Help with "you're taking that one passage out of context"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-07-2013, 03:34 PM
RE: Help with "you're taking that one passage out of context"
(10-07-2013 03:29 PM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  Does the bible assert that the baby is the seed of the father and has no bearing on the mother? I am no expert but hadn't had that pointed out to me.

It doesn't make that claim.

It doesn't refute that claim, either. That was definitely the common belief in almost all of the world at the time. If the Bible had offered any worthwhile observations on the natural world (y'know - the kind that would be an actual revelation), people wouldn't have taken Aristotle at his word until the 1700s...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2013, 03:55 PM
RE: Help with "you're taking that one passage out of context"
(10-07-2013 03:26 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  A little off topic, (but in the "semen receptacle" context) .. it's fascinating to remember that there was not a clue in those days about either meiosis or mitosis, chromosomes, cell replication or anything even remotely close to the facts known by Biology today. The entire "little person" (baby) was thought to reside (or contributed 100 % completely), in the "seed" of the male. The woman contributed no "genetic material"... nothing. (You would think they would have noted resemblances to some of their mother's ??) It would be thousands of years before they would figure that one out. Just more proof that the Babble actually contributed nothing, NOT ONE THING, that was not already present in the knowledge base of it's culture, and 100 % of human origin.

And yet, if the woman didn't "give him a son" wasn't she the one punished? Maybe that was later in history (or um, just Game of Thrones.) Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2013, 03:57 PM
RE: Help with "you're taking that one passage out of context"
It's also interesting to note that more people have been persecuted, displaced, and killed under the guidelines of the so-called "New Covenant" than under the old one - religious wars in Europe, Crusades, Inquisition, conquest of the New World, etc. So any appeal to the "freedom from the law" idea will need to deal with the mayhem that occurred under said "freedom"...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Atheist_pilgrim's post
10-07-2013, 04:06 PM (This post was last modified: 11-07-2013 12:32 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Help with "you're taking that one passage out of context"
It was an assumption by most ancient cultures. Female "fertility" was the *ability* to grow what was given (in it's entirety) by a male.
The female was very important in the big picture of "fertility". They just had no clue about how important she really was.
They knew about what "seeds" are and do, but had no clue that seeds needed pollination in the case of plants, (that was discovered much much later :
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.11...2105.x/pdf
http://science.jrank.org/pages/5389/Poll...udies.html ) .
They thought human seed was "self-contained" just like they thought plant seeds were. Women were "fertile", if they provided "fertile ground". The information ("stamp") was supplied by the male. The female provided the "matter", onto which the info was "stamped". They though "inherited characteristics" *resided in the blood*.
http://books.google.com/books?id=3EjUDF4...el&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=db4hr55...el&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=hmeBybf...st&f=false

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
10-07-2013, 04:09 PM
RE: Help with "you're taking that one passage out of context"
(10-07-2013 03:57 PM)Atheist_pilgrim Wrote:  It's also interesting to note that more people have been persecuted, displaced, and killed under the guidelines of the so-called "New Covenant" than under the old one - religious wars in Europe, Crusades, Inquisition, conquest of the New World, etc. So any appeal to the "freedom from the law" idea will need to deal with the mayhem that occurred under said "freedom"...

This again we can thank Paul for. It was him that pushed for conversions whilst the Jews of the 5th century BCE - Present really do not attempt to gain converts. The Jewish faith is a bit on the racist side (chosen people pure bloodlines and all that) so they see outsiders as unclean not potential Jews.

Between that and the fact that the Israelites never had a stable enough Kingdom (for any length of time) to really attempt an Empire (Don't believe what you read about Solomon there is 0 evidence for an empire based in Jerusalem during the time he was supposed to have reigned) The actual Empires at the time would either keep Canaan as vassal states (Egypt) Concur most of them (The Assyrians and the Babylonians) or gobble the entire region as part of a multi-continental empire (The Macedonians and the later the Romans) the Israelites never really got past level 1 of empire building as at most they could hold about half of present day Palestine and really the modern state of Israel is probably the most successful militarily.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
10-07-2013, 08:23 PM
RE: Help with "you're taking that one passage out of context"
(10-07-2013 03:29 PM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  Does the bible assert that the baby is the seed of the father and has no bearing on the mother? I am no expert but hadn't had that pointed out to me.

