|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:09 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
 |
|
| Qinella wrote: |
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
Ok. I'm going to try it make it clear that my theses rest on context. Let me try to divide it up into subsections so it'll be easier to read.
Thesis #1: Traditional values cannot exist since values change with culture (here, you see context). |
You'll need to have a rigid definition of traditional. Think about the US. It has only existed for roughly 230 years, yet Americans claim to have traditions.
| Quote: |
Thesis #2: Biblical family values have changed over time (here, you see context).
Thesis #3: Using the Bible as a modern, present-day guide to establishing traditional family values ignores biblical contexts (here, you see context). |
Good.
| Quote: |
| Thesis #4: Modern Christian fundamentalists have no other foundation on which to build a theory of traditional family values other than the Bible. But that cannot work since biblical values have changed over time. (here, you see context). |
What context? This seems to ignore the actual way in which values are formed, which generally has little to do with ideals and scriptures.
| Quote: |
My point in posting an OT passage is not to say, "HAHA. I caught the fundies by posting a passage on 3000 year-old family values." Just the opposite. I use the Bible to make the case that biblical values, like all values, change over time. No modern fundie will push his concubine out the door to be raped all night by vicious villagers. That's just stupid. The passage proves values change, hence there cannot be a traditional system of family values.
Please tell me if I'm not being clear. I will try to summarize better if this is not understandable.
Peace |
Well, I think it is futile. Like I said, traditional can mean as little as three or four generations. Never heard of family generations? (EDIT: That should've been family traditions.)
I'm not trying to criticize you for the sake of criticism, but rather to challenge you. I'm not a Christian, but I do not bear a grudge against the religion, either. I like criticisms of it only if they are sharp, and trust me, that takes thousands of hours, decades even, of research. Have you done that? |
First of all, I appreciate constructive criticism from any side. It helps me see where my arguments are weak, and where they are good. So, thank you for that.
I am defining traditional in the way that fundamentalists define it, and in my book, I present definitions of all the terms I use. I should have done that here to begin with. I grew up in a fundamentalist home and attended a fundamentalist school from kindergarten through grade twelve. I am intimately familiar with their concept of traditional family values. I also have nothing against Christianity per se, just the fundie stripe.
Traditional = God-given to fundamentalists. It's not going back to the nuclear family. It is defining the nulcear family as God-given. There is a huge difference there. The only way they can define the nuclear family as God-given is by picking and choosing certain biblical passages (for example, the story of Adam and Eve) and making those stories the crux on which their traditional family value platform is built.
If fundamentalists were to say we want culture to be comprised of traditional families, and they defined traditional as what has been around for the last 200-300 years, then I would have no argument. Instead, they claim traditional = eternal.
I haven't even been alive for many decades, so of course I have not studied the issue that long. I lived in it for nearly 19 years, and I have given thousands of hours of study to it. My Bachelors and Masters degrees are in religious fields from a fundamentalist seminary.
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:17 pm Post subject: re: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
Here are mine:
Thesis 1: 'bible' turns into the adjective 'biblical' whereas 'new testament' doesn't really turn into anything (new testimonial values? sounds weird). Since Christianity is based on the NT with the OT as a reference the way modern astronomy is based on the knowledge we have now with historical observations as a reference, 'astronomy' means recent astronomy 99% of the time in the same way 'biblical values' means something from the NT 99% of the time. How much a person likes the OT depends on the person though, but suffice to say it's often only the NT that gets translated into minor languages for a long time until they're finally able to get the OT as well.
Thesis 2: I don't remember the other thought I had. Suffice to say 'biblical' usually means 'do unto others' and 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone' more often than it does 'don't boil a calf(?) in its mother's milk and don't eat stuff with hooves.'
Qinella: Remember Hermes Trimestigus? Now that was a poster that knew his/her stuff, and certainly no fan of Christianity. |
I'm not sure many posters on here with the exception of Qinella really understand my point, and that's probably my fault.
Mith, what you just posted is exactly what I'm getting at. The NT family values change somewhat from OT family values, particularly in Jesus' teaching (or life example) on the importance of women. Change is my point. If the traditional family is claimed to be from the beginning of human history in scripture (as most fundies represent it - ask for quotes if you don't believe me), then the change of family values in the NT reinforce my theses.
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:19 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| Qinella wrote: |
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
Ok. I'm going to try it make it clear that my theses rest on context. Let me try to divide it up into subsections so it'll be easier to read.
