« Thursday Short Poem -- Wilbur's The Writer | Main | More signs of progress »

December 16, 2004

Comments

Newbie

"Of course, one can also reject the Bible out of hand as a work of fiction. No muss, no fuss, no re-interpretation necessary."

I guess if that is the case then I just typed a bunch of Bible verses for no reason.

In that case though if one were to reject the Bible as a work of fiction they would at least in the United States be up against a majority population of 79% that do believe.

I know you can find any statistic to point to anything you want. Since I am trying to make a point let's find one that slants my way.

"Posted on MSNBC
Dec. 5 - Seventy-nine percent of Americans believe that, as the Bible says, Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, without a human father, according to a new NEWSWEEK poll on beliefs about Jesus."

Ok, there it is. There is one that slants my way. So 79% believe in the Bible in the United States. So if you thought it was a work of fiction. That would put you in the 21% range. I'm sorry. My conservative brain would tell me that you are in the minority. Majority rules. Sorry no exceptions.

But it does not work that smoothly. That 79% could live good lives and believe in and follow that Bible and have happy marriages. Now the 21% can not tolerate this one bit. No, of course not. It is not fair. So, that 21% creates a rogue idea(s). Let's take one idea for example and label it feminism. Then let's take that idea and inject it into the populous. The 79% does not except the idea at first. But the idea spreads using different pretenses and causes. Then people rally around the idea and reinvent it. It becomes manipulated. The majority population becomes manipulated. Soon the idea becomes absorbed into the current mainstream way of thinking. Oh, wait. The 79% has just become 65%. Over time it is slowly widled away to become the minority. Then the Bible becomes the rogue idea and the situation is reversed. And maybe I have no clue of what I am talking about. The latter probably being the case.

I guess this really has nothing to do with your comment. For a while I really thought I was going somewhere with that........

zuzu

Ok, there it is. There is one that slants my way. So 79% believe in the Bible in the United States. So if you thought it was a work of fiction. That would put you in the 21% range. I'm sorry. My conservative brain would tell me that you are in the minority. Majority rules. Sorry no exceptions.

Well, considering that exactly 0% of any of the verses you quoted have anything to do with the laws regarding marriage, your quoting them is irrelevant.

Besides, I'm 50% of any marriage I would enter into. I wouldn't marry someone who didn't share some fundamental beliefs with me, such as "My life is not dictated by the Bible." So that would make 100% of the people involved in my marriage rejecting those verses as having any bearing on my marriage.

Newbie

"Well, considering that exactly 0% of any of the verses you quoted have anything to do with the laws regarding marriage, your quoting them is irrelevant. "

Not so. I don't recall quoting Bible verses in my last post. I only quoted them the post prior to that one. In that case they were relevant to what I was saying in that instance. The second post only had relevance to the excerptation you took out of my post in which you replied..

"Of course, one can also reject the Bible out of hand as a work of fiction. No muss, no fuss, no re-interpretation necessary."

In which I tried to expand on with my own ideas. Yep, I just looked back through that post and it contained 0% of any Bible quotes. You shouldn't be so quick to rebuttal someone because you might confuse yourself and then look foolish.

"Besides, I'm 50% of any marriage I would enter into. I wouldn't marry someone who didn't share some fundamental beliefs with me, such as "My life is not dictated by the Bible." So that would make 100% of the people involved in my marriage rejecting those verses as having any bearing on my marriage."

While that is true in a sense. There are more than 2 people populating whatever country you live in. That is to say more than you and just your spouse. So I would have to say that you can create the rules of your own marriage environment in the confinement of your own life. Society being the majority and being religious may however disagree with your athiest views and the traditional Biblical sense of marriage would be status quo. That being said then do whatever you want in your marriage. Society might not like your views and you might not like societies view. But don't try to convince the rest of us to become athiest because you are in the minority and we hurt your feelings. The majority believes in the Bible and the majority is going to reflect that in it's culture. I know it's really hard for liberal's to understand that concept. I think that this was the point I was trying to get at before. Thank you for rousing it out of me.

Newbie

BTW zuzu.

When you stated the following...

"Well, considering that exactly 0% of any of the verses you quoted have anything to do with the laws regarding marriage, your quoting them is irrelevant."


You were also wrong in another aspect. Even though you were answering two post at the same time and you confused them both together. I thought I might correct you on another matter. The Bible has almost everything to do with "the Laws regarding marriage". Yes, I do believe it was religious men who wrote the marriage laws we have today. Oh, I wonder where oh where did they get their template from. I'm going to have to take a wild guess and say maybe the Bible. It's pretty amazing how similar man's law and God's law stands together on the marriage issue. Now that may not be all together the case these days. Perverse judges seem to think they know more than the religous majority does these days. Pretty soon I am sure you will see homosexual circus animals marrying quadropalegic midgit's with no thumbs in the near future. But through out history and I do beg you to find me any proof to the contrary, that whenever a society destablized it's marrital values it was near the end of that societies rule.