Do all the verses where so-and-so begat this one, who begat that one... count? It only mentions the males there IIRC.

. . . all the gods were stories we told the children to make them behave. ~ Thoros of Myr (Game of Thrones, Episode 3:06)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2013, 11:06 PM
RE: Help with "you're taking that one passage out of context"
(10-07-2013 04:06 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They thought human seed was "self-contained" just like they thought plant seeds were. Women were "fertile", if they provided "fertile ground". The information ("stamp") was supplied by the male. The female provided the "matter", onto which the info was "stamped".

That could still be viewed as partially true. The male provides the determination of gender. The female provides the same genetic information with every egg (for the sake of discussion). It is the male X or Y that provides the direction that egg will take developmentally.

Not that it matters in this case.

"Your mind is twice a valuable as your body. And your ears are twice as valuable as your mouth. People will pay you based on which you use." - A very smart old lawyer
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2013, 11:12 PM
RE: Help with "you're taking that one passage out of context"
(10-07-2013 03:55 PM)ArtMinx Wrote:  And yet, if the woman didn't "give him a son" wasn't she the one punished? Maybe that was later in history (or um, just Game of Thrones.) Smile

Nope. Abraham bedded his wife's handmaiden when Sarah didn't initially give him a son. Then later when this (very old) lady did give him a trueborn son it was arguably the handmaiden who was punished. Then again, having to bed Abraham, who was no spring chicken himself, was punishment enough to begin with.

Ergo, don't be a servant. Or you may just be raped.

"Your mind is twice a valuable as your body. And your ears are twice as valuable as your mouth. People will pay you based on which you use." - A very smart old lawyer
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2013, 11:24 PM (This post was last modified: 10-07-2013 11:33 PM by DerekS.)
RE: Help with "you're taking that one passage out of context"
(10-07-2013 10:32 AM)ArtMinx Wrote:  Hello,
I was thankfully raised by heathens and have little bible knowledge. I am reading now, and it's pure MISERY. I feel so far behind everyone here. So you'd think I would know better than to engage in "conversations" with fucktards. Nope! Can't help it - misogyny and homophobia make me furious.

When they tell me "Oh that's the old testament - those laws were abolished." I cite things like, "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." Luke 16:17. But they all seem to say I'm taking it out of context at some point. Is this a valid argument? How do you handle this one? In large part, the thing is disjointed snippets that don't seem to be a complete story.

THANKS!!!

Choke them to death with a banana.

It won't solve the argument, but It'll make you feel better Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DerekS's post
10-07-2013, 11:29 PM
RE: Help with "you're taking that one passage out of context"
(10-07-2013 10:32 AM)ArtMinx Wrote:  Hello,
I was thankfully raised by heathens and have little bible knowledge. I am reading now, and it's pure MISERY. I feel so far behind everyone here. So you'd think I would know better than to engage in "conversations" with fucktards. Nope! Can't help it - misogyny and homophobia make me furious.

When they tell me "Oh that's the old testament - those laws were abolished." I cite things like, "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." Luke 16:17. But they all seem to say I'm taking it out of context at some point. Is this a valid argument? How do you handle this one? In large part, the thing is disjointed snippets that don't seem to be a complete story.

THANKS!!!
I never debate the Bible with theists. That's giving them the home field advantage. Their central tenet is that the Bible is the word of God. I challenge them to prove that from non-biblical evidence. If they then quote the Bible I point out the circular reasoning. After that I respond to any scripture with "scripture proves nothing".

Humans arrived on Earth on 22 October 4004 B.C. A few of us are still trying to repair the ship.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: