves to be right handed. Why? We have our own scissors now.
People adopt a variety of behaviors for a variety of reasons. If you and your circle of friends don't think there's a holy God that wants more for you, than there's no challenge to a number of lifestyle choices that other might consider self-destructive or misguided. One might ask why I'd adopt a faith that places tough moral restraints on me when I could really get ahead in business or achieve a lot more pleasure if I just cut myself loose. It's a matter of perspective.
Ok I have tried not post in this thread for many and varied reason, but you comparing homosexuality as a destructive behavior is in fact offensive. And I will tell you a story Mr. Helt which you don't have to believe but it is in fact true.
Let me preface this by letting you know I am married gay man from Canada. My family are all United Pentecostal by religion and I was raised that way all of my life. I slept under the pews as a little kid, attended Sunday school until I moved out of my house at 17. I knew I was gay somewhere around the age of 14. Never had any desire for women, even though I tried. The only exposure to what homosexuality was from the small town in which I was raised was the thundery preaching I heard on how wrong it was. At the age of 15 I was diagnosed with clinical depression, because of a suicide attempt. I tried so hard to not be gay, I knew that if anyone found out, I would lose all of my friends, and I'd be kicked out of the house. Let alone what would happen to me at school if anyone found out. I tried for quite a long time to be straight praying with tears streaming down my face, with every fiber of my being I tried to be straight. It Never Happened. Eventually I left the church and was disowned by my family, friends, and had to leave my hometown. I don't care what you believe but maybe some education on the subject is warranted, how about you sit down and talk with some of these gay people and see what they went through and it might just surprise you. This football playing,church raised, farmboy ended being gay despite how hard he tried not to be.
Sure. Michelle Bachmann's bit were putting her husband as the head of the household was a matter of mutual respect, not subservience is one example
Unless you had read and studied the Bible on the family. Subservience is not the same thing as submission. Not even close. Bachman is Biblically accurate when she talks about submission being a matter of mutual respect. In fact, submission in a marriage is only really possible when there's trust. Submission offers up power to your mate, but then generates its own power. Submission is not, and never has been, subjugation. I have yet to hear anyone talk about amrriage advice that could measure up to a strong Christian model. Hard to top treating your wife like God's daughter, or palcing character building over your own needs in a marriage. Convenants are hard. But they work.
ANYTHING dealing with the slaughter of Amelekite children and the enslavement of the women. Its pretty rare to find someone who will take the bullet and say "God wanted 2 year old males dead". Apparently god telling moses to take vengence and then not interupting him to say "hey man, what are you doing? Thats going waaaay too far"
Suffering witches to live.
These are examples of God protecting the nation he chose from exceedingly barbaric and terrible people. FOr example, the ones with a history of raising barbarians to rebel a generation into captivity. Or the ones who ate their own children. Or the ones that grew up being told it was okay to kill their father and rape their mother and whatnot. There's a fascinating amount of study on theconflict between the Jewish people and their enemies, focused just on the attack against the young boys. And most often that's directed against the Jews. Sure, there are examples where God judges a thoroughly wicked people who pose a danger to his redemptive plan. So in the process of conquering an evil nation, he commands Hebrew leaders to annihilate the opposition. Then it was kill or be killed, and God knew it. The extracted principles are about moral purity and compromising beliefs, and how a Christian fits into an often adversarial world. It's hardly as simple as "The Bible say to kill infants."
Explanations for the flood.
?? Where you going with this? God is disappointed with man and is going to start over. Only a few bother to venerate him. He wipes out a population that has had many chances. You might think that's inhuman, but then God isn't human. When you judge God on the basis of your own morality, of course He won't measure up. You've got no reference point for what it's like to be a holy creator who demands worship of his creation, only to see them spit on you and hump their mothers.
Slavery somehow being wrong.
Are you saying that the position claiming the Bible condemns slavery (as we understand the term) is eisogetis? If you are, that's 100% backwards.
Or people use an overabundance of "context" to reach the conclusion they want.
