tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1637665310962813741.post6522366296516556227..comments2023-10-04T11:38:17.662-05:00Comments on Fox Valley Thinker: The world’s best defense of religion (reprise)FVThinkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06282825922079471798noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1637665310962813741.post-26490161543254156022009-05-06T19:41:00.000-05:002009-05-06T19:41:00.000-05:00Ryan said: "your statement is merely a paraphrase ...Ryan said: <I>"your statement is merely a paraphrase of Commandment #5 and also the most popular passage in the OT for Jews for the past 3,000 years"</I>I have two points on this.<br />1) I would, pretty wholly, disagree with your comparison to #5. The commandment is a demand on the child to honor their parents, ostensibly, without qualification and its observance is the responsibility of the child. My position is that it is the responsibility of the parent to set an example whether the child honors them or not. In fact; I think it is far better that the parent behave honorably. The rest, through example, will fall into line (for the most part). [Though to return to the theme of my post...it sure would have been a great shortcut to invoke #5 and God's wrath to snap a kid into line.]<br /><br />2) Even if I were to agree that #5 and Deuteronomy spoke of the same thing as I; that in no way gives status to those tracts. Humankind has been trying to codify ethics and morals and behavior since, at least, the written word (and probably since the spoken word c.130,000BC). The Greeks, the Egyptians and the authors of the bible all took their stab at it. The biblical version isn't anything new nor is it particularly better stated than previous attempts. Merely another in the list.FVThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06282825922079471798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1637665310962813741.post-259444245179528512009-05-04T23:02:00.000-05:002009-05-04T23:02:00.000-05:00Re: Interpreting The 10 Commandments...
My point, ...Re: Interpreting The 10 Commandments...<br />My point, here, was not really about contemporary, American Christian/societal positions on gender equality. (and the piece having a large dose of satire…I don’t know that I was trying to make ANY serious point). Since you bring it up, though, I find it interesting that a list of rules in God’s own handwriting can be interpreted in ANY breadth. It seems to me, he would have said what he meant. Furthermore; we clearly diverge from the Top 10 list in contemporary culture…which is good. But it begs the question: Even if Yahweh did write 10 perfect commandments, it is quite evident that we have had many many many mortals (biased, fallible mortals) interpreting between then and now. If we can have such latitude with a memo directly from God’s office (let alone all the rest of the OT & NT, how can we trust anything but the original Aramaic and Hebrew verses (and even those were penned by mortals well removed from the events). The Bible (as any holy book) can only be as good as its mortal translators and scribes.FVThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06282825922079471798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1637665310962813741.post-89137624776814087712009-05-04T08:54:00.000-05:002009-05-04T08:54:00.000-05:00Re: Lewis and the seeking a lawgiver:
I believe, ...Re: Lewis and the seeking a lawgiver:<br /><br />I believe, here, that Lewis was invoking the 'argument from conscience'. While I cannot dismiss Lewis' affirming and floral rhetoric; I (and others) can readily and casually dismiss the argument he makes. Invoking an actor for something that we can't [yet] explain is an easy mistake to make to...and this instinct transcends even our species. If ancient man heard a twig snap outside his cave; he had <B>better</B> assume that it was a tiger (the actor) before he goes to investigate and determines that it was merely the wind snapping a dead branch. We will, instinctively, attribute an actor to most any phenomenon. [To invoke natural selection: any cave man that wasn't innately paranoid like the fellow above would have been eaten (along with his family) by a tiger and never had the chance to populate the world...hence, we are naturally selected to be paranoid]<br /><br />In the case of humankind, we, possibly to the exclusion of all other creatures, can contemplate such ethereal concepts such as time and life and death and ethics and morality (to name but a few). <br /><br />[BTW: this is hardly a hard and fast truth. Reference this: http://www.physorg.com/news155819694.html which chronicles, unambiguously, how our primate kin have the ability to contemplate future events. This is a very high order of mental thought]<br /><br />Lewis' argument fails in that it stops at the instinctive answer and then