If you can't stand the heat, leave the kitchen, etc.

[hawtsean]

Some people post stuff that is urban myth, foolish legend, old grandad tales without reality in them, and other nonsense. If you label your stuff of that sort as your opinion, that's fine by me. Opinions are like assholes, we all have them and have a right to them.

BUT.............when that same myth or unproven legend is posted as truth, or is tied to the terms "everyone already knows this", or "there's tons of proof", or any similar phrase that speaks of validity ---- and I know differently from experience, training, use or whatever --------- dude I am going to call you out and ask for that proof that you claim 'everyone knows'. There is far too much bullshit on the internet that masquerades as fact (Wiki sites are the worst for that due to open source input without verification), and even more gullible folk who believe everything they see on a web page.

Just because someone with an axe to grind puts stuff on a website, means nothing! They could have zero proof, and by the time that someone either corrects them or shuts the site down, millions could be deceived. This whole internet = truth nonsense is really annoying to folk who have pursued higher academic education and who have actual experience with stuff. Even sillier is when some dude posts a crapload of stuff, is challenged to provide proof of what he claims, and then bombards the challenger with accusations of everything from arrogant, to bully to hater. Where I come from, the word for someone who asserts something then refuses to attempt to research and prove or disprove his info is JERK; LIAR comes in second!

WE NEED MORE PERSONAL INTEGRITY - and not the hit-and-run sniping that is so popular on the internet due to anonymity. Very few people would spout bullshit and lies to someone's face, but they seem to take the liberty of so doing while hiding behind a screen name.

If someone is of the type who takes anything posted on the internet as truth, then please contact me for a fantastic and exclusive deal on some reclaimed swamp land in the Okeechobee swamp. I have a few hundred acres left and they're going fast - I just need your credit card info to secure a land deed for you!!

Hope y'all get my point here. just venting

end rant mode

 

[gb2000ie]

Just one minor point - did you mean to post this in the porn & sex forum, or did you mean to put it in general?

Regardless, you have a fantastic point.

What I'll add is that I blame the education system for not keeping up with the world. The single most important skill in the information age is the ability to judge the value of any piece of information.

Learning how to evaluate the credibility of a site is one of THE most important life-skills in the 21st century, and many many people are utterly un-educated in that regard. Imagine if no one had learned to drive before trying to use a car - we'd have chaos on the streets! That's sorta where we are with the net ATM.

B.

 

[ritsuka]

I hold equal contempt for anyone that automatically takes anything they read in an academic journal or from official, mainstream sources as the truth. Authoritarians and beneficiaries of the current power structures can't stand the democracy of the internet--where everyone can speak about and examine the world on their own terms. There should not be any gold standard of ""credibility"" in fact, this term is often used by sophists to tow the official, corrupt corporate and/or government line. They look down on everyone else in the world, on books and websites, because only phds who get their articles selected for publication in journals (or columnists for the new york times for that matter) really have any idea of what is going on. Sort of like how in the middle ages, there were only disgusting bibles published, and only priests knew how to read them, and so they were able to control the message.

But you know, just because you share your opinion on the internet doesn't mean you've signed a contract obligating you to undertake a six page debate just because you didn't voice a mainstream opinion, and it doesn't mean you're obligated to except nasty, self-righteous attacks by people who want to control the truth, either. Not everyone is interested in your closed definition of integrity, or in the fact that you were offended by something they said. That is a simple truth of the internet. If all you want to do is confront people all the time, you probably won't find satisfaction, but will waste your energy. Nine times out of ten, when I see a totally stupid comment posted on the internet, I just scroll down and go on with my own life. The internet doesn't reward self-righteousness.

 

[hawtsean]

I hold equal contempt for anyone that automatically takes anything they read in an academic journal or from official, mainstream sources as the truth.

Ahh, but neither do I rest upon the pronouncements of academe. It isn't a given that textbooks are correct and the internet faulty. Commonsense, logic and some basic research (asking questions and not automatically accepting one source) will almost always provide the truth of an issue. In scientific matters, repeated proof is the key that validates any claim. If a result can be duplicated by anyone using standardized protocols, then one must accept the results. It is different in matters of politics, sociology and mental health - since much of that can opinionated conjecture, with only a certain amount verifiable.

