The Bible, Abuse in Church and Sports, and SSM

[jongarvey]

@John_Dalton

Why the 1980’s? The charts on page 28 and 29 here suggest differently

I was trying unsuccessfully to find a more recent statistical analysis I read a couple of months ago, and relying on memory. My memory is that the peaks were more to the right of those linked, but I could be mistaken - still, the patterns show a phenomenon, peaking in the 70s rather than the 80s maybe, but not a continuum, which was my primary point. It is a pattern to be explained in terms of some change.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

@jongarvey

I’d much prefer to be talking about when the NT was written…

Thanks to all for the dialog. I did not intend to create a situation, nor did I mean to divert the conversation from the original topic. Back, as Jon Garvey says, to the NT timeline…

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Michael_Callen do you want to try spitting out that side track into a new thread with an appropriate title? Give it a shot.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

@swamidass

@Michael_Callen do you want to try spitting out that side track into a new thread with an appropriate title? Give it a shot.

It is truly up to you. If you would like to split it out, please do so. If the thread continues, so be it. Thanks!

[Patrick]

@Michael_Callen

I don’t contend that it is a very big change at all. Just that it is a change, and that I’d prefer to not change the meanings of words for the reasons provided.

Word meaning change a lot generation to generation. As do morals, ethics, and values. There are volumes of law books on what constitutes rape. It is constantly evolving.

[Agauger (Ann Gauger)]

@Patrick

@ eally, the Bible has been used to justify slavery, no inter-racial marriages, racial discrimination, authority of monarchy, murder in the form of burning at the stake for blasphemy, crusades and a lot of horrendous things. Even today the Bible is used to discriminate against LBGTQ people, woman, and consensual adult sexual activities.

it could just as easily be said the interpretation of human person found in the Bible ultimately triumphed and eliminated slavery. The most avid activists against human trafficking are Christian.
Or exploitation of any group. As for burning at the stake that was condemned a while ago. The Church founded Universities, hospitals, orphanages. For every bad priest there are many more good one.
You cite old stuff and act as if that’s the whole story. Everyone can choose their version of truth. Not. I invite you to relearn what Catholicism is really about.
People ostracize people for all kinds of reasons, some a religious and use religion as a battering ram. But not all Christians. And by the way the Bible does do anything. It’s misguided Christians who are to blame.
And we don’t eat dead corpses. That’s a ridiculous characterization. I am sorry you weren’t better instructed.

@

[Dan_Eastwood]

[moderation note: I have hidden @Patrick comments until I or another Mod can deal with this appropriately. Sorry about this Patrick, I’m not being fair to you, but this calls on a lot of my time to deal with, and I can’t do that right now.

[Patrick]

ok but don’t see any issues with what I wrote.

[T_aquaticus]

@Michael_Callen

Agreed. Legal concepts do change. The legal idea of marriage was always between a man and a woman. The label for that concept was “marriage” and it was a biblical principle before it became a legal concept. I’m not at all against the union between two consenting adults. I’m against changing the meaning of a word. If the courts can change the meaning of a word from something that it means to something that it doesn’t mean (or didn’t previously mean) the courts have in effect rewritten all underlying laws, case law or decisions made about that issue. No one should be in favor of that.

It is always interesting to run into views that are different from your own. In my own view, language is an ever changing thing. Languages are alive and adaptive. We have been changing the meaning, pronunciation, and spelling of words since the inception of language. Human society, ethics, and laws change as well, as they should. No one should be saddled with morals and laws from previous generations simply because we arbitrarily decided that morality and laws can’t change.

Are we saying that human society can’t progress? If we determine that a society could be better if we changed certain definitions or certain laws shouldn’t we do that? At one time a voter was defined as a white male who owned property. Were we wrong to change the definition of what a voter is?

At least for me, “we have always done it this way” is not a valid reason to keep doing it that way.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

@T_aquaticus

Are we saying that human society can’t progress? If we determine that a society could be better if we changed certain definitions or certain laws shouldn’t we do that? At one time a voter was defined as a white male who owned property. Were we wrong to change the definition of what a voter is?