never bothers to do the further investigation and is, in the end, a false dichotomy. The existence of [what you might call] 'moral constants', can only mean <B>'some'</B> source for those constants...not <B>'a specific'</B> source for that those constants. Certainly we all recognize there there are 'moral constants' (though I would not use a term that connotates something so clearly defined). We all recognize that murder is bad, that sharing is good...but that is not unique to humans...and we have a body of empirical evidence to support that. <br />http://fvthinker.blogspot.com/2008/03/origin-of-morality.html<br /><br />Sure we have a conscience and recognize 'moral laws' or 'moral constants', but the proper position to investigate their origins. Unbeknownst to many, though, is that there has been investigation into those 'constants' and the results don't jive with the theistic explanations.FVThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06282825922079471798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1637665310962813741.post-8998048876837039762009-05-03T10:30:00.000-05:002009-05-03T10:30:00.000-05:00Thanks for coming by Ryan,
It is a busy weekend fo...Thanks for coming by Ryan,<br />It is a busy weekend for me so I will be needing to responding piecemeal (and sometimes tersely) to your points in lieu of an exhaustive essay.<br /><br />Abstinence only:<br />I believe Tony was speaking to 'abstinence only' programs (on the broader level) of appreciably affecting the numbers of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.<br /><br />I would expect that commenter Tony and I would be in the same camp in that sex, even teen sex, is not intrinsically bad or evil. (This position should not be construed as in any way condoning teen sex.) We as a species are utterly hard-wired to pursue sex. Speaking for myself; I feel we must acknowledge that we will have sex and that teens will have sex. To think otherwise would be like balancing a bowling ball on top of another.<br /><br />Abstinence works until it doesn't work...and eventually (for the great majority) it doesn't work. At which point; we have done a disservice by not providing the information to our youth to mitigate the often life-altering and tragic consequences of unprotected/irresponsible sex. To deny children the education on options other than abstinence is the wrong...even immoral...thing to do.<br /><br />Here is one scholarly link that well summarizes my position.<br />http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1054139X05004672<br /><br />Abstinence only pledges seem to show some efficacy in delaying sexual activity but, in the end, they seem to merely redistribute when that activity occurs. <br /><br />Of course we can just dismiss patently stupid and dangerous teachings like the Pope saying that condoms make the AIDS crisis worse!!FVThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06282825922079471798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1637665310962813741.post-70256144704724886582009-05-02T20:52:00.000-05:002009-05-02T20:52:00.000-05:00As I said earlier...good article that opens up wor...As I said earlier...good article that opens up worthy subject matter.<br /><br />you said, "I finally heard the best argument yet for the purpose of dogmatic faith . . . and it came from me!"<br /><br />I do enjoy your humor...refreshing in such a "screw-your-worldview" climate that dominates the blog-sphere. I like C. S. Lewis logic here too...he says (i paraphrase), "the innate desires within us offer proof themselves...we thirst so we seek water...we hunger so we seek food...we have a conscience so we seek a Law-giver"<br /><br />you also said, "I don’t know about you, but it makes me uncomfortable that God decided to list the wife as a piece of property . . . "<br /><br />Putting aside the patristic culture that still exists in the middle east and existed in the OT era throughout most of the world, your interpretation of this command is off-base. The rest of Scripture interprets this verse better...namely, "in Christ there is neither slave or free, Jew or Gentile, Male or Female", and "wife's body is the husbands and the husband's body is the wife's" (in marriage), and many others. It is easy to use obscure writings or radical interpretations from cults, false religions, or poorly fashioned Catholic interps to make certain verses seem awkward or even shameful in modern times...but in the end, most of these efforts fall victim to poor hermeneutics and only serve as propaganda.<br /><br />Your explanation of the reasons for the first 4 or 5 Laws given at Sinai are off base as well...if you study the historical significance of the first 5 commandments you'll find that the Israelites (Hebrews at that time) had been in Egypt 400 years and had become thoroughly Egyptian culturally...significant here is idol worship, graven images, and the like...the first four Laws given at Sinai were given to rid them, culturally, of such practices...The last 5 do set up a worthy ethic for the Hebrews, but the first 5 primarily were given to rid them of Egyptian influences.