To disavow all academic learning by labeling it as a tool of some higher force to overwhelm and conquer, one can easily miss a good deal of valuable knowledge from brilliant men and women who have applied their lives to discovering truth.

My point remains - if one posts stuff and asserts something, they are not immune to someone else challenging what they've stated - and should either label their post as an opinion, or be prepared to back up what they say.

 

[hawtsean]

Just one minor point - did you mean to post this in the porn & sex forum, or did you mean to put it in general?
B.

Our moderators have seen fit to move it to the General category, and here it is. I feel it belongs in both, as it applies to posts made in both forums.

 

[gb2000ie]

I hold equal contempt for anyone that automatically takes anything they read in an academic journal or from official, mainstream sources as the truth. Authoritarians and beneficiaries of the current power structures can't stand the democracy of the internet--where everyone can speak about and examine the world on their own terms. There should not be any gold standard of ""credibility"" in fact, this term is often used by sophists to tow the official, corrupt corporate and/or government line. They look down on everyone else in the world, on books and websites, because only phds who get their articles selected for publication in journals (or columnists for the new york times for that matter) really have any idea of what is going on. Sort of like how in the middle ages, there were only disgusting bibles published, and only priests knew how to read them, and so they were able to control the message.

I think credibility is VITAL - but it's not defined by anyone, it's something you yourself have to evaluate on each and every source you read.

All information is not equal, and sorting the wheat from the chaff is a vital skill you need to learn if you wish to be properly informed about anything. At the core of that sorting is the credibility you judge different sources to have.

But you know, just because you share your opinion on the internet doesn't mean you've signed a contract obligating you to undertake a six page debate just because you didn't voice a mainstream opinion, and it doesn't mean you're obligated to except nasty, self-righteous attacks by people who want to control the truth, either. Not everyone is interested in your closed definition of integrity, or in the fact that you were offended by something they said. That is a simple truth of the internet. If all you want to do is confront people all the time, you probably won't find satisfaction, but will waste your energy. Nine times out of ten, when I see a totally stupid comment posted on the internet, I just scroll down and go on with my own life. The internet doesn't reward self-righteousness.

I think it depends on where you are discussing things. If you are posting on a discussion board then you should expect a discussion! You can make all the statements of opinion you like, but if you make a statement of fact, you should be able to back it up, if not, you shouldn't post it as fact!

If you are posting on your own blog then you decide how two-way the conversation will be. Everyone has the right to set up their own blog, and everyone has the right to run their own blog however they wish. Some people like it to be an entirely one-way stream of information, others encourage debate and disagreement. The visitors to a blog don't get to set the tone, that's up to the owner.

B.

 

[ritsuka]

I think credibility is VITAL - but it's not defined by anyone, it's something you yourself have to evaluate on each and every source you read.

I don't agree about "credibility" since it is a defined term, and is used in a very specific way most of the time that has certain biases behind it. But yes, everyone needs to evaluate what they come across according to their own standards. My point was I don't see it as students passively absorbing the standards of their professors and then going out and attacking everything that doesn't fit into that world view. Unfortunately, many people lack nuance and think that "teaching" critical thinking to students doesn't mean being critical of what the professors say or what is published in academic journals, but just what lies outside of that institution, in the realms of books or the internet. That form of authoritarian pedagogy is the exact opposite of critical thinking, which can't be taught, but just allowed to happen; it won't always create the same result, and the result can't be controlled either. I think there is a great deal of real critical thinking on the internet, but there is definitely no obligation to respond to anything you don't want to, let alone something hostile, when you presume that just because you think you're right and have the truth, that means you can be as hostile and confrontational as you would like.

 

[gb2000ie]

I don't agree about "credibility" since it is a defined term, and is used in a very specific way most of the time that has certain biases behind it. But yes, everyone needs to evaluate what they come across according to their own standards.

Fair enough, we'll agree to differ on that - in my head I'm thinking "how credible is this site to me" but maybe my inner monologue needs a vocabulary lesson

My point was I don't see it as students passively absorbing the standards of their professors and then going out and attacking everything that doesn't fit into that world view. Unfortunately, many people lack nuance and think that "teaching" critical thinking to students doesn't mean being critical of what the professors say or what is published in academic journals, but just what lies outside of that institution, in the realms of books or the internet. That form of authoritarian pedagogy is the exact opposite of critical thinking, which can't be taught, but just allowed to happen; it won't always create the same result, and the result can't be controlled either.

