Arguably, this shared privacy is important to many people for a general sense of safety. — baker

But there are gay people who I am sure would love to jump on top of me and have their way with me while I'm standing at the urinal, but I have no way of distinguishing the gay from the straight, so I stand there vulnerable, hoping to have uneventful toilet experience.

Whatever will they do for me?

The general trend has been to create bathrooms only with stalls or to provide a separate bathroom that can be accessed only one person at a time. That seems a reasonable accommodation. It's pretty rare in any event for rapes and sexual assaults to take place between transsexuals and CIS males in public restrooms. Maybe it's a thing where you live I don't know.

My point here is that all the concerns for safety and whatever other issues you wish to throw out seem pretextual, meaning I really don't think you have these concerns as much as you have a desire not to accommodate people who you believe are irrational and cuckoo.

Female genital mutilation is considered a a horror when it happens in Africa but in the west it is now seen as gender reaffirming surgery and the version in the west causes a woman to be come infertile, have an increased of dementia and heartache, lead to complications such as fistulas, adhesions, arterial bleeds. I think people like you in history will be see on the wrong side and accomplices to grievous harm for reasons only you can fathom. — Andrew4Handel

The question is one of consent, with children being unable to consent to having their genitals removed and adults being able to consent. The distinction between consent and no consent is not subtle, but it is what distinguishes rape from a loving interaction as one example.

Another critical part of consent in the medical context is the information you have available to you, which is why it is often referred to as informed consent. As long as the person understands the various risks you've presented, the decision is then up to him or her to decide how to act. It does seem ethically improper to have you at their decision making table.

More complicated questions arise in the female genital mutilation among adult women to the extent that occurs at a later age. The question that needs to be addressed in those cases is whether the decision is truly with consent or whether it is being forced upon them. It is also important that the woman accurately be informed of the consequences and that she be provided accurate information regarding whether the surgery truly makes one more pure, or whatever its goal is.

To the extent you are arguing that no rational person could ever choose sexual reassignment surgery and that it is per se evidence of mental illness and lack of capacity, I think you have an uphill battle. You'll need to show something more than that you personally find it nuts.

I'm curious why even the most "philosophical" of Christian theologians (e.g. Teilhard de Chardin, Barth) include Jesus in their theology. The Jesus they refer to is some nebulous kind of love or spirit or force necessary in some sense to creation and humanity and the universe, and is something that just doesn't seem to be the Jesus described in the Gospels, the Acts, or even by Paul at his most mystic and mysterious. — Ciceronianus

There are at least two ways to interpret Scripture. (1) The traditional way of the theists or (2) the contextualized way of the university professor or modern biblical scholar.

The traditional method makes certain assumptions:

1. The texts are cryptic and symbolic
2. The texts are prophetic and homiletic
3. The texts are consistent
4. The texts are divinely inspired/given

All of this is from Kugel's "How to Read the Bible."

https://jergames.blogspot.com/2008/07/four-assumptions-created-bible-lecture.html

So, the reason a traditional theistic reader obtains such unusual results from scripture (whether it be through the midrashim of the Jew or the exegesis of the Christian) is because their fundamental assumptions vary greatly from your own.

There's this judge where I live who was up for re-election and a gay man was running against him, so the judge held a press conference, with his arm around his wife and his two children by his side, and announced he was bisexual. Perhaps that was to keep the gay man from having a bloc of voters to challenge him so as to divide the vote. I do believe him though that he is actually bisexual.

My thoughts were that I didn't like the timing, as it seemed to be for political reasons, but I was also a bit confused by the monogamy issues that were challenged by the announcement before the wife and the children being a part of dad declaring how he enjoys sex.

I also don't think of bisexuality as an identity issue, but more just something you prefer, although maybe I'm wrong to view it this way. I compare it to a woman proclaiming how much more she enjoys the touch of a vibrator over a man, which likely does describe some women, but it's not really something I need to know and not really something I think affects someone's identity.

A part of it to me is that I don't think how you perform sex acts or who you perform them with is so integral to the person that it ought be who we think that person is. Unless I'm going to be having sex that person, it seems pretty irrelevant whether the person is gay, straight, or anywhere else on the spectrum.

Saying that the Holocaust was not about racism, but man's inhumanity to man, is a relatively 'weak' statement, but not false. — Bitter Crank

A better worded statement from her would have been to say the Holocaust was not only about race, but it was also about man's inhumanity to man and a warning to all who might one day find themselves in the crosshairs.

But that isn't what she said, and so the fallout. It was about race and it is also about many other things.

My own opinion is that I will continue my de facto boycott of The View that has been going strong ever since the show first aired.

I'm guessing you're in one of the safest areas on Atlanta's crime map? — Down The Rabbit Hole

It's just that there a whole lot of gun related deaths in fairly small pockets, so dividing by counties, city limits, ZIP codes, or whatever arbitrary method is only going to reveal statistics for the generalized area, but residents of those communities are aware of the actual areas where those crimes are occurring.

In terms of correlating gun ownership to murder, I don't know if the data will bear that out because of the large gun ownership in more rural communities where the murder rate is low. That is, you won't necessarily see murder increase where gun ownership increases. It's an obvious statement to say that if we eliminate guns, we'll eliminate gun related deaths, but it doesn't necessarily follow that if we reduce gun ownership, we'll reduce gun related deaths. There are and always will be plenty of guns to go around for those intent on murdering. Stricter gun laws are a feel good way of addressing the problem, and it serves also for the left to piss off the right, but, as a matter of effective policy, it's not terribly effective.

Thanks. I'll take a look. — T Clark

As in, you'll look at the book, but not necessarily read it. Instead of saying, "I didn't read the book, I saw the movie," you're saying, "I saw the book, not the movie."

Besides being insightful, by which I mean he see's things in a way similar to me, the book also fulfills my primary requirement for a philosophical work - it's short. — T Clark

The book you're referencing is 350 pages, so it's not exactly short. There is a book on Amazon claiming to be Collingwood's "The Principles of Art," but it's actually a 20 or so page abridged version.

You've still got 330 pages to go.

I'd say - the stats for Atlanta show 20.2 murders per 100,000 people (more than 12 times that of London). Guns were used in 82% of the homicides. — Down The Rabbit Hole

And yet no one I know has ever known a person who was murdered, much less who was shot. What do you make of that? 55 years in this crime ridden city, and never even been pickpocketed.

The gun laws are the same, or essentially the same, throughout the United States? — Down The Rabbit Hole

They are essentially the same throughout, some with more stringent rules than others, but all limited by the same Constitution as to how they may be regulated.. In my comment, though, I wasn't even leaving my specific jurisdiction. The murder rate among those I associate with (or have associated with) is zero. There are those within my state and my county that have had drastically different experiences though. I really can't recall seeing anyone openly carrying a firearm in a public place ever (other than a police officer). I do know that in certain more rural communities that may occur, but not so much around me.

And it's not that I live in walled community or among the rich and famous. I live in middle class suburban Atlanta.

Believe it or not, but I live in the US among many gun fanatics, and I have never known a person who was murdered. We can divide cultures and societies in many arbitrary ways. One of those are by political systems, which the OP does, by asking why things are the way they are in the US as a whole. If you divided it in other ways , as in those who I associate with, the murder rate is zero.

The question then is why is the murder rate where I reside is as low as Sweden's, but not too far from me, it's very different, despite the fact that we live in the same country under the same laws? I'm not the first to point out that there are two Americas, but it's probably like 5 or 6 or maybe more.

Don't misread anything I've said here to be some fucked up comment about violence being caused by race. It's not. My comments relate to class and the causes of the classist system.

Are you free to act against your own will? — Banno

This wording implicates a dualism even too dualistic for me.

"You" and "your will" are identical.

And no, I didn't read your article. I chose not to. My will chose not to. It's all the same. Can my will do other than it did? Yes, unless it's not a free will.

It seems simple enough to me, but maybe I gloss over some details. Putin wishes to weaken American influence on former Soviet states because he believes them to be rightly under Russian control and he blames US policy on the destruction of the formerly great Soviet superpower. Any suggestion that the US will tighten its grip on the Ukraine, especially by protecting it under NATO, therefore would be further insult to Russia.

