Comments for Sansblogue

Comment on Bible Canons simply described by tim

tim — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 03:56:05 +0000

Yes, poor God. Always seems to do things the hard way. Or at least dealing with humans seems always to require such a lot of divine work. It’s a real wonder that God restrains omnipotence to allow us to share the work :)

Comment on Bible Canons simply described by Mark Day

Mark Day — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 03:28:56 +0000

And here I was thinking God just beamed the King James version directly onto the page in 1611. The things you learn!

Comment on Biblical marriages by tim

tim — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:07:35 +0000

Taking your quote: “Authoritarians should find gay marriage oxymoronic and oppose it because it mixes up and confounds a traditionally gendered institution rooted in female-male relationships” (Bill E. Peterson and Eileen L. Zurbriggen, “Gender, Sexuality, and the Authoritarian Personality” Journal of Personality 78:6 [Dec 2010]: 1801-1826, 1822) out of context (since I have not read the article) I am puzzled by the description of marriage as a “traditionally gendered institution” I would have thought the relationship in which a man and a woman produce and care for children was not so much gendered by tradition as by biology?

Comment on Biblical marriages by tim

tim — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:03:45 +0000

Deane, thanks for the thoughtful response to a rant, and thanks also for the suggestion that I might be an “authoritarian personality” with the referenced quote to give academic support to the claim ;)

As you might expect (having read quite a bit of my stuff) I am very sympathetic to talk of legal and social equality. I am shocked and horrified by the way many of my fellow Christians speak and act towards homosexual people and couples (because in my experience their tolerance is greater towards individuals than towards actual couples present together). However, I am not sure that it would be helpful to ditch the term “marriage” since it refers to a reality and one which is in fact different from a gay partnership, because here social and biological are intertwined in complicated ways.

We Westerners are so quick to talk of rights. I am not sure that marriage is a “right” it is more of a responsibility and also a blessing.

Comment on Biblical marriages by Deane

Deane — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:56:19 +0000

I know you’re refusing the term “marriage” for homosexual couples, but the recognition of legal and social equality for homosexual and heterosexual couples is the very point at issue. That is – I’m saying let’s abandon the traditional conceptions of “marriage” that seek to restrict the extension of its social benefits to homosexual couples. The argument doesn’t stop at pointing out traditional definitions, when the contention is that those definitions should change. And further, basing definitions on the Bible meets the obvious rejoinder that the Bible is constantly being re-contextualised and applied in new social settings, and its own cultural constructs regarding sexuality, gender, etc, are “reinterpreted” for application in our own cultures. So – why not also with “marriage”?

Also, the dismissal, by appeal to definitions, and use of the term “oxymoron”, veils the substantive positioning. Such a rhetorical move also correlates strongly with an authoritarian personality, as research has shown. Authoritarians love those ol’ boundaries, definitions, an semantics, no matter what the effect on people in reality. “Authoritarians should find gay marriage oxymoronic and oppose it because it mixes up and confounds a traditionally gendered institution rooted in female-male relaionships” (Bill E. Peterson and Eileen L. Zurbriggen, “Gender, Sexuality, and the Authoritarian Personality” Journal of Personality 78:6 [Dec 2010]: 1801-1826, 1822).

Comment on Forking biblical criticism by Fork Criticism: Understanding Biblical Criticism Through Cutlery « Exploring Our Matrix

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 19:51:06 +0000

[...] Understanding Biblical Criticism Through CutleryFeb 13th, 2012 by James F. McGrath TweetVia Sansblogue, I learned about the St. Eutychus blog, and the post there that seeks to use cutlery to illustrate [...]

Comment on The Ethics of Animal Testing and being Carnivorous by tim

tim — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:26:38 +0000

Hi, Kima (Alexander?),

I’m sorry I only just saw your comment, somehow the usual email to tell me someone had commented went astray :(

I pretty much agree with you, though I do think that we have a responsibility to animals whether they are wild, farmed for food or to work, pets or used for testing. We hould try to give them a good and fair life. But like you I also think humans come first.

So in terms of testing there is a balance between the two, testing new medecines etc. like you are talking about is quite clear, but a cruel test or bad conditions just to test a possible new cosmetic I’d say was wrong…

Comment on Free Open Source Old Testament Textbook project by Akma » Time for FOSOT(NT)T?

Akma » Time for FOSOT(NT)T? — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 09:39:17 +0000

[...] ago, Brooke and Tim and I batted around the idea of a Free (as in beer) Open Source Old Testament/New Testament [...]

Comment on The Ethics of Animal Testing and being Carnivorous by kima

kima — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:56:12 +0000

I’m for animal testing. why should we risk an human for a mice,rat, or other rodents.There better off in an lab then in garbage, otherwords help prevent diseases then catching and giving them to the beings of there surroundment!!!

-just so u know im 13. in class where doing debates so im getting pratice……

Comment on Biblical marriages by tim

tim — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:47:40 +0000

The Skeptic wrote:
“Genesis 2 provides a definition of marriage? What a hoot! Genesis 2 does nothing of the sort. It is clear just who is doing the “twisting” here.”
Sorry, I don’t think anyone in this conversation, except you has claimed that it does.

On the rest, you might like to look at subsequent posts and the conversation there.