What you're describing there is what I would call old-school learning, from 50 years ago. Credibility comes from letters before and after your name, and from accolades. I don't think that way of looking at the world holds much sway these days, and that's no bad thing!

I hope that places that are bothering to teach critical thinking at all (which are saddly too few and far between) are not teaching it like you describe, since that would be utterly self-defeating

I think the perfect example of the flaws in the old way of looking at credibility is when extremists find one person with the letters PhD after their name, and get them to say what they want to hear and then tell people it must be true because Dr. so and so said it. You see this with creationists, with global warming deniers, and with many other vested-interest-driven groups.

I think in this day and age that letters before and after your name are infinitely less meaningful that where your salary comes from. With all the vested interests trying to push people's beliefs their way, the money trail is a vital piece of info these days.

Something that I don't think has lost it's value is a look at an academic's full bibliography of published works. It's hard to fake a life's work!

BTW - I disagree that you can't teach critical thinking, you can and should teach students the tools they'll need to deploy to be able to think critically. If students learn nothing else, they should learn the simple questions you should always ask about any source such as:

1) who wrote this?
2) when was this written?
3) where was it written?
3) why was it written?
3) who paid for this?
5) does the author provide sources to substantiate their claim
6) how do those sources fare on the above questions

I'm not saying that's an exhaustive list, but I think it illustrates my point. You teach people to think critically by helping them to understand the kind of questions they should be asking.

I think there is a great deal of real critical thinking on the internet, but there is definitely no obligation to respond to anything you don't want to, let alone something hostile, when you presume that just because you think you're right and have the truth, that means you can be as hostile and confrontational as you would like.

I don't think anyone has said there is an obligation to reply to anything. I think that in a discussion I have a RIGHT to reply, but not a duty. I also think it's perfectly valid to politely ask people to substantiate their factual claims. What annoys me, and I think hawtsean too is when people get angry and self-righteous because you DARED to ask them to support their statements of fact.

I also don't think anyone is advocating rudeness, more like deploring rudeness when it's hurled at people for no greater sin than being sceptical.

B.

 

[hawtsean]

also think it's perfectly valid to politely ask people to substantiate their factual claims. What annoys me, and I think hawtsean too is when people get angry and self-righteous because you DARED to ask them to support their statements of fact.

I also don't think anyone is advocating rudeness, more like deploring rudeness when it's hurled at people for no greater sin than being sceptical.

B.

You've got the essence of how I feel, Bart. There is so much real info out there, that one need only look for it and they'd stumble on a great wellspring of factual info.

In the studies I pursued (various things), almost all my profs and instructors had a common thought - if someone is insulted by being questioned on proof of their statements, either they were lying to begin with or they had copied and repeated someone's assertion - quite possibly a fabrication itself.

 

[hawtsean]

I don't agree about "credibility" since it is a defined term, and is used in a very specific way most of the time that has certain biases behind it. But yes, everyone needs to evaluate what they come across according to their own standards.

Credibility can be relative to the subject under examination. One's own standards cannot apply in matters of scientific proof - either it is or isn't. The laws of physics are constant (the ones that affect the immediate planet and humans), the laws of electricity, gravity, biology, etc. etc. etc. Those are viewed as immutable. To apply a different metric to them is folly, as 250 volts of AC current flowing in a circuit will still kill you if you contact that potential and it flows across your heart and out to ground. Having a measuring device that reports the potential differently because of a personal disagreement with standards, is still lethal.

Where relative standards do make sense, is in matters relating to one's personal life and behaviors, and how one determines specific actions or responses to various life issues. What might be right for me to do, could be totally inadequate or undesirable for another. The critical point is in using commonsense and common knowledge to determine when a standard should apply or should be viewed skeptically.

 

[777]

I'm posting this here since I couldn't answer your PM by PM and I do feel this is relevant to the discussion. You seem to like just making waves instead of actually discussing like you claim.

I disagree a bit with your definition of fundamentalism. The term simply refers to the religious practice of what scriptures say, without reinterpretation. Now, that may or may not be a good thing, admittedly. But if one deviates from the established standard of the holy written stuff of whatever faith they deal with, then they are created a new cult or sub-group. If one confesses belief in a faith, then the texts that set the standard are to be followed. Individual re-interpretation does not necessarily create something better, just something different and out of step with the original. Of course, the term fundamentalism has been subverted to be a bad thing, mostly by the media.

Relativism cannot work in a religious context. Religion, for better or worse, is a set of rules for behavior and worship, in the service of the deity of that faith. By definition, it cannot be a do-it-yourself concoction. If one wishes to make one's own rules, I support that, but I cannot call it by the name of some established faith. I am a person like that. I have faith and I believe in the presence of God. But I really can't stand the term Christian, simply due to the negative way that is viewed by so many who have been hurt by people using the name but not living the life.

I can only disagree with you on that, especially when it comes to moral relativism. Even when there's scriptures, their interpretation has changed and changes through times. Fundamentalism is reading those scriptures from word to word, yes, but the interpretation of the words still change through times because the world changes. There simply is no religion without interpretation, personal or done by some figurehead. Even from Bible we know that it was compiled to the present form from various possibilities. Those who did the job were looking for a certain interpretation themselves, and even Apostle Paul was making re-interpretations as you can read from the Bible itself. Without some form of interpretation Bible ends up being full of contradictions, especially OT, plus OT versus NT. If holy texts should be read and believed from word to word, then how do you read say, two gospels concurrently without seeing contradictions. Which one do you pick over the other? And how is that not making a DIY concoction? Is that hearing the whole message? And what is the established standard, or the original? I think that is where we come to the place where the biggest danger lies, since anything can be justified by few carefully chosen words from the holy texts.

Considering that the Bible is very unambiguous in some things that aren't even considered an issue in western world, so we would (and do) look like a bunch of pretenders if we started abiding rest of the Bible without considering the possibility of it being a product of its time and not answering to all the modern problems and changes. Like we shouldn't take an interest from a loan (Exodus 22:25) and shouldn't really ask the money back either (Luke 6:30). Still, our economic system is based in this prohibited thing. It is reasonable to look at the historical context, compare old scriptures from different sources and keep in line with the big messages instead of clinging to random lines.

 

[777]

I don't agree about "credibility" since it is a defined term, and is used in a very specific way most of the time that has certain biases behind it. But yes, everyone needs to evaluate what they come across according to their own standards. My point was I don't see it as students passively absorbing the standards of their professors and then going out and attacking everything that doesn't fit into that world view. Unfortunately, many people lack nuance and think that "teaching" critical thinking to students doesn't mean being critical of what the professors say or what is published in academic journals, but just what lies outside of that institution, in the realms of books or the internet. That form of authoritarian pedagogy is the exact opposite of critical thinking, which can't be taught, but just allowed to happen; it won't always create the same result, and the result can't be controlled either. I think there is a great deal of real critical thinking on the internet, but there is definitely no obligation to respond to anything you don't want to, let alone something hostile, when you presume that just because you think you're right and have the truth, that means you can be as hostile and confrontational as you would like.

I do think critical thinking can be taught. At least in my studies professors actively encourage/d confronting the ideas they present, and expect criticisms and discussion to which they answer and discuss further. Though the whole "be critical" thing was already very much present in the upper secondary school and with the internet being a source of information many children are used on using, and how easy it is to manipulate text and pictures, nowadays it's even more important from early on to learn not to trust on everything you see.

 

[gb2000ie]

In the studies I pursued (various things), almost all my profs and instructors had a common thought - if someone is insulted by being questioned on proof of their statements, either they were lying to begin with or they had copied and repeated someone's assertion - quite possibly a fabrication itself.

I used to judge my profs based on how they answered questions - the ones who had genuine understanding could easily answer questions, and could re-explain the same concept in multiple ways. Those who had no clue either dodged the question, ignored the question, or re-stated what they'd said before without change.

B.

 

[hawtsean]

I'm posting this here since I couldn't answer your PM by PM and I do feel this is relevant to the discussion. You seem to like just making waves instead of actually discussing like you claim.

Again, I will term this part of your response as a pouty attitude. Making waves is exactly what a discussion will produce. Discussing does not necessarily mean agreeing with a statement. It is the interchanges between two or more parties on a given statement or thought. I will state again that - if you make a statement of which you claim historical fact or otherwise proven knowledge, and make that in a public forum such as this one, you should expect to be challenged as to how you know your statement to BE factual. The challenger need not offer their own counter proof until and unless the discussion gets that far. Merely the assertion of fact rather than opinion or question, is challengeable. If you know of what you state, then prove it. If you don't, then you must accept the logical debate and counter-assertions of others.