The more the US asserts control, the more Russia must assert control. Neither want war, but that's where the tug of war ends up without some diplomatic solution. The Ukraine has been staring down the barrel of the Russian gun long before today.

It doesn't help that Biden is facing a credibility crisis of his own and that his party is floundering, so he must find a way to look bold and maybe do something desperate.

Who performs those FGM procedures? Who arranges for everything pertaining to it? Mostly men, or mostly women? — baker

Who asks questions they know the answers to?

One of the aspects of magic discussed is that of its normativity - magic as foreign/illegitimate religion. The high priests of science have cast out all the demons? Then why are we not in heaven already? — unenlightened

I do think he's on to something in identifying "magic" as a prerogative term, where practioners are seen as deviant, yet practtioners of authentic religious rites are seen as holy. Interesting too is that magic isn't denied as folly by its opponents, but is seen as dangerous. That is, magical spells should be avoided because they summon evil spirits, not because they are useless mutterings to powerless entities.

For example, Exodus, chapter 7, Pharoah's magicians replicate God's miracles of creating a snake from a staff and turning water to blood, but, importantly, the magicians powers in chapter 8 are then shown not as powerful as God's. And we read on to learn of the great suffering brought to the Egyptians.

Magic then becomes the way good is distinguished from evil, but it also suggests that any temporary benefit derived from magic will eventually cause great suffering due to its evil origin.

All this seems to be a critical element of Western mythology.

Using podcasts uses up most of my mobile data allowance and I don't enjoy podcasts. — Jack Cummins

Data allowance? Is that still a thing?

BTW, if the quality of references is wanting, couldn't find better ones for this post on a whim. But may I be fact-checked if needed. — javra

Here is what I found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Egypt#Female_genital_mutilation

It seems ancient Egyptian women fared better than current day ones, with a report of 87% of women there undergoing female genital mutilation currently.

Have we forgotten paternalism? Coming from the word "father", paternalism actually wants to limit the freedom of the individual to protect them from themselves! One can make an argument that the road to hell is paved with good intention. Historically, men would not hesitate to commit unethical actions to preserve society and show what the greater good is. — L'éléphant

I'm not committing to the greater validity of an ethical theory based upon paternalism, I'm just saying that there is just one answer to the question of "Is act X moral?," without regard to whether a male (or female) believes it to be so.

If a male's interpretation of protection is to limit the autonomy of a woman and treat her as a less capable class, then his act is immoral. I'm not suggesting we've gotten it right in terms of figuring out the moral from the immoral. I'm only suggesting that there is just one answer to the question of what is right.

You don't think that the much lower rate of men wanting/filing for divorce has something to do with the primitive behavior of males as protectors in the wild? — L'éléphant

I think there are a myriad of reasons couples divorce. The divorce could be the result of the woman no longer needing the man in the traditional sense, as in, if the marriage were formed on the basis of providing financial stability for the woman while she was raising children, but now the children are grown and the woman is otherwise financially secure.

But there are other possibilities besides that. It might be that men are unfaithful at higher rates and that destroys marriages.

It might also be that women are able to seek emotional connections with their female friends and don't require that in a marriage as a man might, who may be unable to emotively connect with other men.

It may also be that women are less willing to endure a bad marriage than men, especially if the man deprioritizes the significance of the marriage and prioritizes work or recreation.

Again, in the traditional context, men might also see divorce as financially more devastating than the woman in terms of child support, alimony, division of retirement benefits, the loss of the house, or the debt falling onto him and so they maintain the marriage in name only, but go about their lives in a less than married way.

I'm hesitant to invoke tales of what early human society must have been like and how that embedded itself in our DNA and that can then be used to explain our current behavior. Such tales are highly speculative and really not based on scientific evidence. I take them as "just so stories." If you're interested in how the elephant got its trunk, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_So_Stories

We heard the guys' story. Now we should ask some women. "Are you morally different from guys?" — god must be atheist

Why would a female perspective be better at determining which morality ought pertain to women than a man's would? That seems to imply subjectivism, like if a Frenchman refused to consider the moral judgment of an American because the American didn't understand what it's like to be French. It would seem we ought have one standard, and even if we should find reasons to offer different moralities based upon gender (or whatever distinguishing feature), we would need to objectively justify it and not just defer to what the subgroup thought ought apply to them.

Seems a slippery slope to allow each discernable group the right to dictate which moral standards ought apply to them.

Comparatively, morality in men is measured differently than in women. — L'éléphant

There's obviously a double standard, but the question is whether the double standard is itself moral. That is, it's clear that men may be considered moral when engaging in certain behaviors where a woman wouldn't be, but are you suggesting that should be the case due to inherent differences in the constitution of males and females, or are you suggesting we need to progress past the double standard and have a universal standard for both?

The politically correct response is that what is acceptable for one is acceptable for the other, but there are religious traditions that hold otherwise and that clearly designate specific roles for each. I'm not sure from your post if you're challenging the wisdom of a universal standard given what the statistical data shows regarding the distinctions between the genders.

I don't drink, smoke, do drugs, or even cuss. My only vice is lying.

My conclusion is that Philosophy of Programming' ought to be a field of philosophy, there's so much to discuss and debate and all of it would benefit the art of professional programming. — Varde

Here you go: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computer-science/

Love this tune.

The fact that the immoral literal interpretation is held to be true by a great number of your fellow-travellers, despite your sophistic brilliance, remains. — Banno

I don't travel with the literalists. They're your kin.

But sure, to the extent there are those advocating throwing stones at little girls' heads, I stand opposed. Such a radical position for a theist, I know.

As can your need to reply to a simple link to a summary. You are engaged in special pleading on a grand scale: an oddly reactionary and defensive response. — Banno

Very poor response, but thanks anyway.

It's not reactionary and defensive, but I'd describe it as your providing an attack against a position that is not held by anyone in this thread. As I've noted, you have thoroughly defeated a certain sort of religious fundamentalism that you believe to be the most commonly held, yet I contend is just the most poorly formulated and unsophisticated form.

I do realize that Lewis addresses my complaint here, but he misses a most critical point and he goes on to say the sophisticated theist isn't immune from the attacks because it's impossible to ignore the literal meaning of some of the passages.

You guys point out that God is terrible for having advocated stoning, but a few stoned little girls is child's play when compared to the story of Noah, where all inhabitants are eradicated, and we're not really sure why such a punishment was necessary.

So then I say there absolutely was no ark, no Noah, and surely not a mass migration of every animal on earth to the near east so that they could hop aboard the boat and avoid death. This isn't defensive to protect my sacred book from ridicule. It's because I don't believe it actually happened, but I still think the book has value, as terribly factually false as it is.

And so I draw you a distinction between mythos and logos, with the former being the mythical interpretation and the latter being the literal. These ancient cultures, and even modern religious ones, did not, and do not, suggest that the purpose of any of the Biblical stories was to provide an accurate historical account of anything (i.e. the logos), nor were the purposes of the myths purely ethical. The myth was to provide an understanding of the world in a mode that is entirely foreign to you (as @Ennui Elucidator has repeatedly said). That is, when the story of Adam and Eve is recounted, the writers never meant to suggest there was an Adam and Eve, and they never even committed to a single creation story in the Bible itself. It attempted to offer, among other things, a reason we must toil for all we earn, and to provide a teleos for our existence. We also learn we don't toil on the sabbath, but reserve that day to enjoy the rewards of our labor, but let us not get caught up into that being only a single, actual day.

If the Bible were written by a culture focused on the logos, I guess they could have just written what they meant and enumerated each claim as P1, P2 and so on, and then we could then debate what each meant. Perhaps they'd have even provided us a picture of a duck rabbit to better explain that sometimes people have entirely different interpretational schemes.

Your pointing out plain (and I mean screamingly obvious) absurdities in the Bible, as if believers could not have seen them as absurdities had it not been for your helpful guidance, must be missing something, unless you truly are baffled as to why such a large segment of the population could be so very blind to the obvious.

The best source I can cite to you for the position I'm arguing is The Case for God, by Karen Armstrong, which I've begun reading recently, whose position seems very much aligned with what I've been arguing.

