tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5827968588643415787.post465990717890935063..comments2024-03-27T06:58:00.659-05:00Comments on Balancing Jane: Arguing about the Bible on Facebook (or, How to Crush Your Own Soul)Michellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07801229525416203656noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5827968588643415787.post-66772526240481723742013-05-13T19:11:25.762-05:002013-05-13T19:11:25.762-05:00I am reminded of the terrible bargain which we hav...I am reminded of <a href="http://www.shakesville.com/2009/08/terrible-bargain-we-have-regretfully.html" rel="nofollow">the terrible bargain which we have regretfully struck</a>:<br /><br />"There are the occasions that men—intellectual men, clever men, engaged men—insist on playing devil's advocate, desirous of a debate on some aspect of feminist theory or reproductive rights or some<br /> other subject generally filed under the heading: Women's Issues. These<br /> intellectual, clever, engaged men want to endlessly probe my argument <br />for weaknesses, want to wrestle over details, want to argue just for <br />fun—and they wonder, these intellectual, clever, engaged men, why my <br />voice keeps raising and why my face is flushed and why, after an hour of<br /> fighting my corner, hot tears burn the corners of my eyes. Why do you have to take this stuff so personally? ask the intellectual, clever, and engaged men, who have never considered that the content of the abstract exercise that's so much fun for them is the stuff of my life."Palavererhttp://cuterus.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5827968588643415787.post-39767750551686313372013-05-11T14:44:50.161-05:002013-05-11T14:44:50.161-05:00I agree, and I and two other people did use that e...I agree, and I and two other people did use that exact line of reasoning at least three times during this debate. It didn't matter. He continued to draw an arbitrary distinction between homosexuality in the Bible and these other things in the Bible which he says have to be read in context. No matter how many times we made the logical connection that reading this part of the Bible "in context" meant we had to read all of it in context, he continued to insist that homosexuality was somehow different than all those other contexts, I assume because he was using his personal prejudices instead of any logical connection. <br /><br />You're right that showing the logical connection was the right way to handle it, but what about when that doesn't work? Then you just stop, right? You can't force someone to follow the rules of logic.Michelle (Balancing Jane)http://www.balancingjane.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5827968588643415787.post-59418771081275727162013-05-11T14:40:38.221-05:002013-05-11T14:40:38.221-05:00I think you can't approach these arguments fro...I think you can't approach these arguments from a personalized position. Once you do that, you lose your ability to engage in any rational way. Kate is right that discussions related to the bible or "what God thinks" cannot be debated. The purpose of debate is essentially to score points based on analytical and rational concerns. All things religious are, at their core, related to beliefs. <br /><br />That being said, your opponent was, essentially, arguing about people who occupied a particular period in history when people were regarded as a form of property. It wasn't just women, though it was often women, and those who were deemed a form of property were of lesser value than those who were not (in this case, the holy man). At that time, the "whore" and the daughter were equivalent to cattle. They were to be used and then discarded. That was that period in history.<br /><br />I think that one needs to argue this from two points of view. One was that this made a sort of "sense" for the time and could be seen as a choice which had to be made in such a situation. However, it can also be seen as a reflection of how large swathes of the bible are painfully outdated and do not apply to the modern world. If I had been in your shoes, I would have conceded that those men made a choice in tune with the times, and then asked him if you felt such a choice would be the one he would make in the present. He would, of course, say he would not offer his mistress/girlfriend/whoever and daughter for rape and murder. <br /><br />Once he acknowledges that the behavior and viewpoints in the bible suited a point in history, but not the present, you have him on the views in the bible about homosexuality. The bible does not suit the modern era in many respects, and how it portrays and dealt with homosexuality is one of them. The fact that many anti-gay Christians choose to cherry pick what they will and will not embrace as the valid voice of God only betrays the selective of their belief which, in turn, reveals their personal bias. They cannot have it both ways - either the bible is right for us now or it only reflected what was right then. <br /><br />Use their own logic to dislodge their thinking. This is how you deal with these types of people.Orchid Sixty-fournoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5827968588643415787.post-70202931081017181202013-05-11T11:16:14.865-05:002013-05-11T11:16:14.865-05:00"Although, I am interested in the fact that h..."Although, I am interested in the fact that he sees the abuse and ownership of women as an artifact of the times. How then is the homophobia any different?"