Good points. I often comment and don’t think things through holistically. I probably should have said something like this: If we are going to change the meaning of words, we should consider it very seriously. There are certain situations where it makes sense to do so, and it is obvious. There are other times where care should be taken, because, it can be a slippery slope. John Harshman mentioned the word “computer” and you mention “voter.” Those are examples where agreement is going to be fairly universal. There are other situations where it can be more problematic.

@T_aquaticus

At least for me, “we have always done it this way” is not a valid reason to keep doing it that way.

Certainly. I’m not anti-progress at all. But when people make changes, precedents are set. Very often the courts will refer to situation A and extrapolate it to situations B, C, and D. So there can be long-term implications to short-term decisions. I am saying those steps should be taken with care. I also stated many times that this is my opinion. Ironically, I was trying to share how much in agreement I was, as a Christian, with the standard Western convention regarding SSM, as compared to the stereotypical view. Sadly, though I had conceded 99% and only lobbied to reserve the historical label of marriage for the traditional man/woman marriage, no one seemed to notice. Best laid plans.

[T_aquaticus]

@Michael_Callen

Good points. I often comment and don’t think things through holistically. I probably should have said something like this: If we are going to change the meaning of words, we should consider it very seriously. There are certain situations where it makes sense to do so, and it is obvious. There are other times where care should be taken, because, it can be a slippery slope.

I completely agree. We should always have a good reason for changing something.

@Michael_Callen

Certainly. I’m not anti-progress at all. But when people make changes, precedents are set. Very often the courts will refer to situation A and extrapolate it to situations B, C, and D. So there can be long-term implications to short-term decisions. I am saying those steps should be taken with care. I also stated many times that this is my opinion. Ironically, I was trying to share how much in agreement I was, as a Christian, with the standard Western convention regarding SSM, as compared to the stereotypical view. Sadly, though I had conceded 99% and only lobbied to reserve the historical label of marriage for the traditional man/woman marriage, no one seemed to notice. Best laid plans.

In the last 10 years I have seen a lot of change in the christian community. At one point there was a lot of resistance to legalization of SSM within the christian community, but that attitude seems to be dwindling. I think there was a realization that we live in a secular society with people of many faiths or no religious belief, and we have to have laws that are fair to everyone.

As to keeping the word “marriage” reserved for a preferred group, that seems punitive in nature. It’s like reserving the name “American” for just the white people. I sense that you have a good heart and don’t mean offense, so please don’t take my comments too harshly. I think it is good that we have a place like this forum where we can air our differences.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

@T_aquaticus

As to keeping the word “marriage” reserved for a preferred group, that seems punitive in nature. It’s like reserving the name “American” for just the white people. I sense that you have a good heart and don’t mean offense, so please don’t take my comments too harshly. I think it is good that we have a place like this forum where we can air our differences.

Agreed, completely… I’m not unable to see the other perspective at all. I’m, in fact, sympathetic. That’s why this conversation can be so frustrating, sometimes. We should be able to see one another’s perspectives, but often choose to not. That said, I don’t take any offense at all to your comments. Rather, this dialog has been the most refreshing so far. Thanks for that.

[jongarvey]

A late follow-up to this, in the light of some belated research. My post above talked about the fashionable espousal of paedophilia in Britain in the 1970s as part of the progressive sexual agenda.

I neglected to uncover the fact that in 1977, a petition was sent to the French government calling for the total abolition of the age of consent. It was organised by none other than that figurehead of all that is postmodern - including the burgeoning “queer theology” - Michel Foucault. It was signed by all manner of familiar and oft-quoted names in the humanities. This from Wikipedia:

In 1977, a petition was addressed to the French parliament calling for the abrogation of several articles of the age of consent law and the decriminalization of all consensual relations between adults and minors below the age of fifteen (the age of consent in France). A number of French intellectuals - including such prominent names as Aragon, Foucault, Sartre, Derrida, Althusser, Barthes, Klossowski, Beauvoir, Deleuze, Guattari, Leiris, Robbe-Grillet, Sollers, Rancière, Lyotard, Ponge, and various prominent doctors and psychologists - signed the petition.

Whether it had any political effect I don’t know - Foucault himself had died of AIDS by 1984, and was was not known for consistency of purpose. Funny, though, how the teachings of the great get so quickly buried, when it suits an agenda.