From a review of her book at: https://religiondispatches.org/religion-is-not-about-belief-karen-armstrongs-ithe-case-for-godi/

“Until well into the modern period,” Armstrong contends, “Jews and Christians both insisted that it was neither possible nor desirable to read the Bible literally, that it gives us no single, orthodox message and demands constant reinterpretation.” Myths were symbolic, often therapeutic, teaching stories and were never understood literally or historically. But that all changed with the advent of modernity. Precipitated by the rediscovery of Aristotle and the rise of scholasticism in the late middle ages, rational systematization took center stage, preparing the way for a modern period that would welcome both humanistic individualism and the eventual triumph of reason and science."

@Banno@IsaacJust to throw in this anecdote to maybe clarify my prior points. I went to a bar mitzvah service this weekend at an Orthodox synagogue with my non-Jewish wife.

All along the fence surrounding the synagogue were signs warning you not to carry beyond the fence. My wife asked why the Jews were so concerned about the open carry laws currently being debated n the Georgia legislature related to the carrying of guns.

The sign actually was a warning caused by the eruv having fallen down due to recent storms. Under Jewish law, you cannot carry objects on the sabbath, as that is considered work and the sabbath is the day of rest. You are, however, permitted to carry within an enclosed area. Within the fence is OK, outside not. You can expand your enclosed area however with an eruv, which is simply a string from one telephone pole to the next, enclosing the entire Jewish community. The eruv was down though, so now no carrying beyond the fence.

What does this show?

1. Biblical law is not vague and ambiguous within the communities that use it as law but very specific with consistent methods of interpretation.

2. The religious community adheres strictly to the law without there being any legal method of enforcement but entirely from respect for the law.

3. Those outside the community who interpret the rules using a foreign context arrive at incorrect (and sometimes humorous) meanings that are obviously incorrect to those within the community.

And some of them say "Democraps" instead of "Democrats". — baker

I once heard that Catholic priests were raping children and the Church covered it up. That's a worse misdeed. And there's even worse than that by many other religions. Even worse by many governments.

Link this back to what we're talking about.

Excommunication is not stoning, of course, but it can critically worsen the person's socio-economic status, even to the point where they face homelessness or death by suicide for lack of socio-economic options. — baker

I'm not going to defend every practice with the LDS church, nor of any institution on the face of the planet. I'm also not going to recognize any similarity between stoning and removal from an organization. If you're truly interested in the nuances of LDS excommunication (versus disfellowship or simply probation), and the actual likelihood of it occurring, you can read it here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/1975/07/q-and-a-questions-and-answers/what-are-the-reasons-for-and-the-process-of-excommunication?lang=eng

There is also a path back through a new baptism as well.

In any event, most every organization has rules for admission and rules for expulsion. If you want to locate abuses within religious organizations, you needn't look to such subtle instances as the one you've cited. We are all well aware of the serious misdeeds performed by various religious institutions over time.

The question of whether a religious institution can be determined as per se evil from a cursory and decontextualized reading of their religious doctrine remains in the negative.

They have Mormons in Australia? :grin: — frank

They do. A most wonderful people. Their disaster relief is truly awe inspiring. I went on some hurricane relief trips with them into areas devastated by hurricanes and helped remove debris, save belongings, and offer assistance. They pitch tents around their local churches and then render aid throughout the week.

And then they go and stone little girls. Whatever. So ridiculous. It would be insulting if not so ignorant.

The question of what a document means is interpreted by the method agreed upon by those who use the document as to what it means.
— Hanover

Who says?

If the law says it's illegal to steal, it's illegal to steal, regardless of whether you have an expectation of getting caught and regardless of whether you have an expectation of Presidential pardon.
— Hanover

That's not the point. The point is that if the law is ambiguous, ie one person thinks it prohibits stealing another that it doesn't, what matters is the interpretation of the legal community. That's where the consequence will be determined. — Isaac

Your first question ("who says?") is answered by yourself in your response to me.

There are methods by those communities who adhere to the tenants of the Bible when interpreting it, and if you want to know whether some stone their girls, you need to use those methods to know.
— Hanover

No I don't, I can just observe their actions. It'd be a better test than asking. — Isaac

You can ask or watch because they are the same thing, meaning they do exactly as they say they are.

you will be saying nothing more than "hypothetically, the bible could be used to justify stoning based upon my two cents upon reading through it, so it's a bad document." So now we know it could be, as opposed to whether it is or ever has been.
— Hanover

That's exactly what I am saying. — Isaac

Every document can be hypothesized into a bad document. I could use the Bill of Rights to justify all sorts of chaos if I wanted to interpret it in a way that no one has ever interpreted and that defies all manner by which people have ever interpreted it.

