Re: The Bible Says to Have a Love/Hate Relationship with Your Parents
Actually, it’s not metaphor that’s being used here, but a trope, a given way of expressing something in a language.
No Spanish speaker saying “Se llama ese arbol un roble” really means that “this tree calls itself an oak” – llamarse is reflexive-used-for-passive for identifying the name given something. And it, not the “esta llamado” passive construction, is the preferred idiomatic way of identifying nomenclature in Spanish. About the only time you’d see the true passive is in a sentence like “Ese gente se llaman ‘Dinneh,’ pero esta llamado ‘los Apaches’ by todos otros gentes.” (“This people calls itself the Dinneh but is called the Apaches by everybody else.”)
Similarly, in American English “Get off your high horse” seldom means, “Remove yourself from the saddle of a taller-than-normal equine mount” but usually “Stop taking yourself so seriously.”
The preferred construction for preference or choice in Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic was not a better/worse, preferred/less-desirable usage like we might adopt, but a dichotomous black-and-white good/bad structure. In the context of this instance of Jesus’s teaching, there is not a direct command to hate one’s parents, but rather the meaning that you should set “honor your father and your mother” (along with every other moral imperative) well below “love the Lord your God” – and Jesus expresses this, not with a quite forgettable, “It’s all well and good to love your parents, but it’s more important to love God” but rather, using the Hebrew dichotomous idiom, in the memorable “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple.” The meaning is not to literally hate parents, siblings, and one’s own life, but to set them as nothing alongside the importance of being Christ’s disciple.
Oh, and this post is made out of seasoned oak, and it’s located in a thread of finest silk.
YOU don’t have to assume anything. but if people are trying to make an intelligent evaluation of something, i think they ought to start by assuming it’s not ridiculous.
i’m not answering this again.
why is it insulting to Judaism? because it disagrees with it? then all of Christianity (as well as every other religion and non-religion) is an insult to Judaism.
and i’m not really sure i understand why you think it’s “crap.” (very eloquent, by the way) please explain.
Polycarp, thanks for clearing up the mess i’ve created re: “hating your parents, etc.” i had a feeling my lack of Biblical proficiency (and apparently, my poor vocuabulary) was going to result in some mistakes on my part. i’m glad others are more enlightened than i, and willing to take the time to edify me.
—why does admitting that different people have different interpretations hurt my argument?—
You are confused as to which argument. It critically damages your concept that cetain things are “misquotes” or “bad things using Christianity as an excuse” simply because they are notwhat you believe the Christian doctrine to justify.
—Actually, it’s not metaphor that’s being used here, but a trope, a given way of expressing something in a language.—
With all due respect, so says you… because it just HAS to be that… or else it wouldn’t be.
“Ei tis erchetai pros me kai ou misei ton patera…” (If someone comes to me and does not hate [his] father…)
The word for “hate” hear is “misei” (literally “he hates”) from the verb “misein.” (to hate) The word has no other meaning in Greek, and I’m not aware of any idiomatic usage such as you are citing in Hebrew, but perhaps you have some more insight into this. (My Koine is rudimentary, my Hebrew non-existent)
it only damages my argument if you assume that all interpretations are equally correct. why do we have to assume that?
with all due respect, well, duh. and for non-Christians, the parts where he says “I am the Son of God” and “I am the Way and the Truth and the Light” HAVE to be false . . . or else they wouldn’t be.