So, I had asked you to prove that the knowledge of things related to religion (which you claimed were historic and widely known and accepted) was factual. You balked at that and seemed to feel that you were being attacked. You still haven't provided such validation --- instead you have related your study and critical understanding of the Bible. Fine, I accept that as your opinion and would never question your right to have that opinion. But, it's not proof of anything. There are serious interpretive questions on many parts of Scripture. You yourself have raised them, but in the manner of expressing your feeling that constant re-interpretation is needed. Okay, that is again your opinion which I respect but do not accept as valid for me.


SO THEN:

I can only disagree with you on that, especially when it comes to moral relativism. Even when there's scriptures, their interpretation has changed and changes through times. Fundamentalism is reading those scriptures from word to word, yes, but the interpretation of the words still change through times because the world changes.

That would seem to fly in the face of God (in the Bible) stating that He changes not and his Word is forever. You can't have "forever" and "changes not" and still permit re-interpretation. It's one or the other. My personal feeling (careful here, not a fact just my considered opinion), is that so many scholars have raised questions on the validity of many passages of both OT and NT, that the entire text must be viewed carefully and not accepted as a totality of truth. There are published works of accredited bible experts who claim (according to their knowledge and study) that parts of Scripture were added afterward, many years later - citing a differentiation in writing style and even language syntax. That whole question of scriptural integrity still grips the Christian world today. There are far too many sources to cite here as a list of proof texts, so I would direct you to google the string "textual integrity of the bible" - and see some of the scholars quoted and their background. As in any search of detailed info, your own good common sense and rational judgement will be part of your critical acceptance or rejection of that material. I will point out that I don't automatically accept that those scholars are correct - but enough doubt has been raised to reduce my acceptance of the Bible at face value (and that of many others who speak to the matter).

One very important point of that doubt is a very real one to most readers here. The question of homosexuality being damned of God and punishable by death, or not. Serious Christian textual critics have claimed that many of these prohibitions in Levitical law were not part of any original doents; they seemed to have been inserted much later, with a totally different style of language from the original ............. as though some latter moralist decided to put God's name to their personal feelings. Even reading the Bible in any common English translation seems to deliver the feeling that the sexual prohibitions in Leviticus were "dropped in" after the fact. Regardless of whether this be true or not, serious doubt has arisen - especially in modern times as we have learned that homosexuality is not a choice or preference that one can turn on or off, but a seemingly inborn trait. If inborn, how can God condemn what He created as a human soul? That's just one of many incompatible areas that cannot be explained away or accorded "historic" acceptance without question.

Considering that the Bible is very unambiguous in some things that aren't even considered an issue in western world, so we would (and do) look like a bunch of pretenders if we started abiding rest of the Bible without considering the possibility of it being a product of its time and not answering to all the modern problems and changes. Like we shouldn't take an interest from a loan (Exodus 22:25) and shouldn't really ask the money back either (Luke 6:30). Still, our economic system is based in this prohibited thing. It is reasonable to look at the historical context, compare old scriptures from different sources and keep in line with the big messages instead of clinging to random lines.

You have actually made my point by your statement. You cannot claim historic validation and proof of a religion or its tenets, because the interpreted standards are constantly changing. What history and humanity accepted then is now repudiated, or drastically changed. The law of universal gravitation could not be a law that governs the planet and its inhabitants, if we changed the values of the equation

,

whenever we felt to do so. Whether or not the constant Biblical interpretative change is good or evil, is another matter entirely. I simply challenged you to validate "historic acceptance" - and you have demonstrated the opposite by virtue of public non-acceptance and re-interpretation of both major and minor precepts within Scripture.

Thanks for responding and continuing the discussion with me.

 

[SimplyJakeAndAlex]

Wanted to leave a word on this before I fly away to OZ land

Some people post stuff that is urban myth, foolish legend, old grandad tales without reality in them, and other nonsense. If you label your stuff of that sort as your opinion, that's fine by me. Opinions are like assholes, we all have them and have a right to them.

I know that this thread would be coming one day as we both were quite victim of being discredit from posters whom doesn't necessarily have the credentials or experience when posting in some subject were "personal opinions" is not enough to be considered as truth. And I can't agree more with this rant.