And your review of this book is what?

That book is written by a Mormon. The Mormons have their own canon (Bible, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, Book of Mormon). They also believe in continuous revelation, meaning God continues to speak to people, and they can add to their canon as their President determines, as he is said to be a prophet. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_works

They are not literalists by any means.

Explain how this is supportive of the argument that since the OT discusses stoning of girls, that is what it means without reference to its context (i.e. usage).

Your post did make clear your desire to judge a book by its cover though without engaging in even the most basic rigor of cracking it open.

Nonsense. The legal interpretation can land me in jail or set me free. It has just about one of the largest meaningful consequences it's possible to have. Were it not for such consequence I might well not give two figs for how legal instructions had been historically interpreted by the legal community either. — Isaac

Nope, that's an irrelevant distinction. The question of what a document means is interpreted by the method agreed upon by those who use the document as to what it means. That would apply whether you're interpreting the criminal code in your jurisdiction that might land you in jail or whether you're interpreting Belgian zoning law that has no application to you, or even ancient Greek legal documents.

Yes, but that's because a Ugandan, like it or not, is not under the jurisdiction of the US constitution and you, like it or not, are. — Isaac

No, that's not why. If I were truly schooled in Ugandan law, I would feel comfortable telling the Ugandans what their law said, but I'm not. I know nothing of their complex and nuanced culture, know nothing of what they rely upon for legal authority, know nothing about how they prioritize authority, know nothing of their unwritten customs, and know nothing about their political system. If seated at the table and asked what Ugandan law is, I'd say I don't know. I'd say the same if I were asked the same of Montana law. That I can read and flip through documents doesn't mean I add any value to that discussion.

This is not the case with the Bible, which is just a book and people voluntarily follow some, all, or none of it's edicts as they see fit. — Isaac

This is a long discussion about a distinction that makes absolutely no difference. If the question is what the French law of 1235 demanded of its citizens and you argued X and me Y, one of us would be correct, despite the fact that law applies to no one. In fact, we could consider a law that was never applied to anyone.

The penalty one might expect from the violation of the law (e.g. incarceration, financial penalty, revocation of special privileges, public scorn, embarrassment, eternity in hell, shunning from the community or whatever) plays zero role in interpreting what the law means. If the law says it's illegal to steal, it's illegal to steal, regardless of whether you have an expectation of getting caught and regardless of whether you have an expectation of Presidential pardon.

There are methods by those communities who adhere to the tenants of the Bible when interpreting it, and if you want to know whether some stone their girls, you need to use those methods to know. If you don't use those methods, then you will be saying nothing more than "hypothetically, the bible could be used to justify stoning based upon my two cents upon reading through it, so it's a bad document." So now we know it could be, as opposed to whether it is or ever has been.

Maybe, but that's because there's a fact of the matter about how legal documents are interpreted. The reason I'd have no luck is because Judges are obliged to take the legal context into account. No-one is obliged to take the theological context into account, you just decide to, and then insist I must also. — Isaac

This is just incorrect and largely why you're not afforded a seat at the table when offering interpretations of biblical sources. There's nothing meaningfully distinct between how legal documents are interpreted as opposed to religious except for the fact that you have respect for the Anglo tradition of legal interpretation, but not for the systems in place for biblical interpretation.

When interpreting a legalistic document, we need to look to how it is interpreted by those who actually use as a guide for their society, whether that be the OT, the Constitution, or any legal code. It makes no more sense for a Ugandan to interpret the US Constitution and tell me what it really means than it does for you to tell someone who relies upon the OT that it really means that stoning is acceptable.