Diogenes, I’m well aware that the phrase in question was written in Koiné Greek, but on the basis that it represents anything more than something which someone writing under the name Luke ascribed to Jeshua bar Mariam, then one has to take into account that Jesus himself apparently thought and taught in Aramaic and was “a student of the [almost-totally-in-Hebrew Jewish] Scriptures.” Hence my bringing that idiomatic use into play. You will find less extreme examples of it in most of Hebrew poetry, founded as it is on a compare-and-contrast stylistics. Some examples:
—it only damages my argument if you assume that all interpretations are equally correct. why do we have to assume that?—
Because otherwise you’re simply playing word games. That’s the right interpretation because Jesus is good (in MY particular understanding of “good”), anything else would be bad, so therefore that’s what Jesus must have meant. The case rests entirely on your preconception of what Jesus must be advocating (i.e., your particular views)
That’s not to say that there aren’t cases of obvious misreads and misinterpretations. But that’s not how you have been treating this issue: you’ve been acting as if they must be defacto misreads or out of context just because if they weren’t, it would look bad. And in the context of a lot of these passages, the case just isn’t very strong either way, especially if you are willing to delve into metaphor and analougy and poetic allusion and other such non-literal devices: which multiples the possible readings of not only this, but all other passages, exponentially.
—with all due respect, well, duh. and for non-Christians, the parts where he says “I am the Son of God” and “I am the Way and the Truth and the Light” HAVE to be false . . . or else they wouldn’t be.—
No, not duh. Polycarp does not represent all Christians, nor all Christian interpretations of that, or any other passage.
And I don’t seem to recall Jesus telling people to hate their families and go around killing people. That must have been in the Book of Not Bloody Likely.
ElJeffe, do you want to go with “we are we taking it out of context; or is it a metaphor; or one must go back to the originals to find out what that scripture really means?”
Well, you used Jesus as a role-model for J-C views, when I asked for an example of who fit that description, but now you come up with he was the son of God and he performed miracles, so that it is really taking Jesus out of context. You’ve stated you’re not a Christian, and objected to it for various reasons moral and logical. So again, if this is the case, do you believe the miracles? That’s what I had asked of you earlier. But my whole premise from the OP throughout this discussion is for somebody to give me some good examples in the Bible of those who would meet those traditional family J-C values that politicians and other conservative religious folk keep talking about. You said it wasn’t based on any families in the Bible, only on how the Bible teaches people to live. But right after you said that you picked Jesus as a good role-model.
Now certainly who Jesus really was has great relevence on a grander scale - if he wasn’t as the Bible says he was, then Christianity is no more useful than Greek mythology as the sort of cosmic user’s manual it’s presented as. However, nobody on this world is ever going to know one way or the other (until they die, at least), so that’s all secondary.
This coming from somebody who says he isn’t a Christian. And no, ElJeffe, if it is bunk, one isn’t going to know when they die.
Yep, and I think Polycarp just did. According to the “One-Volume Commentary on the Bible” which is made up of 70 different scholars from Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Jewish faiths, there is no mention of it to be used as metaphor, either. If you have that book, turn to page 693 and read the section Luke 14:25-27, “Demands of the Kingdom.” If you don’t have it, I’ll quote it here:
“The announcement that the kingdom is open to all leads to the assembling of great multitudes. Now it is seen that on those who are invited sharp demands are laid. The source is basically L. First the kingdom demands renunciation of the family. This saying has a parallel in both Matt. 10:37-38 and the Gospel of Thomas. The latter agrees with Luke in making the demands more stringent; one must hate his own father and mother. To Matt.’s list of “son or daughter” Luke adds wife…,brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life. This last demand is illustrated by the word about bearing one’s cross, which comes from Q (cf.Matt.10:38) and duplicates a similar word previously taken from Mark (see above on 9:23-26). The cross, a symbol of execution, indicates that a man must renounce all to follow Jesus.* John, i think we’d probably be on the same side of a debate on Constitutional interpretation,
I haven’t talked about Constitutional interpretation other than very briefly telling you I disagreed with you several posts up that the Ten Commandments played a big inspirational role in our Constitution. Other posters have spent more time with this.
but i think your literal interpretation of the Bible is a little surprising. you strike me as very intelligent, and i have a hard time believing you could read these passages with the same lack of comprehension as those idiots that used the Bible to condone slavery.
Just consider me as one of those idiots then, that also think that Jesus was pro-slavery and he condoned it. I’ve briefly brought this up here at SD another time. One religious poster didn’t deny Jesus’ stance, but said one had to look at the political climate at the time. And he further said slaves then were really treated quite good, unlike the slaves that we often think of. Anyway, slavery was quite acceptable in the Bible, and the NT is just as much pro-slavery as the OT. AFAIK, I don’t think there is a single directive or any scriptures that even once mentions slavery is a sin or it is condemned or prohibited anywhere. There are plenty that state what rules are laid out for various kinds of slaves, and slave owners. And going back to older texts will not help ones “anti-slavery” stance here either. If my reference material is correct, there are several thousand times, where the older Hebrew and Greek texts honestly translated it as slaves, but texts of today have taken it out and use other words substituted in their place: words such as servant, maid, man servant, bondage, bondsmaid, maidservant and many more we will get into if you want a discussion on this. In fact, today, the KJV only mentions the word “slave” twice. Once in the singular and another in the plural. If you want to just limit the discussion to what we find in the Bible today, without going to the older texts, that would be fine with me too. It makes no difference to me. Start an entirely new topic on it, and I‘ll be there.
**i have a feeling that your Joe Friday “just the facts, ma’am” interpretation is to prove a point, but since I’d rather not waste my time putting all those passages in their proper context, and since i think you probably already know what i’d say, let’s just assume i’ve said it and move on. **
Let’s not assume you’ve said it and move on. What particular verse are you referring to? The Matthew 19:12 verse? Give this one a whirl, or pick another.
**if you re-read those passages and still can’t figure out what’s going on, let me know and i’ll try and break down the metaphors. **
Thanks. I like someone with confidence and hope your ability matches it. And let me know if you need any more help with Luke 14:26 if you still think that is to be used as metaphor as well.
. . .
you’ve been acting as if they must be defacto misreads or out of context just because if they weren’t, it would look bad.
[/quote]
i certainly haven’t meant to do this. i went back and looked, and i’m guessing you gathered that from when i said this:
well, i certainly have my preconceived notions about what’s good and bad. and perhaps i’m guilty of this to some extent. when i do it, i’d encourage you to call me on it. there are certainly parts of the Bible that i would love to pretend didn’t exist because they probably cast God and/or Jesus in a light people today would look upon unfavorably. but i try and interpret the Bible according to what it says, and not what i want it to say.
and regardless, i don’t think we’re stuck with “word games” based solely on our preconceived notions about Jesus. for example, our analysis of the “hate your parents” provision isn’t based solely on preconceived notions. we’ve got linguistic and historical analysis provided by Polycarp and Diogenes. i’m certainly willing to admit that their analysis is better than mine because they look at a broader array of factors.
we’ve also got textual analysis in light of other provisions elsewhere in the Bible that would be rendered inconsistent. we certainly didn’t need to only resort to our pre-conceived notions or the individual provisions of the Declaration of Independence to be able to interpret what the founders meant when they talked about “God” and “the Creator.”
and we’ve got the rest of the chapter, which isn’t talking about why parents are bad and deserving our hatred, but how hard it is to follow God’s path, and how important, so people should put it first and be prepared to sacrifice to achieve it.
so why are we stuck with “word games” here?
again, maybe i don’t understand your argument, but i still don’t think all Christians have to agree on one interpretation. the interpretation of literature – any literature, but especially literature so filled with allegory and [ahem] trope and poetic license – is not a math equation, enabling the reader to add up all the factors and arrive at a neat conclusion. and the fact that people derive different conclusions from looking at the same words doesn’t render all analysis worthless. in the same way that we can derive the actual meaning of the words in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence by looking at related works and concepts, we can make a meaningful analysis of Scripture by looking at the work as a whole and related works, etc. again, it’s possible that i’m missing your point, so if i am, please let me know.
I’m going to defer to you on your knowledge of Hebrew idiom, but I’d like to remind you that Luke was written more than half a century after the crucifixion (about 90 CE) by a Greek who probably did not know Hebrew. The phrase also occurs in Matthew in a slightly shorter form. It is possible that the original pericope was historical (in fact, its occurrance in Thomas probably cinches it) and that the original Hebrew idiom was translated literally into Greek. However this a pretty obscure point vis a vis the NT’s influence on American social values. The NT certainly SEEMS to say that Jesus said “hate your family.” From a purely prima facia reading of Luke (or Matthew) one does not get the “Leave it to Beaver” sense of family values.
when reading the Constitution, judges tend to be placed (at least by conservatives) into “judicial activism” and “judicial restraint” categories. those who exercise “judicial restraint” tend to apply the Constitution more literally: “it says this, so this is what it means.” those who are labelled “judicial activists” tend to be accused of reading more into the Constitution than is actually there: “there are a bunch of rights that, when read together, seem to indicate that the government was supposed to stay out of people’s personal affairs, so we’ll interpret that to mean that there is a Constitutional right to privacy.” i was actually making light of your literal interpretation of the Bible, and comparing it to my own rather literal interpretation of the Constitution. i didn’t mean to include you in a debate that you didn’t take part in. it was a joke.
as for Luke 14:25-26, i’m a little disappointed you missed our earlier discussion on it. i realize that your concordance doesn’t discuss it as a metaphor, trope, or anything non-literal. but it doesn’t exclude that possibility either. in fact, there’s not really any discussion of it. but since you seem to be looking for some outside authority, here are some “authorities” that interpret Luke 14 in line with what’s been previously discussed (i.e., non-literal interpretations):
there. can i stop now? that’s four to your one. and i’m sure there are more. does that mean i win? but i’d rather that we agree to use our own brains, rather than just relying on “well, someone else told me this.” and has it occured to you that you’re relying for your Biblical interpretation on something that a bunch of religious folk told you?
and i’d really rather not get into slavery. it’s a whole 'nother ball of wax, and i’ve got plenty of other things to do.
Whew, we’re sure getting bogged down in the “interpretation” game, aren’t we? Supporters argue that “Judeo-Christian values” are/were/should be the basis of our laws and political traditions, but never give us a thorough summation of what they consist of. Instead they give a vague characterization, offer two or three examples (ignoring ones that are clearly unacceptable), or point to the Bible and say “it’s all in there”. But again, the Bible is tremendously long and complex and the debate over interpretation has been raging for millennia. This doesn’t exactly provide the kind of clarity needed upon which to base laws.
Furthermore, to me one greatest indictments of J-C values is not what’s included or how it’s interpreted but what’s left out. Specifically, the need to protect the environment. My belief is that this is one of the top commandments of the “Nature’s God” referred to by Jefferson.
I’m not impressed with your skills and ability to cut and paste long-winded quotes; and to give numerous cites (most didn’t open) all the while claiming for us to use our own brains rather than relying on someone else, in the same breath. That one source I quoted from was a popular religious commentary that didn’t consist of one, but 70 scholars, and I managed to do it with just a brief quote. Brevity gets bonus points. You remind me of another poster, who wasn’t able to distinguish what pertinent parts he needed to get either.
and has it occurred to you that you’re relying for your Biblical interpretation on something that a bunch of religious folk told you?
It is? Damn, now that you mention it, I guess those scholars were religious folk after all. And just what kind of excuse would you have had, if I’d used a secular source? You seemed shocked that one would read that verse for what it is, so I think it was pertinent that I used a popular religious source that did just that. You’ve pretty much said that an idiot would take such a approach, so take it up with them. I’m sure they will send out retractions with their next publication.
**for Luke 14:25-26, i’m a little disappointed you missed our earlier discussion on it. i realize that your concordance doesn’t discuss it as a metaphor, trope, or anything non-literal. but it doesn’t exclude that possibility either. in fact, there’s not really any discussion of it. but since you seem to be looking for some outside authority, here are some “authorities” that interpret Luke 14 in line with what’s been previously discussed (i.e., non-literal interpretations): **
I think you missed it, as well as the point I was making, so let‘s not talk about disappointment. All anyone can do, is read and study the texts for themselves, and make a decision based on that. So to recap, you think it is a metaphor. Polycarp argues for something close, a trope. And who knows what is the latest on ElJeffe. Besides myself, there are a few they think it was literal, not to mention a popular religious source making Luke‘s case for it to be literal, and showing how stringent the demands of the kingdom were. There are a lot more demands that Jesus asks of his followers, which I think modern Christians of today, would also rather give it a more liberal meaning to fit their lifestyles of today too. I think the history of that period of Christianity, and Jesus’ teaching’s are not even remotely anything what modern Christians of today represent. Which to me, shows, there isn’t really anything that conservative Christians are really wanting to get back to when they say “we need to get back traditional J-C family values.” I think most are quite fat and happy for things just the way they are.