<br /><br />Here is where you are at your best in this article:<br /><br />"Hands down; a parent’s example is what defines the child."<br /><br />You are right and I'm thankful you know that while your children are still living in the home. Interestingly, your statement is merely a paraphrase of Commandment #5 and also the most popular passage in the OT for Jews for the past 3,000 years...Deuteronomy 6 (The Shema)...check it outAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13183793150066539933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1637665310962813741.post-12443435663244031622009-05-02T20:28:00.000-05:002009-05-02T20:28:00.000-05:001st to Tony (commenter #1)...hey, my abstinence pl...1st to Tony (commenter #1)...hey, my abstinence pledge worked quite well. Thanks for noticing.<br /><br />Also, I've done about 10 years of research on abstinence pledges and their effectiveness. Worst year: abstinence pledges 4% more effective than non-pledge...Best year: 28% more effective...these are calculated by surveying couples who are married and later willing to anonymously speak up about the effectiveness of their pledges...if you, however, compare data on how abstinence pledges delay 1st sexual experiences, then you see the really good numbers...on average those who make pledges have first sexual contact approx. 2.2 years later than those who do not. Is that a positive? A victory? A good result? anyway you cut it I say yes...you decide!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13183793150066539933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1637665310962813741.post-19645048550735021302009-05-01T13:35:00.000-05:002009-05-01T13:35:00.000-05:00I don't know that I agree Tony. While we recogniz...I don't know that I agree Tony. While we recognize that biblical rules are unquestionably a very mixed bag in the 21st century; in the 1st century, it was possibly one of the most comprehensive and well codified codes of conduct going. Part of my point is that 1) the codes never evolved with with society and 2) The kids were never let in on the secret (that it was made up).<br /><br />You are right in that is unlikely to have a sustained effect of moderating behavior (at least for the youngest subjects), but it would have some effect. I personally recall consciously restraining myself in advance of Christmas when my mother threw out a warning akin to 'Santa's watching!'. I am sure that it was a fleetingly brief curtailment of my being a normal young boy...but it was a curtailment. Even though it did represent direct parental action; it at least acts as a shortcut for more time consuming and complicated reprimands.<br /><br />I could see the effect being somewhat more effective with God because instead of hearing 'Santa won't bring you that wooden top!' you hear 'God is going to cast you into hell, your flesh will burn off, and demons will torment you for eternity!'. I think even a young mind can grasp the import of the latter consequence and there would be a correlational increase in behavioral modification....fleeting though it might be.<br /><br />I will extend the Santa analogy even further....<br />Looking at it; they are precisely the same model. Punishment for bad behavior (coal) and reward for good behavior (socks...er...toy). Turn the 'coal' into a 'lake of sulfur' and the 'toy' into 'eternal paradise' and you have the contemporary Christian model...and the parent doesn't even have to pony up for the reward.FVThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06282825922079471798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1637665310962813741.post-26986562071733614102009-05-01T10:42:00.000-05:002009-05-01T10:42:00.000-05:00I think the problem, here, even if the Biblical ru...I think the problem, here, even if the Biblical rules weren't a mixed bag, would be that there's just not much evidence that use the Morality v1.0 system is even particularly effective at controlling behavior in the first place, even among children. Hence the failure of stuff like abstinence pledges.<br /><br />I think the Santa analogy is actually illuminating, here - I don't get the impression that believing Santa's checking his list has much impact on child behavior, except when children are specifically and explicitly reminded of it by their parents. But at that point the parents are directly addressing the behavior anyway, so the Santa system isn't really doing any work.<br /><br />The Santa fable is defensible not because it's effective, but because it's <I>fun</I>. I don't see something similar for most (any?) religious fables.Tonynoreply@blogger.com