Thesis #1: Traditional values cannot exist since values change with culture (here, you see context). |
You'll need to have a rigid definition of traditional. Think about the US. It has only existed for roughly 230 years, yet Americans claim to have traditions.
| Quote: |
Thesis #2: Biblical family values have changed over time (here, you see context).
Thesis #3: Using the Bible as a modern, present-day guide to establishing traditional family values ignores biblical contexts (here, you see context). |
Good.
| Quote: |
| Thesis #4: Modern Christian fundamentalists have no other foundation on which to build a theory of traditional family values other than the Bible. But that cannot work since biblical values have changed over time. (here, you see context). |
What context? This seems to ignore the actual way in which values are formed, which generally has little to do with ideals and scriptures.
| Quote: |
My point in posting an OT passage is not to say, "HAHA. I caught the fundies by posting a passage on 3000 year-old family values." Just the opposite. I use the Bible to make the case that biblical values, like all values, change over time. No modern fundie will push his concubine out the door to be raped all night by vicious villagers. That's just stupid. The passage proves values change, hence there cannot be a traditional system of family values.
Please tell me if I'm not being clear. I will try to summarize better if this is not understandable.
Peace |
Well, I think it is futile. Like I said, traditional can mean as little as three or four generations. Never heard of family generations? (EDIT: That should've been family traditions.)
I'm not trying to criticize you for the sake of criticism, but rather to challenge you. I'm not a Christian, but I do not bear a grudge against the religion, either. I like criticisms of it only if they are sharp, and trust me, that takes thousands of hours, decades even, of research. Have you done that? |
Thesis number four is all about context. My point is that fundamentalists claim the Bible is their foundation for traditional family values, but that cannot be valid inr eality since values change over time.
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:24 pm Post subject: re: |
|
|
| Demophobe wrote: |
Culpa libido fuit, poena libido fuit
I suspect that you are being provocative in this whole thread, that you are not writing a book and that your "thesis" is simply a passing thought.
In the end, I believe you are looking for loopholes to justify yourself and your behavior. I think you are looking for God, but on your own terms.
Only one who is lost in ignorance would take that slice of a complete story and use it for an example of how the Old Testament tells us to behave inside a family unit.
The story outlines that lawlessness of Israel at the time, with shadows of Lot and Sodom thrown in to drive the point home. How anyone could construe this story as any kind of tale condoning the actions of anyone involved is indicative of want of further study of the Bible.
The concubine was an adulteress, a sin before God; one for which she didn't seek repentance, and it was equally wrong for the Levite to also not seek her repentance before God. In the day, accoring to human law, she should have been killed for her transgression, but was forgiven; forgiven by men, but not by God. In the end, her final resting position (kneeling at the doorway, face in the dust) was one of a person seeking to make their sins right before God; a position that she should have taken while she had the chance. God was righteous in His action.
Notice that the narrative fastens no guilt to the "perverted" people of Gibeah. Why do you suppose that is?
In the OP, you say "The first thing that caught my attention...[is] what is called evil and what is called good." Where do you draw these distinctions? It seems you are caught up in the physical scene, not in the meaning. A superficial interpretation, to be sure.
You go on to make one man responsible for your entire representation of defining good and evil. That just isn't there; you are not reading correctly due to your placing the story out of context, and having no further insight into the event and it's significance to preceding and subsequent events. You claim to know the homeowners' motivation for giving up his daughter and the concubine, yet it's clear that you don't. Even from a modern perspective, paralyzing fear and rash, ill-thought out decision making when faced with a threat to not only all you possess, but even (perhaps in your own mind), your very life, don't even come to your attention.
The tale is one of the totally immoral state that Israel was in at the time. How you came to your conclusions based on this particular verse is inexplicable to anyone who has even a small understanding of the Bible, which brings me full circle, in effect, to my accusation that you are using the Bible to serve your own needs. You are misrepresenting events and proof-texting your way along in your "thesis". |
You cannot accuse me of prooftexting unless you read everything I've written, and you can't do that because it's too long to post. In the introduction of my book, I talk about prooftexting, and the fact that there are an equal number of scriptures showing traditional family values as fundamentalist Christians live them today. My reason for posting the passage I posted here is not to say that is what the Bible claims to be traditional family values, but to show that the Bible is a smorgasbord when it comes to what family values are.
I will not answer any more of your posts until you answer the question I asked you before: What is your foundation for traditional family values? Answer that simple question and we can go back and forth until the cows come home.