Color me confused. I suppose people can throw out an ablative "you're taking me out of context." to shed criticism. Hardly the same as textual criticism. The context of the Bible is a redemptive process that requires a chosen people, a sacrifice, the exposure of the sin condition, verifiable prophecy, etc. So the story takes time. It has simple types: salvation is through faith alone (Abraham), salvation is on God's terms (2 Kings V), God pursues us even though we are unfaithful (Hosea), etc. But the larger context of all scripture is important, and the historical context of individual stories and passages is also important. Thus with any ancient document.
Not directed at something you said, but I want to inject: evolution (and/or god's design) DID make us want to have sex. So we can procreate, although sex is vital in the family aside from procreation.
There are maybe a lot of factors that roll up into a person adopting a gay lifestyle. There might eb a genetic predisposition that doesn't seal the deal, but makes certain factors more influential. I am not saying there aren't many things to consider. I am actually just saying that we can't make the broad-brushed claim "people are born gay".
Gay's a lifestyle? Will they let me have one of those feather boa's even if i'm not into the.. ahh never mind.
I think there's a difference of opinion on what exactly gay is in this context. You think its an act, everyone else seems to think its an inclination. Certainly a person with homosexual inclinations could remain celibate instead (with the same chance of success as any other person...) but it wouldn't change the fact that they were born with inclinations that they're never supposed to act on. It seems kind of odd for a good deity to have people with inclinations hardwired into their brains and then say "sorry, you can't do that"
I don't reject that it's a complicated subject. I reject that there's no hope or choice, that a person is consigned at birth to be gay and there never was an element of choice, or nurture or somesuch.
For some people there probably isn't , just like it doesn't matter what you feed most Chinese kids they're not going to be 6 feet tall. Some people would have the inclination no matter what, and thats at odds with the idea of a benevolent deity that's inextricably interested in his followers sexual choice.
What do you mean by "a gay lifestyle"? Is it just the shape of the genitals of the people they're attracted to? Because other than that the lives of the gay people I know look a lot like mine.
Are you saying it's self-destructive behavior? Why?
What does being gay have to do with "tough moral restraints" that keep from getting ahead in business?
So homosexuals like to have sex with people of the same sex. So what. What harm does it do? To you, to them, to anyone?
The answer to the first couple of questions is not to focus on the terms "self-destructive" or "tough moral restraints". My point is in response to the question "Why would anyone be gay by choice?" And of course, lots of positive and negative behaviors are chosen despite the adversity that might result.
Now, of course I will say that I think God forbids homosexuality, so adopting the lifestyle is self-destructive. It declares you independent from God. Of course, if you don't believe in God there's no conflict. But I am persuaded. Ergo. I get that some of you won't agree. I get that almost none of my gay friends agree. And most of my straight friends don't think there's anything wrong with getting laid outside marriage. Same coin, same side. If God says no, it's self-destructive. We might rationalize it. We might say "that was in the bronze age and now we can adopt." But the core issue is whether there's a God and He wrote the Bible. If God showed up undeniably and said "I have plans for you to prosper and not to hurt you, but you have got to get on board", I imagine a lot of gay friends would say "this will be a struggle, but I guess it's really God". But it's hard to see that presence because (I think) we don't look earnestly or we don't want to have to give up our control or we rationalize that we're pretty good people so that should be enough or whatever. And of course, some say "there's no God and while Steve is a well-meaning guy, he's living in a dream world".
But I started out as not a believer. And I am one cynical, tough sell.
I think there's a difference of opinion on what exactly gay is in this context. You think its an act, everyone else seems to think its an inclination. Certainly a person with homosexual inclinations could remain celibate instead (with the same chance of success as any other person...) but it wouldn't change the fact that they were born with inclinations that they're never supposed to act on. It seems kind of odd for a good deity to have people with inclinations hardwired into their brains and then say "sorry, you can't do that"
Why? A sinful world is chock full of temptation. There are things that pique my interest and I wish I could poke out my eyes sometimes. The whole doctrine of the sin nature is that we're all born with some bad wiring because we are separated from God's perfect design. Some people struggle with arrogance, some with substance abuse, some with lechery, some with idolatry, some with cowardice. Most of us a combination of several items. The idea that we all struggle with our assorted baggage is central to Christianity.