As a scholar with several diplomas in the field of social science, psychology and administration I will never be the one to come forward and say that what ever I am saying is the absolute truth, however I can tell you that I'm quite often backed by other professionals, associations or studies that can prove otherwise. But does that means that we're right NO, but it is surely not a personal opinion.

If one follow some of my posts, GB, Hawtsean, Gypsy and many others (that I can't name here it would be too long) you'll find out that when we quote a personal opinion we will note it in our post, I am using a lot of my personal experiences when I post because I at 35 years old have had a very busy life and have participate in many projects and those real-life experiences have helped in shaping this critical being that I am today.

If I read a self-help book I will take what is good for me and will leave the super flux away and I proceed to the same process for any other books on any other subjects when it comes to psychology, behavior, social trends and other similar literary works.

Just so people knows I do not practice the work of social works or counseling psychology I perform researches and therefore my approach is always a methodological one. We start with a goal and we end with a result. When I am being questioned by other scholars they don't really care about the results, what interest them is the methods used. What I'm posting here on this public board is often just a result but you are not presented with the method used to reached such results. There is few methods and techniques that I use in my methodology which are quite often the 4 fundamental of research work; ontological, epistemological, socio-cultural and methodological.

Ontology refers to whether reality is objective and external to human beings or whether it is created by one’s own consciousness

Epistemology is concerned with knowledge and how it can be acquired. The question here relates to whether we see knowledge as a hard body of objective reality or as a subjective experience of reality. Whichever view we take will affect how we go about uncovering knowledge.

The socio-cultural assumption concerns the relationship between humans and the natural environment. This refers to whether or not the human being is essentially active or passive. Do we respond to external events or stimuli or are we active initiators of our own actions?

Whichever perspective we adopt will affect the methodological approach that we choose in research.

Epistemological and ontological questions are related since claims about what exists in the world imply claims about how what exists may be known. Positivist tend to view that universal laws govern social behaviour and to treat knowledge as objective. If we adopt a positivist stance in pursuing educational research we will tend to see the social world as analogous to the natural world and susceptible to the formation of universal laws. Competing views are more skeptical of generalisations and more alive to the play of human creativity whose consequences may be difficult to predict.

Now why am I posting this? Is this to look smarter than you? Hell no, a degree doesn't necessarily means that we are all knowing, but if you post a reply to something I posted according to some real-life issue I will question you back using the same approach and will question you in the ground of your opinions versus facts. And those stumping on single words whom ran away from the topic at end, please learn to be accurate and consistent.

As a social scientist I am ready and willing to be petitioned on my rhetoric, are you? :thinking:

 

[777]

Again, I will term this part of your response as a pouty attitude. Making waves is exactly what a discussion will produce. Discussing does not necessarily mean agreeing with a statement. It is the interchanges between two or more parties on a given statement or thought. I will state again that - if you make a statement of which you claim historical fact or otherwise proven knowledge, and make that in a public forum such as this one, you should expect to be challenged as to how you know your statement to BE factual. The challenger need not offer their own counter proof until and unless the discussion gets that far. Merely the assertion of fact rather than opinion or question, is challengeable. If you know of what you state, then prove it. If you don't, then you must accept the logical debate and counter-assertions of others.

So, I had asked you to prove that the knowledge of things related to religion (which you claimed were historic and widely known and accepted) was factual. You balked at that and seemed to feel that you were being attacked. You still haven't provided such validation --- instead you have related your study and critical understanding of the Bible. Fine, I accept that as your opinion and would never question your right to have that opinion. But, it's not proof of anything. There are serious interpretive questions on many parts of Scripture. You yourself have raised them, but in the manner of expressing your feeling that constant re-interpretation is needed. Okay, that is again your opinion which I respect but do not accept as valid for me.

You weren't actually challenging anything I said. You were talking about something else entirely and kept missing the point I was trying to make, which was simply that the religions in the Palestine have same spiritual roots and it shouldn't be impossible to co-exist in peace if it only were about religion and not other issues. I assume that since you keep claiming that you have studied the subject, you are also familiar with the basics, i. e. critical biblical studies, even if you wouldn't agree with them. As you said, we both are entitled to our opinions, and as they are like assholes...