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:28 pm Post subject: re: |
|
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
| Demophobe wrote: |
The story outlines that lawlessness of Israel at the time, with shadows of Lot and Sodom thrown in to drive the point home. How anyone could construe this story as any kind of tale condoning the actions of anyone involved is indicative of want of further study of the Bible.
|
Yes. Just because something was done and recorded in the Bible doesn't mean it is condoned. The Bible shows God's people at their best and at their worst. It also shows that God is pretty upset with the actions of his people at times and sometimes bemoaned that fact that his people were behaving worse than the other peoples. I don't think "Biblical values" is intended to mean values based on the events/actions that are recorded in the Bible, but rather on the teachings of what his people should do, and as pointed out by Mith, that would primarily be the NT teachings of Christ and his apostles. |
Please do not force me to start posting every abhorrent thing that God actually commanded (according to scripture).
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:29 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Christians definitely cherry pick. Divorce is clearly a sin. God made marriage in heaven and no man should break that. Blah blah. Not many fundies seem to have a problem with divorce, however. But gay marriage. Hold the phone... |
I'm curious if you have any data about this. You may be right, but I know very few Christians who think divorce is okay. But if the stats support you, then you're right to state that it is hypocritical to denounce gay marriage while accepting divorce. |
Whether they think it's ok is something we can really never know. But the stats do show that divorce among Christians is just as high as among non-Christians.
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:35 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
Mith, what you just posted is exactly what I'm getting at. The NT family values change somewhat from OT family values, particularly in Jesus' teaching (or life example) on the importance of women. Change is my point. If the traditional family is claimed to be from the beginning of human history in scripture (as most fundies represent it - ask for quotes if you don't believe me), then the change of family values in the NT reinforce my theses.
|
But are NT family values a change from the original values at the beginning of scripture, or a return to those values? When Jesus talks about divorce, he is changing people's idea about marriage and divorce to realign with the original values:
"3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' [a] 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' [b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."
7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:38 pm Post subject: re: |
|
|
Dr. A Gregory Schneider sums up what I'm trying to say much more succinctly in an article on Dr. James Dobson:
"Dobson says his family ethic is the �Judeo-Christian heritage,� but you take issue with that. What are your objections?
Fundamentally, what I object to is Dobson�s effort to invoke a kind of millenia-long understanding of how human relations should work, when in fact human societies have varied across time and cultures in so many ways, and Christianity has adapted itself and been the salt and leaven in so many of these cultures. Dobson�s claim to represent THE Judeo-Christian heritage seriously obscures the variety of human history and culture.
His reading of Scriptures is such that his family ethic is God�s will for humankind from the Garden of Eden forward, and he can�t grant that all these relationships and norms that people establish are in fact human constructions. A problem with his claim to represent the Judeo-Christian heritage is that it makes evangelicals unwilling to accept human responsibility for the ways they construct their family life."
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:40 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
Mith, what you just posted is exactly what I'm getting at. The NT family values change somewhat from OT family values, particularly in Jesus' teaching (or life example) on the importance of women. Change is my point. If the traditional family is claimed to be from the beginning of human history in scripture (as most fundies represent it - ask for quotes if you don't believe me), then the change of family values in the NT reinforce my theses.
|
But are NT family values a change from the original values at the beginning of scripture, or a return to those values? When Jesus talks about divorce, he is changing people's idea about marriage and divorce to realign with the original values:
"3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' [a] 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' [b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."
7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." |
Isn't a return also a change? And when it comes to religious dogma, Jesus is clear that if a breakup of the family is what is required, then that is what a person should do.
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:44 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
| flakfizer wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Christians definitely cherry pick. Divorce is clearly a sin. God made marriage in heaven and no man should break that. Blah blah. Not many fundies seem to have a problem with divorce, however. But gay marriage. Hold the phone... |
I'm curious if you have any data about this. You may be right, but I know very few Christians who think divorce is okay. But if the stats support you, then you're right to state that it is hypocritical to denounce gay marriage while accepting divorce. |
Whether they think it's ok is something we can really never know. But the stats do show that divorce among Christians is just as high as among non-Christians.