For some people there probably isn't , just like it doesn't matter what you feed most Chinese kids they're not going to be 6 feet tall. Some people would have the inclination no matter what, and thats at odds with the idea of a benevolent deity that's inextricably interested in his followers sexual choice.
Not making it to 6 feet tall is genetic. My oldest three girls have no chance or choice about being 6 feet tall. Having a marker that predisposes you to homosexuality doesn't (necessarily) make you gay.
Color me confused. I suppose people can throw out an ablative "you're taking me out of context." to shed criticism. Hardly the same as textual criticism
Its not an ablative "you're taking me out of context" Its an ablative "You're taking the bible out of context!"
Here's a perfect example in your own first answer of eisogesis. To you, a rational, 21st century inhabitant of the western world the idea that a woman is supposed to do what her husband tells her by virtue of which way his plumbing goes is an anathema. It is wrong and immoral. It is however what the bible says explicitly and implicitly, among other methods such as saying it outright, listing women as property, treating women like any other valuable commodity, and having god always deal directly with the MEN of Israel.
Unless you had read and studied the Bible on the family. Subservience is not the same thing as submission. Not even close. Bachman is Biblically accurate when she talks about submission being a matter of mutual respect.
This has only slightly more support than the idea that paul meant going against ones born implications. This would be an example of using an overabundance of "context" to reach the conclusion you want.
These are examples of God protecting the nation he chose from exceedingly barbaric and terrible people. For example, the ones with a history of raising barbarians to rebel a generation into captivity. Or the ones who ate their own children. Or the ones that grew up being told it was okay to kill their father and rape their mother and whatnot.
-Except thats not in the bible. First off the isrealites are invading the amelekites nation/city. The people are described as wicked but not this specificly. Also it seems kind of odd that you don't believe in the predestination of genetic homosexuality but you do believe in the predestination of genetic evil (and that its carried on the Y chromosome). What else would make a 5 year old, a 3 year old, or even a newborn so irredeemably evil that a lifetime of being brought up by loving adopted parents couldn't turn ANY of them away from that path?
Your idea of god as good requires you to read into the bible like this even though large parts of it aren't there.
Then it was kill or be killed, and God knew it
We don't accept anyone killing an infant on the grounds of "he might come back to kill me some day" God is an omnipotent, omniscient being. You're telling me the ONLY thing he could have possibly done with the male children was have his followers dash their heads on the rocks? he couldn't raise and island out of the sea and have them raised by wolves there? Turn them into merekats?
And why only the males? Its not like women can't grow up to with a thirst for vengence and knife someone in the middle of the night, especially as they're old enough to realize what you're doing to their fathers, uncles, brothers and cousins.
So in the process of conquering an evil nation, he commands Hebrew leaders to annihilate the opposition.
And what made those nations so evil? They were killing babies. We'll stop them from killing babies by.. killing all the babies for them.
Only a few bother to venerate him. He wipes out a population that has had many chances.
Except that not every individual had a chance... unless of course god stopped people being conceived for about 12 years prior to the flood?
Are you saying that the position claiming the Bible condemns slavery (as we understand the term) is eisogetis? If you are, that's 100% backwards.
Yes. the bible condemned slavery OF JEWS. Jews could only be slaves for 7? years. You're applying that to a general prohibition on slavery despite the rest of the bible because to you slavery is wrong and the bible has to be right.
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
Have you ever noticed that some self-identified 'Christians' are persuaded that what other people are doing is sin? Ancient Sensei, I bet you eat cheeseburgers and wear poly-blend clothing and, because you do that, you don't think it's a sin. Cherry-picking the scripture is dangerous.
I wouldn't be cherry-picking any scripture in that process. But I'd be interested in hearing how you come to that admonishment.
Also, I guess I'd reply that I view sin according to the Bible, and that I don't believe the Bible according to my other preconceptions. So, if the Bible said "don't eat cheeseburgers", I guess I wouldn't. Or at least if I did, I'd bee convicted.
Great example of the eisogesis discussion though. Not only am I not a Jew, and not under Jewish law. But God also invited Peter to have pork in the book of Acts to illustrate the difference between legalism and grace. The Jews were maybe forbidden pork because of trichinosis. Maybe God expects them to keep that tradition to mark themselves as special, or maybe he doesn't because now we won't kill ourselves with it, and because he has redeemed the world instead of one race. When I get there, I'll ask.