The religious group that holds the OT as a primary source of law is Judaism. Christians, as you might have noticed, do not. Why they eat pork and Jews don't is something you can research if you'd like. So, now looking at Judaic interpretations (as that is the one at play here), we now need to look at which of the Jews consider the OT as a literally true document and we then limit ourselves to that subgroup within Judaic interpretation. That sub-group would be those who are generally considered to be the Orthodox. Their view is not a simple literalism however, but it's one of divine authorship, meaning they do believe God wrote the OT. As each word is from a divine source, each word is impregnated with profound meaning that must be deciphered. That is to say, they reject outright these simplistic literalist interpretations where you interpret by reading from the four corners of the document. You also have to include Talmudic sources in your interpretations as well, as that too is a primary source. That is to say, when we look to interpret the OT from those who use it, no one does as you have done. You are criticizing a view held by no one.

From all of this interpretation arises what is referred to as halacha, which are the determinations of what Jewish law is. The method by which these conclusions are drawn is not nebulous or vague, but is based upon a long standing method. This is to say, there are few people who live their lives with greater certitude than the ultra-religious Jews. They don't go bumbling about wondering what this ever evolving document demands of them..

So, no, nothing you have said means a whole lot. It's just simplistic nonsense that actually argues that adherence to OT law demands (or might one day be so misinterpreted as to demand) we stone little girls. If you are interested in what the OT does demand (and the better word is "command") to the Jews, look it up. There are 613 commandments, not one of which says you are to stone girls.

My special pleading is limited to what actually occurs, having eliminated the hypothetical concerns of those who have no idea what they're talking about, except that they might have engaged in a cursory reading of a document that they now wish to claim equal expertise in. Reading this nonsense is like when I have to respond to a pro se legal pleading.

They would if allowed — Banno

They've had over two hundred years to pass whatever laws they wanted to where I live. If they wanted to stone folks, they would have by now. Maybe it's on next month's agenda.

I really don't know what to make of comments like the above. Is it ribbing or do you have this caricature view of Southern Baptists? I don't think they should get special protection, but I do think they ought be afforded the same respect as other religious groups.

Maybe next time you visit, we can visit the local Baptist church and you'll find them not terribly scary. It'll be fun. It'll be the first time for me at a church service.

But not Southern Baptists. Again, this is special pleading. You ignore those who are using the book, who when you ask them what it means, provide an answer you do not like. — Banno

The Southern Baptists don't stone people.

But of course meaning is imputed, as much as discovered. — Banno

But let's admit at least to the importance of looking at how the words have actually been interpreted by those who use them as opposed to how they might be interpreted by an outsider.

We have a civilization that is thousands of years old and there is a book that appears to allow for stoning in certain instances from a non-contextualized reading of their literature, yet we have no examples in those thousands of years of that stoning occurring in that civilization. In fact, we have evidence that those within that community of speakers have interpreted the book to say that stoning is prohibited. So, for those who have relied upon this book and use it, they don't run into the problem of horrific stonings that those who don't use this book indicate they will.

That's an odd result, right. It's like if I read the laws of Uganda and insisted they permit the eating of their young, yet there's not a single Ugandan who has ever heard of such of thing, but I keep pointing at their book and telling them that they do allow it. At some point you've got to trust the folks that are using that book and asking them what those words actually mean. That you might interpret things differently from your vantage point is academic, but of no meaningful value because you clearly don't know what those words mean to those who actually use them.

do you agree that there are those who read the scriptures as giving permission for abominable acts? — Banno

I believe there are those who read the kindest and gentlest of words, whether it be from the bible or wherever, to do terrible things. So, yes. There are some horrible people out there, Bible or no Bible.

If I don't engage with the text in the way they want, I'm out of the conversation. — Isaac

Sort of, yes. If you read a single page of a legal document without putting it into the context of other controlling documents and opinions and rules, then you're out of the conversation in terms of what the import of the single document is.

Sure, you can keep pointing to the rule you've read and tell me that it makes my society horrible, but it doesn't.

Sure, but the responsibility is also on those who popularize the Bible. Arguably, their responsibility is bigger. The Bible (usually in a simple version without footnotes) is available in many places for free. People are being encouraged to read it.


(One of the reasons Roman Catholicism discouraged literacy and reading the Bible for so long was precisely this concern that if ordinary people are left to themselves reading the Bible, they are very likely going to become confused, lose faith.) — baker

I don't know that I have responsibility to defend the Bible. I don't care what people think about it enough to do that. My only point is that if someone is going to read a passage from the Bible, having some background into what it means is important.