<br /><br /><br />Exactly! And that's where this (much too long) debate started, so we really just ended up full circle without making any progress at all. Exhausting.Michelle (Balancing Jane)http://www.balancingjane.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5827968588643415787.post-72842709515968228452013-05-11T11:11:50.566-05:002013-05-11T11:11:50.566-05:00I was not offended, but a little triggered just be...I was not offended, but a little triggered just because I've been there so many times before. Ryan has some good points, but I'll add just one thing: no matter the topic, there is no rhetorical debate with someone who does not see all participants as full and equal human beings.<br /><br />There have been so many times when I've realized that nothing I could say even on a light topic would ever be taken seriously. It's always most obvious when a man (my history of this is as a male-female thing) makes my same point again a few minutes later, and then it's received with thoughtful consideration. It's enough to make you want to pull your hair out. Anyone who would argue against the rights of one of the participants? Not worth the energy.<br /><br />In this case, it probably would not have made much difference anyway. If someone believes the bible is the literal word of God, nothing else matters. (Although, I am interested in the fact that he sees the abuse and ownership of women as an artifact of the times. How then is the homophobia any different?)Kate MacInnishttp://mathdancing.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5827968588643415787.post-83329040898678295442013-05-11T10:09:18.787-05:002013-05-11T10:09:18.787-05:00"there is an element of dogmatism and idealis..."there is an element of dogmatism and idealism that will bring out antagonistic rhetoric no matter what"<br /><br /><br />I think you are absolutely right and hitting the main problem right on the head. I was approaching these debates with a different framework (a friend of mine compared it to playing basketball while they were playing soccer). We weren't entering into the debate with the same rules, so it was doomed from the beginning, I think. <br /><br /><br />As for theorists you might check out, Walter Ong wrote some amazing things about rhetorical frameworks (Fighting for Life is one of my favorites) and Debra Hawhee has a great book about agonistic rhetoric called Bodily Arts.Michelle (Balancing Jane)http://www.balancingjane.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5827968588643415787.post-77242718405650073762013-05-11T10:03:12.209-05:002013-05-11T10:03:12.209-05:00"How do I go from theory to practice when thi..."How do I go from theory to practice when this is the landscape in which I have to act?" -- You can't, at least I don't think so. I'm not familiar with "theoretical frameworks in which to resolve conflict" (wish I were) or any of the theories about rhetoric (I should probably do that), but it seems for a lot of people (not all), in the case of things like politics and religion, there is an element of dogmatism and idealism that will bring out antagonistic rhetoric no matter what (tell me if I'm applying this correctly). The fight is never fair in these cases, because they are likely to say anything to keep a belief or set of beliefs and have no intentions of learning anything from others because they already believe they have the answer. It's then all about figuring out how to convince you of it. There are just some people you cannot debate with because they are so rigid and closed-minded. Getting into debates with them will drain you as you will put a lot of intellectual energy into what can only be a fruitless debate. It will always be fruitless in these situations! So, there are no benefits in these kinds of debate unless the other side of the debate seriously engages and is not just trying to figure how to argue you into submission. Otherwise the only thing you will GAIN is FRUSTRATION. <br /><br />And I was not offended by anything you said. Also, the guy said he would give you away first then go to war. If I'm not missing the context, would it not have been better for him to go to war first, instead of letting a woman get raped and then saying "oh, now I have something to fight for"? And those women being sex slave sounds like forced prostitution and I don't think God, at any time, would have been okay with that, regardless of culture. I understand if we are not trying to be anachronistic, but it is trivial to say I would have acted the same because "those were the times" because of course if I were a man in those times I would have most likely been a sexist! We believe we have recognized something the people of the past did not and they were wrong to be sexist. This is were the thing about morals being objective comes in, as I don't think he understood the philosophical implications of what he was saying (of course moral realism could be wrong, but that would kind of undercut Christianity). We could make plenty of things not sinful if we just accepted them as a culture and say "oh, it just the norm. That's just what we do".Ryan Brooksnoreply@blogger.com