Hugo

Newbie, please leave the circus animals out of your argument. They are oppressed enough as it is.

Newbie, the majority of white southerners strongly supported segregation -- and found plenty of biblical verses to support them. (In the 19th century, they were especially fond of Ephesians 6, and Philemon). Where were they wrong?

yami

But don't try to convince the rest of us to become athiest because you are in the minority and we hurt your feelings. The majority believes in the Bible and the majority is going to reflect that in it's culture.

Surely if we don't like our own society, we have a right to try to change it? You appear to be objecting to the entire concept of a minority ever trying to become the majority, or even a larger minority, by any method. That's a very odd thing to do. Perhaps you could clarify your position, before we all start talking past one another?

La Lubu

Newbie, you do not have the authority to revoke anyone's "Christian card". You have every right to believe and interpret Christianity and the Bible as you do, but keep in mind that the majority of United States Christians would disagree with you.

Regardless, we have a separation of church and state in this nation because it's a great way to avoid civil war and oppression of religious minorites. Live and let live, you know? And civil marriage and religious marriage are two different things...not to mention that Christian marriage (the many different varieties, that is) is not the only flavor to choose from in this great diverse nation of ours!

Amanda

Let me get this straight--we're not to make our arguments because there's the off chance that we might convince people to change their minds?

zuzu

While that is true in a sense. There are more than 2 people populating whatever country you live in. That is to say more than you and just your spouse. So I would have to say that you can create the rules of your own marriage environment in the confinement of your own life. Society being the majority and being religious may however disagree with your athiest views and the traditional Biblical sense of marriage would be status quo.

Ah, but "the traditional Biblical sense of marriage" has nothing to do with legal, civil marriage. The state wants to know that I am of a certain age, am not married to someone else, am marrying only one person who is not related closely by blood, and, in some cases, that that person is not the same gender as me. Really, the state isn't much interested in how I conduct my marriage after they issue the license and the deed is done unless there's violence, neglect or the marriage falls apart. You may choose to live your life according to a book written thousands of years ago and not necessarily accurately translated into English. I do not, because I do not recognize the authority of this book even as I can appreciate some of the wisdom it contains.

That being said then do whatever you want in your marriage. Society might not like your views and you might not like societies view. But don't try to convince the rest of us to become athiest because you are in the minority and we hurt your feelings.

You may not realize this if you're an evangelical, but most people who don't share your views *aren't* trying to convince anyone else to convert to anything. In fact, most other people leave other people alone about their private religious views. You must not have a very firm grip on your own faith if it can be shaken by the statement of someone else that they don't believe.

typhonblue

Just as an aside to the current conversational thread... I wonder if there's a difference between divorced men and never married single men. I'd imagine there must be.

For the most part the MRA crowd says marriage is bad because of the risks associated with divorce for men (such as a substantially higher rate of suicide) not because of marriage per se.

typhonblue

Oops, my mistake. It does break down for never-marrieds. Hmm...

"All adults aged 18 or over: 11.9 percent reported they were in fair or poor health...
"Men: 11.4 percent overall, including 10.4 percent of married men, 18.5 percent of widowed, 16.1 percent of divorced or separated, 12.4 percent of never married and 13.8 percent of those living with a partner."
--Source

Seems like the risk factor for men is not remaining unmarried, but being in a marriage that *ends*.

Never married men are doing better then unmarried co-habiting men, divorced men and widowed men. Marriage -- according to this data -- confers only a minor benefit in exchange for a major risk.

NancyP

newbie, use a spellcheck program, please.

Conservatives tend to focus in on the pseudo-pauline letters (Timothys and Titus) when discussing women's roles. Note that those letters date later than the true Pauline letters (Romans, Corinthians, etc) not least because they refer to more elaborated church structures (eg, qualifications for a bishop, as opposed to itinerant evangelists). It seems likely that a desire for respectability took hold of the early churches, who wanted to evangelize among the well-bred as well as the prostitutes and landless folk. Those early churches had to contend with non-Christians pointing out that their leader hung out with women not related to him (definitely not done by respectable Jews), defended an adulterous woman, said shocking things about family such as saying in front of his natal family that his true family members were his followers and not his blood relatives, reversed hierarchies by praising children over adults, and to top it off got executed as a common criminal. Definitely NOT RESPECTABLE, and not "family values". So many theologians see the pseudo-Pauline letters as an attempt to prettify the new Jewish sect, make it fit into existing societal norms about family and hierarchy.

NancyP

Oh, and there is that bizarre bit in Titus about how men are saved by faith in Jesus and women are saved by childbearing. Well, if I were a literalist, I would have no interest in pursuing Christian belief because there you have it, I am damned because childless. And so are all the nuns, schoolteachers, etc.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Regular reads

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 01/2004