and i’d really rather not get into slavery. it’s a whole 'nother ball of wax, and i’ve got plenty of other things to do.
I figured such. Well, let me know when you can find the time.
Let me ask you: If the politicians instead got up there and said, “We should not kill each other, or steal from each other, and we should love our kids, and do what’s right for them, and married couples are probably best suited for the task, and adultery is kind of a no-no, and…” would you be offended by it? Why is it bad to use “JC values” as shorthand for all that other stuff? Just because the term “JC” is linked to Jesus?**
When those values are specifically linked to particular religion, yes, I do see it as bad. I see it as government endorsement of religion. I don’t have a problem with a politician saying we need to be ethical or moral but I do object when a politician say we need to follow a specific brand of morality such as the J/C ethics/moral system.
Why are these values labelled specifically Judeo-Christian values, since all religions have them? By labelling them “Judeo-Christian” it implies that they specifically belong to that morality/ethics system and other religions don’t have them.
To me, this implies the politician is trying to sway people by appealing to their religious beliefs and use an “us vs them” mentality or he (or she) is really trying to legislate those values. Or he (or she) could simply be using a buzz word to appeal to the lowest common denominator. He’s using the phrase to get votes rather than “instill” those values back into the population.
The vast majority of people in this nation follow, more or less, a Christian moral system. People deviate from it somewhat, but by and large, it’s what they follow. Does Christianity have a monopoly on all these moral beliefs? Of course not. But just because you choose to give your moral system another name doesn’t mean it’s not essentially Christian in nature.
We’re back to the point again of asking why those values you listed above are labelled J/C values when they’re obviously shared by all religions.
My moral/ethical system is NOT based in the J/C ethic. It shares some common themes which all religions share but it is not based in the J/C Bible.
Whew, the “Judaeo-Christian” biblical interpretation debate has gotten thick and tangled. I think I’ll bypass it and return to John Zahn’s OP.
I too have an uneasy feeling that “family values” is a political “code word” to mean a certain social conservative agenda. Even though there are many kinds of families, I get the impression that only one kind is allowed in this way of thinking. The Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson kind.
Just as “law ‘n’ order” is a well-known code word for racists meaning “Let’s keep the N*****s in their place and maintain the domination of the White Man,” so “family values” means “Let us (the Religious Right) take power away from Feminists and Gays, and especially from those rotten evil <ugh> liberals.”
The tricky thing about these political code words is, on the surface of ths expression, who could object to lawfulness? or families? But the good ol’ boys nudge and wink at one another when they say it, “You know what I mean.” So when the comedy film Addams Family Values cleverly appropriated the current political buzzword for entertainment value, I appreciated the mild satire it implied. (Although there was nothing political about the movie itself.)
if you’re not interested in the Biblical interpretation discussion between John and i, please feel free to skip down to the ****s.
first of all, i wasn’t “claiming for us to use our own brains,” i was requesting that we use our own brains. you cited to your Biblical commentary as though it was the last word on Biblical interpretation. i was requesting that we refrain from citing to “authorities” as though that should take the place of reasoned analysis of the type offered by Polycarp and Diogenes. that seemed to be what you were resorting to, since “70 scholars have apparently adopted my interpretation” was the only reason you put forward for why your literal interpretation was more appropriate.
the long-winded quotes were long because the discussions were long. brevity does not “get bonus points” if the actual answer is complicated and requires extended discussion. i’ve provided more information so you can make a fair evaluation of my position. but hey, if you can’t criticize the quotes themselves, why not just criticize the manner in which they’re presented? much easier, right? since you seem unwilling to chew your own food, here:
Matthew-Henry:
IVP New Testament Commentaries:
John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible:
David Guzik’s study guide:
by the way, your insinuation that i provided bad links (to hide the evidence from you? because i made the quotes up myself?) is hilarious. if they still won’t open, i’d suggest a google search. that’s how i found them.
why are you so fixated on your commentary and the number of scholars that contributed to it? Biblical interpretation is not democratic, nor has it been autocratic since at least Martin Luther. if anything, the number of scholars, and the diversity of their views on the Bible, would hamper their ability to put forward any coherent analysis. if you put a bunch of Jews and Baptists in one room, do you really think they’re going to be able to write a New Testament commentary together? they can’t even agree on who Jesus was.
if your point is that there are different interpretations of the Bible, i agree. but again, you’re going to have to explain to me why a literal interpretation is better, and why i should care whether your interpretation is different.
i was trying to let you decide which parts you need. perhaps you choose to debate by obfuscation of evidence, but i’d rather get the facts out and let people make a fair evaluation for themselves. my goal isn’t to win this debate, it’s to figure out the truth.
i don’t think i’ve “pretty much” said anything of the kind, but i’d rather take it up with the “idiot” (your word, not mine) right here. and i’m still waiting for evidence that the literal interpretation is more appropriate, aside from your dogmatic assertions. do you have any?
actually, the battle lines would probably come down like this:
literal: you and possibly the editors of your commentary.
non-literal: me, Polycarp, the Matthew-Henry folks, the IVP New Testament Commentaries folks, the John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible folks, the David Guzik’s study guide folks, and possibly Diogenes.
and finally, the point. you’re arguing that the values from the Bible aren’t actually related to the modern Christian values that are the “family values” people refer to, right?
first, it’s at least debatable whether your literal interpretation of the Bible – and thus, Biblical values – is the proper interpretation, since you’ve offered no evidence to support your position.
second, let’s be honest. while conservative politicians would like to think they have a monopoly on “family values,” they’re not the only ones that are using the “family values” rhetoric – it crosses the entire political spectrum.
third, while i certainly don’t think rhetorical short-cuts should replace policy, the fact is that candidates are hampered by modern soundbites. on the news, candidates’ speaking clips are limited to a few seconds or less. even in debates, which are supposed to be a national forum for laying out policies and platforms, candidates are limited to 90 seconds to state their positions in response to detailed questions. a candidate could easily spend 90 minutes talking about what he means by “getting back to family values.” even the most sincere candidates are forced to resort to buzzwords and rhetoric to get their message out.
do i think that modern family values are different from some of the values that can be extracted from the Bible, not just by people like John who have a reason to extract the most ridiculous interpretations, but by well-meaning Christians? sure.
what does “family values” mean, specifically? heck if i know. i think we’ve all got a general idea, but the specifics are pretty vague to the point of being impossible to figure out. “traditional J-C values” (and again, my apologies to the J’s who don’t want anything to do with the values of C’s) may refer to J-C ethics from 2000 years ago, or 20 years ago. i don’t know. but the phrase is certainly no less exact than “improve education” or “preserve our environment,” “welfare reform” or “gun control,” or even “liberal” or “conservative.”
sqweels has raised some good points. i do think that some candidates are using phrases like “family values” without either knowing what they mean or sincerely believing in them. i also think some candidates use them only to bait voters. and i would like for more and different things to be included under the umbrella of “family values.” but i don’t think that the use of the term “family values” is necessarily bad. it’s just a shortcut for the things that ElJeffe pointed out.
nor do i think its religious connotations are necessarily bad. the vast majority of Americans consider themselves religious. as long as we’re allowing our elected representatives to pass morality legislation (which i am personally against), it seems perfectly reasonable to allow politicians to tout themselves as being religious, and sharing the same religious morals as their constituents. i don’t think allowing politicians to be religious and talk about their values is “establishing a religion” in the sense prohibited by the Constitution, and frankly, i doubt it’s even marginally influential on those that don’t share the politician’s religion.
okee-dokee. do you have some evidence of this? if so, please share it with the group.
oddly enough, i’ve never actually seen one of these “good ol’ boys,” so i’m going to have to ask for some evidence of this.