Why? A sinful world is chock full of temptation.
Right, but in this case god gives most people. "You'll start to get interested at 12, hold off for 6 years till you're 18 and married" while giving other people "Oh yeah, you're going to be interested at 12, and you'll have to fight those urges till you're 60 and never know the joy of physical sex (oh, and NO masturbation either!)
Does that seem fair? Does that seem to be the system of a just god?
Here's a perfect example in your own first answer of eisogesis. To you, a rational, 21st century inhabitant of the western world the idea that a woman is supposed to do what her husband tells her by virtue of which way his plumbing goes is an anathema. It is wrong and immoral. It is however what the bible says explicitly and implicitly, among other methods such as saying it outright, listing women as property, treating women like any other valuable commodity, and having god always deal directly with the MEN of Israel.
Once more, you ignore context. Mayeb I'm not explaining eisogesis very well. Trying to take the whole passage and apply it as if every iota of culture and human development then applies now is eisogetic. Moreover, the CONTEXT of Hebrew relations with their women reveals reverence, hospitality, etc. Take a survey of the great women of the Bible (and there are many). They don't just do what they're told, shut up and bear children. They advise their husbands. They work hard. They teach their children. THey are, as Solomon said, more valuable that rubies. The husband is commanded to love her as Christ loves the Church, even giving himself up to die for her. And, as I remakred in the other thread that was shut down, when God or Jesus deals with a woman personally, they look at the heart, they act with love, there isn't some bronze age misogyny there.
So...context tells us when a story is an exception or when it fits into timeless principle. Exogesis is a commitment to extracting that principle form the source. Eisogesis is forcing the principle into a passage that doesn't really support it. Saying the Hebrews only forbid Hebrew slavery is eisogetic. The same opasasge governing treatemnt of various kinds of servants (mind you in a sinful, imperfect culture), explicitly forbids stealing a human being and putting them to work as a slave. The other types of salvery range from working off debt, to probation as a prisoner of war, to working a man's field until you can marry his daughter. Each of those has its own context - a correct way to evaluate the information presented at the time. To violate that context in order to prove a larger point is eisogetic.
That help?
This has only slightly more support than the idea that paul meant going against ones born implications. This would be an example of using an overabundance of "context" to reach the conclusion you want.
Um. No. It is an accurate depiction of what the bible says about the family. The Bible doesn't address the role of women in the family in one or two stories, does it? There are many stories, some poetry, whole passages and treatises. And so choosing one to be critical of is error. Takgin them as a whole isn't excessive. Who would set that standard? You could say "God can't make up his mind. One rule, Ten Rules. A thousand rules. King. No king. Law. Fatih. He's all over the map. Or, you could look at the document as a whole, and its stories in their setting and draw an inevitable conclusion: salvation is by grace from the beginning, now matter how much we try to screw it up on our own.
-Except thats not in the bible. First off the isrealites are invading the amelekites nation/city. The people are described as wicked but not this specificly. Also it seems kind of odd that you don't believe in the predestination of genetic homosexuality but you do believe in the predestination of genetic evil (and that its carried on the Y chromosome). What else would make a 5 year old, a 3 year old, or even...
I know there's more, but it's time for bed. I am confused as to how you can say I have to read the goodness of God into the Bible. It's already there. Could I not argue that you are cherry-picking stories to make a case God isn't good, that you are reading His a-morality into Scripture, and that you choose to only see an agnostic perspective where sovereignty or foreknowledge don't mean anything? Which one of us has a perspective from the Bible as a whole?
And as regards slavery, before I go for the night. Did you not see the part about stealing people being punishable by death? Have you accounted for caste systems of neighboring tribes, for treatment of slaves compared to others, and for the multiple definitions of "buying" slaves? Or are you reading a Bible in English and marching on as you were despite the many passages that differentiate kinds of slavery, treatment of those slaves, etc.
stuff
While I appreciate your kind sentiments, LT, I dont read the Bible incorrectly, nor do I have some approved understanding of it. As the Bible says, I'm my own high priest.
I have not once said the OT doesn't matter. I said there's a difference between legalism and grace. And I said I am not under the same law as the Jews, because I am not Jewish. An understanding of the Hebrews as od's chosen people while he advances salvation for all might be in order here.
Going to bed. Verses about homosexuality tomorrow. Not cherry-picking.
That help?
No.
I've never not understood the concept of eisegesis (the word isn't new to me, though i admit keeping it and exegesis strait) so explaining it to me again doesn't add anything.
Citing a vague concept of context isn't helpful particularly either. Its not like i'm thinking of 1 or two passages here, i'm thinking of multiple passages as well as the overall themes of the bible. I'm also not saying its ok to treat women like dirt, but that's a lot different than putting them in charge of anything, letting them into the preisthood, or having them run a country.
Citing a few counter examples (if you can) doesn't help all that much either. I don't expect the bible to be consistent: it was written by too many authors over too long of a period of time.
You'd have to go through every (or at least many) examples and EXPLAIN why your understanding of the message there is the right one and mine isn't. That usually requires a supernatural source who's legitimacy is rather circular.
That's why I posted the Matthew verse and the importance to view scripture through the lens of the fruits of the spirit.
Well, the verse from mathew kind of relies on what you consider to be good in order to interpret the passage from paul as saying something completely different from what it appears to be saying. Its more dependent on your own opinion than anything about the bible.
No, what you consider to be good isn't relevant. What are the fruits of the spirit is relevant.
The difference between the two being...?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People wonder why I thread-crap. I thread-crap because I care. I care about the world we live in and how some people believe that only their beliefs are the correct beliefs. The world is not black and white. It's not even gray. It's full of color and beauty and song. But it's only full of that if you choose to look and listen. By only seeing the world one way and listen to only one belief, you close your eyes and ears to the wonders of the world we live in. Every person has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Sometimes, that happiness does not coincide with your definition of happiness. At those times, you have to choose to either accept that others can be happy outside your definition or ignore their happiness and move on. By claiming that their happiness is wrong, you are restricting their liberties. This something that we should NOT strive towards as a society. Many a man and woman have died to protect the freedom for us to live our lives as best we can. Not live our lives as defined by a book or what others tell us THEY think is the best way.
I'm constantly amazed that most theologists point that the main difference between man and all the other creatures of the Earth is free will, then proceed to try and restrict that free will of others. I am not gay, but I have many, many friends that are. I am not Catholic, nor Atheist, nor Agnostic, nor Jewish, nor Muslim, nor whatever else you want to call me. I am me. I believe that we are here on Earth to live, love and leave the place a little better when we leave than when we found it. I believe that no-one knows the truth about a human soul or what comes after death or even if there is a higher power. And I believe that my beliefs have absolutely no bearing on your beliefs, just as yours should have no bearing our others.
And, now, the thread-crapping:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Young man, there's no need to feel down
I said young man, pick yourself off the ground
I said young man, 'cause your in a new town
There's no need to be unhappy
Young man, there's a place you can go
I said young man, when you're short on your dough
You can stay there and I'm sure you will find
Many ways to have a good time
It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A
It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A
They have everything for young men to enjoy
You can hang out with all the boys
It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.
It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.
You can get yourself clean you can have a good meal
You can do whatever you feel
Young man, are you listening to me
I said young man, what do you wanna be
I said young man, you can make real your dreams
But you've got to know this one thing
No man does it all by himself
I said young man, put your pride on the shelf
And just go there to the Y.M.C.A.
I'm sure they can help you today
It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.
It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.
They have everything for young men to enjoy
You can hang out with all the boys
It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.
It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.
You can get yourself clean you can have a good meal
You can do whatever you feel
Young Man, I was once in your shoes
I said I was, down and out with the blues
I felt no man cared if I were alive
I felt the whole world was so jive
That's when someone came up to me
And said young man take a walk up the street
There's a place there called the Y.M.C.A.
They can start you back on your way
It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.
It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.
Young man, young man there's no need to feel down
Young man, young man pick yourself off the ground
Y.M.C.A. and just go to the Y.M.C.A.