Peace |
Are you talking about christians or "fundamentalist christians" now? Your beef seems to be with the latter group, not the former. It is the latter group that you have been talking about...until just now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:09 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
| flakfizer wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Christians definitely cherry pick. Divorce is clearly a sin. God made marriage in heaven and no man should break that. Blah blah. Not many fundies seem to have a problem with divorce, however. But gay marriage. Hold the phone... |
I'm curious if you have any data about this. You may be right, but I know very few Christians who think divorce is okay. But if the stats support you, then you're right to state that it is hypocritical to denounce gay marriage while accepting divorce. |
Whether they think it's ok is something we can really never know. But the stats do show that divorce among Christians is just as high as among non-Christians.
Peace |
Are you talking about christians or "fundamentalist christians" now? Your beef seems to be with the latter group, not the former. It is the latter group that you have been talking about...until just now. |
In reference to divorce, I am talking about all Christians.
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Qinella
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Location: the crib
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So what you really want to argue, then, is that so-called biblical values have more likely been developed with the Bible as a FAQ guide rather than as a rulebook. Seems kind of interesting, if you go into the ways in which traditional values actually are formed, such as through greater societal good and protection of the family line. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:34 pm Post subject: re: |
|
|
| Qinella wrote: |
| So what you really want to argue, then, is that so-called biblical values have more likely been developed with the Bible as a FAQ guide rather than as a rulebook. Seems kind of interesting, if you go into the ways in which traditional values actually are formed, such as through greater societal good and protection of the family line. |
That is exactly my purpose - thank you for summing it up^^
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So....this....
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
Judges 19:22-30
"While they were enjoying themselves, a crowd of troublemakers from the town surrounded the house. They began beating at the door and shouting, 'Bring out the man who is staying with you so we can have sex with him.' The old man stepped outside to talk to them. 'No, my brothers, don�t do such an evil thing. This man is a guest in my house, and such a thing would bring dishonor to me. Here, take my virgin daughter and this man�s concubine. I will bring them out to you and you can abuse them and do whatever you like. But don�t do such a shameful thing to this man.' But they would not listen to him.
So the Levite took his concubine and pushed her out the door. The men of the town abused her all night taking turns raping her until morning. At dawn they finally let her go. At daybreak, the woman returned to the house where her husband was staying. She collapsed at the door and lay there until it was full daylight. When her husband opened the door to leave, he found his concubine on the ground. He said, 'Get up. Let�s go!' But there was no answer. So he put her body on a donkey and took her home. When he arrived home, he cut up her body into twelve pieces and sent one piece to each tribe."
Where to start? The first thing that caught my attention was not the actual violence of the account, but what is called evil and what is called good. This goes directly to my point of relative sexual/familial ethics. The owner of the house calls it evil to request sex with a stranger (it has nothing to do with man on man sex), but considers it good (or at least better) for the men of the village to rape and possibly kill his own daughters. And the reason he considers such things evil and good is not because of the sexual acts involved, but because of his reputation within the community.
It is just a matter of fact that women were considered property during the historical period in which this story was written, and I am not judging the scenario morally one way or the other in that regard. It is what it is. But fundamentalists should not be able to bypass this story when it comes to developing a set of biblical sexual or family values. So the men abuse the concubine (lucky virgin daughters escaped this one) until morning. The husband finds his dead or near dead concubine on the doorstep (after his morning coffee?) and simply tells her it�s time to go home. There is no attempt at care or resuscitation, just a bit of butchering practice when they arrive home.
Inevitably, my reason for posting this will come into question, and my answer is that I am sick of Christian fundamentalist ignorance equaling bliss. |
....is this?
| Quinella wrote: |
| So what you really want to argue, then, is that so-called biblical values have more likely been developed with the Bible as a FAQ guide rather than as a rulebook. Seems kind of interesting, if you go into the ways in which traditional values actually are formed, such as through greater societal good and protection of the family line. |
Can't wait to read your book. Quinella's your new editor/ ghost writer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 9:31 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Christians definitely cherry pick. Divorce is clearly a sin. God made marriage in heaven and no man should break that. Blah blah. Not many fundies seem to have a problem with divorce, however. But gay marriage. Hold the phone... |
I'm curious if you have any data about this. You may be right, but I know very few Christians who think divorce is okay. But if the stats support you, then you're right to state that it is hypocritical to denounce gay marriage while accepting divorce. |
Do you see any Christians lobbying for a ban on divorce? The moral arguments Christians use on a ban on gay marriage can be applied to divorce. Marriage and family are the corner stone of society. Anything that weakens that, is dangerous for society. Divorce weakens it.
The object of marriage is to have children. Condoms prevent children from being born. We should make condoms illegal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