Which gets me to one thing I'd like to say. You keep saying I pout or what ever there was in the first post in this thread, but you yourself have a very emotional way of putting things, "I hate to burst you bubble" etc, that isn't challenging anything, it's stating that you are correct and there's not even a possibility for the other. You also keep saying that you have the correct knowledge. Ok. And then you post a new thread with a very juvenile attitude instead of continuing the discussion in private or in a new thread about which you'd tell to me. That, again, is not having a discussion, at least not with someone who has other opinions. You come off irrational and emotional to me. It might be just our own cultural contexts, but there you have it.

SO THEN:

That would seem to fly in the face of God (in the Bible) stating that He changes not and his Word is forever. You can't have "forever" and "changes not" and still permit re-interpretation. It's one or the other. My personal feeling (careful here, not a fact just my considered opinion), is that so many scholars have raised questions on the validity of many passages of both OT and NT, that the entire text must be viewed carefully and not accepted as a totality of truth. There are published works of accredited bible experts who claim (according to their knowledge and study) that parts of Scripture were added afterward, many years later - citing a differentiation in writing style and even language syntax. That whole question of scriptural integrity still grips the Christian world today. There are far too many sources to cite here as a list of proof texts, so I would direct you to google the string "textual integrity of the bible" - and see some of the scholars quoted and their background. As in any search of detailed info, your own good common sense and rational judgement will be part of your critical acceptance or rejection of that material. I will point out that I don't automatically accept that those scholars are correct - but enough doubt has been raised to reduce my acceptance of the Bible at face value (and that of many others who speak to the matter).

One very important point of that doubt is a very real one to most readers here. The question of homosexuality being damned of God and punishable by death, or not. Serious Christian textual critics have claimed that many of these prohibitions in Levitical law were not part of any original doents; they seemed to have been inserted much later, with a totally different style of language from the original ............. as though some latter moralist decided to put God's name to their personal feelings. Even reading the Bible in any common English translation seems to deliver the feeling that the sexual prohibitions in Leviticus were "dropped in" after the fact. Regardless of whether this be true or not, serious doubt has arisen - especially in modern times as we have learned that homosexuality is not a choice or preference that one can turn on or off, but a seemingly inborn trait. If inborn, how can God condemn what He created as a human soul? That's just one of many incompatible areas that cannot be explained away or accorded "historic" acceptance without question.

You have actually made my point by your statement. You cannot claim historic validation and proof of a religion or its tenets, because the interpreted standards are constantly changing. What history and humanity accepted then is now repudiated, or drastically changed. The law of universal gravitation could not be a law that governs the planet and its inhabitants, if we changed the values of the equation

,

whenever we felt to do so. Whether or not the constant Biblical interpretative change is good or evil, is another matter entirely. I simply challenged you to validate "historic acceptance" - and you have demonstrated the opposite by virtue of public non-acceptance and re-interpretation of both major and minor precepts within Scripture.

Thanks for responding and continuing the discussion with me.

So do you accept that the scriptures need to be studied and have critical eye on them or not? From what you have been stating earlier I got the impression that you take the texts as factual, and that seems to be in the mix, but then you started talking about Biblical Studies, a subject I've been talking about all the time. I don't understand your point.

BTW, it's not only Leviticus that is different from the others. Genesis begins with two different stories of the creation for starters, but the whole Pentateuch has, with reasonable probability, three different story bodies behind them, mixed, and the last one (Deuteronomium) is separate all together. The whole of it was a product of a long time period, and has changed with time. That much you can read from the text too.

 

[XMan101]

This is starting to get a little personal!!

I'm sure you don't want your posts removed ?

 

[777]

This is starting to get a little personal!!

I'm sure you don't want your posts removed ?

Which one? Both?

 

[hawtsean]

Which one? Both?

XMAN, I'm bowing out, since our friend reacts rather strongly to being challenged on stuff. Interesting that, since there are several other forum members who kick this and similar stuff around with me via PM - and have no issue with me questioning their proofs nor I with theirs.

I started the thread, and thus it shall end. The points I have made and items to which I have responded stand for others to see and judge. May I suggest that you lock this thread as it has served its purpose in demonstrating that there are those who wish to utter statements that cannot be proven, even while labeling them as fact.

 

[hawtsean]

You weren't actually challenging anything I said.

I'm offering no further interaction with you on this issue, probably none with you on any other matter, based on what I have read thus far. Have a nice day.