Getting back to traditional Judeo-Christian family values

[mattymillhouse]

i can’t believe i’m doing this.

i never called you an idiot. here is the passage in which you claim that i called you an idiot.

by mattymillhouse:
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.

so let’s play some multiple choice:
in that statement, do i a) say you are an idiot; b) say that your literal interpretation of the Bible makes you an idiot; or c) say that you strike me as very intelligent?

the answer, obviously, is c), and only c). still don’t get it? still think i called you an idiot? i’ll make a little easier for you. the people that i called idiots were those that “used the Bible to condone slavery.” have you used the Bible to condone slavery? no? then quit saying that i called you an idiot. keep it up and you might prove me wrong. at the very least, your inability to interpret my posts here destroys your credibility when it comes to interpreting the Bible.

*Originally posted by mattymillhouse *
first of all, i wasn’t “claiming for us to use our own brains,” i was requesting that we use our own brains.

by John Zahn:
Okay, so you like the word, that you “requested” it, which doesn’t change it one iota.

actually, when you change the words in a sentence, and the new words have different definitions than the old words, it usually does change the meaning of a sentence. in this case, it changes it from a sentence that makes no sense (“i was claiming for us to use our own brains”) to one that does (“i was requesting that we use our own brains.”). once again, it’s difficult to put much credence in your Biblical interpretation if you don’t know this.

by mattymillhouse:
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.

by John Zahn:
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.

first of all, a speaker doesn’t assert “someone dogmatically,” a speaker asserts something dogmatically.

second, you’re drawing a blank because of something that psychologists call “projection.”

but more importantly, why is this a dogmatic assertion? read it again. i’m agreeing with you. and if you’re still looking for evidence that reasonable people can extract different values from the Bible, then i’ll cite to this entire thread, where plenty of people have been debating Biblical interpretation, and everyone seems pretty reasonable. except maybe you, who has resorted to responding to made-up arguments. this should not have needed citation. and once again, your inability to interpret my simple post is killing your credibility.

by John Zahn: 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.

they’re not evidence. how many times do i have to say this? neither your “source” nor my “sources” are evidence of how to correctly interpret the Bible because they don’t give reasons for their interpretations. they’re evidence that people have those opinions, but so what? we’re talking about evidence of which is the correct opinion.

i’ve now said multiple times that evidence is what Polycarp and Diogenese offered. it’s any of the things i already cited in my previous posts. for example, when i referred to “linguistic and historical analysis provided by Polycarp and Diogenes [,]. . . textual analysis in light of other provisions elsewhere in the Bible that would be rendered inconsistent[,] . . . [and] 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.” that’s evidence and analysis. you’ve provided neither.

you’re going to have to start reading my posts.

as for whether it’s your assertion, who was posting all those messages? was it the illustrious 70 scholars? or was it you? because if it was you, then you’re making the assertions. but again, anyone who speaks english ought to know that.

by mattymillhouse:
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.

by John Zahn:
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.

this is difficult because you keep responding to non-existent arguments, and then accusing me of “mindless speculation” and being “pathetic.” please note that i said “i think we’ve all got a general idea” what is meant by “family values.” please also note my previous post when i cited to ElJefffe’s definition approvingly.

here’s another problem: you keep plowing ahead with your analysis as if all of your propositions have been proven, when they haven’t. for example, i say that the family values referred to are enunciated in the Bible. you say, “no they aren’t. the Bible says hate your mother and father.” i say that Bible verse is not supposed to be interpreted literally, and Diogenes and Polycarp provide evidence and a thorough discussion of this topic, we do a historical and linguistical analysis, a textual analysis of other provisions in the Bible, and look at the rest of the chapter, and all the evidence points to the conclusion that the verse is not supposed to be interpreted literally. you respond by saying “no, the literal interpretation is that you should hate your mother and father. so since we can’t rely on the values stated by Jesus, please point to someone in the Bible that’s a good role model.”

you haven’t even responded to the argument, let alone proven your original point.

i’m not going to retype all of my posts on this, so you’re just going to have to read them (again? for the first time?). “J-C family values” are predominantly those enunciated by Jesus in the New Testament.

if you’re looking for an example of someone perfect in the Bible, you’re missing the point. “all fall short of the grace of God.” only one person in the Bible is even alleged to have been perfect, and it appears that you disagree with this assertion based on some “flaws” your have alleged exist in Jesus. nobody else in the Bible is perfect because they’re human, they fall short of the grace of God, and the Bible shows that.

however, even these supposedly horrible people still provide some good examples of family values in their actions. what about the story of the prodigal son? what about the poor woman who gives two pennies to charity, and Jesus says it’s more than all the rich people combined? what about the woman who washes Jesus’s feet with her hair? what about the story of love and devotion from Ruth: “Do not urge me to leave you or to turn my back from you. For wither thou goest, I will go …Your people shall be my people, and your God my God.” (Ruth 1:16-17). and what about 1 Timothy 5:8: “And whoever does not provide for relatives, and especially for family members, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” what about Romans 12, which states “Let love be genuine, hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good; love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor. Do not lag in zeal, be ardent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in suffering, persevere in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints; extend hospitality to strangers.”

any of those sound like the “family values” we’re talking about?

and if, against all reason, you’re still not convinced that “family values” can be found in the Bible, then there are some examples of good role models. how about Ruth? or Joseph? or Daniel? or Dorcus (Acts 9)? and let’s not forget that Jesus was neither a polygamist nor a mass-murderer, so although He never married, He still fits your criteria.

[Apos]

—all the evidence points to the conclusion that the verse is not supposed to be interpreted literally.—

Not so, especially since the argument for the figurative interpretation seems to rely largely on the idea that Jesus would never say such a thing (which is a little circular since we are discussing what Jesus might have supported). It’s really not clear what Jesus meant, and arguments that take either side as a strong truth are probably overstepping things.

A much deeper problem is simply that, given the wide ranging interpretation of such passages, it seems a little misleading to speak as if it was always clear what Judeo-Christian “family values” were, regardless of what YOU think is the most compelling reading. What’s relevant is not the text itself: it’s the values that the people pushing “family values” think the tradition represents.

An example: whether or not you think the Bible justifies or at least fails to hold slavery as wrong, if someone pushes Biblical values, then what matters to the discussion of their push is what THEY mean by it. For millenia it meant that slavery could not be conclusively held to be morally wrong (just as capital punishment cannot reasonably be outlawed as being everywhere unconstitutional since it is explictly referenced and tolerated in the constitution). That later Christians repudiated this view, holding that other values in the Bible trump its toleration and regulation of slavery (holding it to be a creature of culture, not morallity: which I think is still something of a failure in the context of a God who otherwise does not hold back in condemming bad things even if they are culturally accepted), is beside the point: what matters is what the people with the message mean by it, not what John Zhan or you, or anyone else thinks it SHOULD mean.

[John_Zahn]

*Originally posted by mattymillhouse *
they’re not evidence. how many times do i have to say this? neither your “source” nor my “sources” are evidence

One post up from this you accused me of insinuating that you were “hiding the evidence” when I simply said that most cites that you had didn’t open. Your words, so it changes from post to post. And what one may consider evidence, another may not. So even if others have used some linguistic or historical analysis that impresses the shorts right off of your but, it’s still an opinion. Nothing concrete.

if you’re looking for an example of someone perfect in the Bible, you’re missing the point.

Ahem… From my last post:

All I’ve asked throughout this discussion, is for someone to give some good family role model that is portrayed in the Bible. {snip} They don’t have to be perfect. Not even close.

Besides the biblical god, and Jesus, I think the Bible mentions others that were perfect in all of their day even though they weren’t. Asa is another one that comes to mind. I think David, too, although it also has other verses which say just the opposite. Of the hundreds and hundreds of characters portrayed in the Bible, you address this more with your scanty list, and I’ll get to that in due time towards the end of my post

second, you’re drawing a blank because of something that psychologists call "projection."

Is that right? You reckon those psychologist would say I was drawing a blank because it was blank?

**matty: the answer, obviously, is c), and only c). still don’t get it? still think i called you an idiot? i’ll make a little easier for you. the people that i called idiots were those that “used the Bible to condone slavery.” have you used the Bible to condone slavery? **

Your multiple choice, is only craw-fishing. Not even a nice try. What you stressed: “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.” It‘s equivalent to saying if you interpret those verses as literal, then you have the same lack of comprehension and are on par with the idiots that condoned slavery. But more to the point, did Jesus condone slavery? And was he an idiot if he did?

**actually, when you change the words in a sentence, and the new words have different definitions than the old words, it usually does change the meaning of a sentence. in this case, it changes it from a sentence that makes no sense (“i was claiming for us to use our own brains”) to one that does (“i was requesting that we use our own brains.”). once again, it’s difficult to put much credence in your Biblical interpretation if you don’t know this. **

Oh, sort of like change “hate” to really mean “honor” in Luke, eh? And you want to put credence into your biblical interpretation? Well, I can make several arguments out of this. But let me get to your most recent nonsense first. For one, it didn’t cause the sentence to make no sense simply because I paraphrased your words. You often make much-ado-verbiage- that signifies nothing. Secondly, in the context I presented it, it made perfect sense although you snipped it, but it was presented with you requesting us using our own brains, in the same post you spent virtually all of it quoting others. So you just don’t recognize irony or are you just playing ignorant?

Back to Luke 14:25-27: You say that the verse shouldn’t be taken as literal, because in other segments he has said honor thy father and mother, so that scripture doesn’t mean what it really says, and that it is a metaphor. Matthew (10:34-39) reiterates what Luke says but with his viewpoint, although not quite as harsh as words. If you take it as metaphor in Luke, what do you take of Matthew’s as? More metaphor? In John 12:25 when it says: “He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.” More metaphor to you simply because there is an OT commandment that says to honor thy father and mother? Jesus continues with *“And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.“ * This is in Matthew 19:29-30 and also repeated in Mark 10:29-30, and Luke 18:29-30. A hypothetical: If you have a father or other family member that didn’t agree with your religion, would you forsake them to follow Jesus for his cause? And does it not instruct you that you will be rewarded for it a hundred fold as well as inherit eternal life, if you did? Or is this another one of those figurative forms of speech, that one shouldn’t take too seriously? Also if the cross is symbolic for execution that is used in Matthew and Luke, and if you take it to mean giving up one‘s life, and/or suffering persecution–, and no doubt, in those days there was plenty of that–but in this day, what cross are Christians bearing?

as for whether it’s your assertion, who was posting all those messages? was it the illustrious 70 scholars? or was it you? because if it was you, then you’re making the assertions. but again, anyone who speaks english ought to know that.

Except you. I see you never did connect the dots.

any of those sound like the “family values” we’re talking about?

Yep. With some of them. In fact, some are quite good. They really are. There just isn’t enough of it in this book. And actually I think most pertain to good deeds, but hey at this point, close enough. Also, about half of these that are on this list are only mentioned in just a few skimpy passages, and virtually nothing is known about them or their families. I think if the so-called good book would have spent more time concentrating on these type of passages and people, assuming they were as good as what was presented, instead of littering its pages with scatological pages galore, mass-murderers, polygamist’s, robbers, adulterer’s, looters, liars, and the most barbaric, racist, sexist, bigoted, vengeful, disgusting, bloodthirsty, psychopathic, fiend that they call God, it would serve as a better example of a good book that could be a guide for family values. And did I mention he wasn‘t very nice? Do you believe in the Trinity, Matt? Is Jesus really the same God of the OT? If you believe this, can you honestly say that you love this biblical god more than your own father and mother, brother and sister, son and daughter? If you don’t have time to answer nothing else, I hope you will address this and explain why you think it is so admirable and commendable to think so highly of this biblical god that does all of these dastardly deeds. And why would you think less of your own family member who didn’t commit such acts of turpitudes that this biblical god does repeatedly.

More to your list. Other than a handful of people we really know nothing about, except a few scant passages, you bring up more well known names such as Ruth, Joseph, Daniel and Jesus, out of the hundreds of characters in the Bible that you could have picked from. And for the most part, wouldn’t you say it’s a pretty skimpy list? If you have intimate knowledge of Daniel’s family you will have to enlighten me on that. I hope it didn’t come from the same dreams and visions that he was having. And are you using the NT Joseph or the Joseph in the OT? There are quite a few in the OT. In the NT, Joseph is rarely mentioned other than when he is brought up in genealogical charts to show he was Jesus’ parent, or when he has his dream. The popular OT Joseph was an adulterer. The other Joseph’s mentioned, virtually nothing is known about them. With Ruth, it‘s a short story, but one filled with lascivious behavior, and also of one where she probably takes recompense for sex. If the story of Jesus saving an adulteress really happened, I certainly think that is admirable, as well as in other places he shines. But having the woman wash his feet with her hair doesn‘t surprise me even if she wanted to do that. And I don’t think much of a man that would allow a woman to do this. And try that with your mom sometime. I think many times Jesus shows a misogynist attitude towards women. He never spoke out against slavery, but yet instructed slave owners and slaves on how to behave. I realize it was a different day and age, but if Jesus was really God, this would have been a good time for him to speak out against it, but he never bothered to think it important enough to put alongside there with the 10 commandments. His status even gets lower for him wanting eternal punishment for those that didn’t believe in him. For Trinitarians, he wasn’t just the messenger; it was his message. I had plenty more to say about Jesus, but I only have a couple of hours this evening.