Okay, so you like the word, that you “requested” it, which doesn’t change it one iota. With the latest post you just regurgitate your earlier post of reading off commentaries, and it’s still not any more impressive for you to be making such a request while doing this.
why are you so fixated on your commentary and the number of scholars that contributed to it?
I will try to dumb it down for you but this will probably by the last common denominator I can go:
Well, I found the idiot that said that:
matty: but i think your literal interpretation of the Bible is a little surprising. you strike me as very intelligent, and i have a hard time believing you could read these passages with the same lack of comprehension as those idiots that used the Bible to condone slavery.
Oh that would be you, wouldn’t it? That was the only reason I thought it was pertinent to find a religious source that would read it the same way I did. Nobody said anything about it being the final word, and I don’t recall me or anyone else claiming that any religious commentaries wouldn’t have it as a figurative expression. There is more that I could comment on with why I think a literal approach is correct with this verse, but I didn’t want the thread getting bogged down with just this. The difference being, you make quite a few charges for those that do take a literal reading. We’ve been on Luke 14:25-27 for virtually this entire discussion, so unless you have some other passage then be specific and cite it. And I’ve given you the challenge to demonstrate it if you think the Bible is anti-slavery, using both the OT and NT, but you mentioned time constraint problems. Brevity might not get bonus points with you, but it will help to keep most of us awake and interested if you will get on with it.
Also with this last post:
do i think that modern family values are different from some of the values that can be extracted from the Bible, not just by people like John who have a reason to extract the most ridiculous interpretations, but by well-meaning Christians? sure.
Again, you have got to be more specific. You’ve claimed earlier that that was one of your pet peeves of when someone asserts someone dogmatically, and somebody called you on it, but yet you continue to do this. So just more allegations, but short on demonstrating. I can’t read your mind. When I do try, I draw a blank, so be specific.
by the way, your insinuation that i provided bad links (to hide the evidence from you? because i made the quotes up myself?) is hilarious.
Well, you’re easily entertained then. I didn’t insinuate anything. I stated “most didn’t open.” That was it. Your imagination is getting carried away with the “hide the evidence.”
what does “family values” mean, specifically? heck if i know. i think we’ve all got a general idea, but the specifics are pretty vague to the point of being impossible to figure out. “traditional J-C values” (and again, my apologies to the J’s who don’t want anything to do with the values of C’s) may refer to J-C ethics from 2000 years ago, or 20 years ago.
That was my OP. If you don’t know, then I’m not interested in your mindless speculation. Why is this so difficult? All I’ve asked throughout this discussion, is for someone to give some good family role model that is portrayed in the Bible. Somebody that isn’t a mass-murderer I think would be one qualification. Somebody that was married to only one woman would be another. There are many more qualifications, but let us at least find some that meets just those two qualifications for now before we go further. They don’t have to be perfect. Not even close.
[**first, it’s at least debatable whether your literal interpretation of the Bible – and thus, Biblical values – is the proper interpretation, since you’ve offered no evidence to support your position. **
**and i’m still waiting for evidence that the literal interpretation is more appropriate, aside from your dogmatic assertions. do you have any? **
[/quote]
If you have a source showing a figurative way to interpret that verse, I suppose it’s evidence. When I show a religious source, that showed they took it as literally, you call it no evidence, and that it is my own dogmatic assertion. Also, if I at least have a source showing the same assertion as mine, it’s hardly my own assertion, so you can‘t even connect the dots here. You’re pathetic.
I’m with you on the mass murder, but I’m not sure why polygamy would indicate that someone isn’t a “good family role model”. Is there some reason you believe this to be the case?