Well, I didn’t say they had to be perfect; or even close, and you certainly have provided that.

JZ

[John_Zahn]

*Originally posted by Lilairen *
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?

In countries where this is tolerated, I have a feeling many would have strong objections to object to them for a good family role model solely for that reason. I feel there are many personal, social and global problems that would result if it was practiced on a wider scale. I don’t think it is even widely practiced where it is legal. On a personal scale, I think it is extremely irresponsible to have this many wives and kids. Of the very few I’ve seen or read about–at least in the Utah area-- they were depending on public aid. One man featured on PBS, married some of his wives while he was, I think, well into his thirties, while they were 13 or 14. Some were sisters. I forgot the total number but I must have seen fifty kids or so living in a handful of trailers. Don’t remember all of the specifics, but they too depended on public assistance. I think anyone that consciously makes a decision to have that many wives and children, should at least be able to support them financially. Even for the rich cats that can handle it financially, and will not marry them so young; I think it would be difficult for a man to be all that loving, giving and caring emotionally to all of them. There are only so many hours in the day. I wonder if he can recall ever once spending one on one time with any of his kids. And I doubt in countries that allow this, the woman is entitled to the same of having multiple husbands and would probably get herself killed. I don‘t know each country‘s case, but I suppose many of these women are solely dependent on the man for their monetary needs. I feel like if she had the same equal job opportunities, with few exceptions, she wouldn’t be as apt to share her husband.

JZ

[Lilairen]

Was it this thread that someone said that “family values” was code-language for “Let’s go back to the '50’s where the woman’s in the home and there’s no tolerance for those pesky homosexuals”, or was that somewhere else around here? Personally, I think the idea that polygamy is incompatible with “family values” is a pretty damn good example of that particular code-usage.

Where I live, the idea that legal recognition of gay partnerships was a slippery slope slide into . . . horror of horrors . . . polygamy was used and unquestioned by any opposition. As best as I can tell, this is because the word is rhetorically synonymous with “old-style Mormon fundie polygyny”. To which I can only say: bleah.

But saying the whole thing is incompatible with “family values” is to argue that my family has no value. Because it has four adults, not two. Two men, two women, two legal marriages, and two bonds that can’t even get domestic partner status in New Hampshire. And I know that ours isn’t the only multi-adult family in existence. (I even know of one four-person family with children that makes a point of being out of the closet and public, and has a household website that includes not only information about polyamory but things like ideas for chore scheduling, legal supports and protections for families that cannot achieve those supports by marriage, and recipes useful for large families.)

“Family values” better include the possibility having twice as many loving parents to provide financial and emotional support for the kids, if it has any consistency whatsoever. If what it really means is “thou shalt be straight, monogamous, and churchgoing or suffer the condemnation of those who are”, well, that’s the way of rhetoric, isn’t it?

[John_Zahn]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Lilairen *
Two men, two women, two legal marriages, and two bonds that can’t even get domestic partner status in New Hampshire.

Not sure if I understand what is being said, so bare with me. It seems like you’re describing some commune type of partnership of four grown adults. Each one has to decide in their own heart what is right for them and their family. Your situation seems unique to me, at least to me anyway, assuming I even understand.

**Family values" better include the possibility having twice as many loving parents to provide financial and emotional support for the kids, if it has any consistency whatsoever. **

Okay, Lilaian. But by having the four of you have some domestic partner status in NH, what would that do for your situation exactly that you don‘t have now?

JZ

[Lilairen]

Not unique, no; there are a goodly number of polyamorous families. A lot of them are comparatively closeted because a lot of “family values” types might try to take their children away from them if they were “out of the closet”.

What would being able to marry my other partner give me? It would ensure visitation in the hospital if one of us were hit by a bus. Property rights if one of us is killed by being hit by a bus. Custody of children by law rather than having to establish it with a will. Certain property rights. Social recognition of a legitimate partnership. Personally, I wouldn’t make a big deal out of the whole health insurance angle, as that’s both unique to the States and something that I have (through my existing legal marriage). All of the legal rights that come of a legal marriage, many of which cannot be duplicated by legal documents (there are something on the order of magnitude of six hundred benefits that result from a legal marriage; I have no idea how many of those would be inappropriate to a polygamous situation, as I’ve misplaced the list).

Given that after my legal marriage, a number of people treated my spouse and myself differently (giving our partnership more serious and legitimate consideration, despite the fact that we’d been together for something like six years), I find myself very bitter in recognition that my mate will likely never get the same sort of respect.