Why respond to a question or contribute to a discussion with bible passages?

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

People frequently cite authorities to support their point in arguments.

For some, the Bible is the ultimate authority. It makes good sense to quote from what you believe to be the ultimate authority.

Would you feel the same if someone quoted the Supreme Court?

Quotes and cites are to be taken in context and weighted appropriately by use of common reason, not special interest, IMO. With that, the Bible is based upon faith, not fact, so I feel it can be quoted with an asterisk pertaining it to be limited within its context and boundary. That means it isn't usually suitable to be cited as a general basis for fact and the construction of life, unless read within a group that subscribes to that faith.

A while back we were having a discussion in here about the use hyphens in a persons origin (eg. African-American). Someone posted a quote stated in 1915 from Teddy Roosevelt and wanted it to be taken as contemporary. Teddy said that hyphens were a bad idea based upon them causing divide. I disagreed that the contemporary application was valid by saying that:

1. The quote was made at the start of WWI
2. Women could not yet vote
3. White women could be deported under antimiscegination laws for marrying other than a white male
4. We were 27ish years from Japanese-Amrican internment
5. We still had Indian Schools for American Indians
6. And a myriad of other attrocities

So with all of these atrocities still being performed within the laws of American law and policy, is it contemporarily imprudent to cite words of a white man from back then and expect it carry the same application as it would now with all of the afformentioned atrocites abolished?

As for US Sup Ct cites, some have time limits and some are timeless, like the Dread Scott decision, Brown vs Board of Education, Roe vs Wade, Miranda vs Arizona, Mapp vs Ohio, and many other cases. What makes these decisions ageless and timeless? Probably the controvercial nature of their matter and the subsequent impact upon US law and policy. Is it fair that some decisions carry a short lifespan and some are ageless? Maybe, maybe not. It is, however, the way it is based upon popular belief and subscription by the authority.

As for citing the Bible in discussion and application to everyday life in the US, the US Const provides language that disallows the establishment of a religion by the government, so I find it void to cite religion in that context. If discussing religion or other subjects based upon morality that have no governing jurisdiction and someone wants to cite religion, I say have at it.

I think what Vanilla was trying to impart was that some people seem to have no individuality when they constantly refer to a Bible to answer simple questions - I agree.

[3ringheathen 0]

Quote

...Yet, it seems to me that BOTH sides, the extreme right and the extreme left, use that "derisive tone" (one as much as the other) when speaking of the other side.

It's definitely a two way street.
However, I don't think the left has been nearly as effective at it of late. Whether it's due to a desire to take the high road or lack of political savy probably depends upon one's perspective.

Quote

Degrading tones and connotations are equally bad coming from either direction. Oddly enough, most people don't see this within themselves as much as from their opposing parties.

Yeah, that's why we make a distinction between subjective opinions, and objective facts.
It's human nature and difficult to overcome.

I know that my views on average, fall well to the left of center, yet I don't consider myself to be an extremist. Catch 22?

-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

[EBSB52 0]

It's definitely a two way street.
However, I don't think the left has been nearly as effective at it of late. Whether it's due to a desire to take the high road or lack of political savy probably depends upon one's perspective.

The left tends to over-discuss issues and try to get to the core of issues, whereas I see the conservative protocol often just making quick decisons. The left has been disempowered based primarily on the convergence of the fiscal right and conservative right since the late 60's, which is why they are less effective; fewer members. Maybe if the left had more followers than the right did they would be considered to be more effective.

[boudy 0]

Quote

The left tends to over-discuss issues and try to get to the core of issues, whereas I see the conservative protocol often just making quick decisons. The left has been disempowered based primarily on the convergence of the fiscal right and conservative right since the late 60's, which is why they are less effective; fewer members. Maybe if the left had more followers than the right did they would be considered to be more effective.

So a "conservative" edit your comment might be -
"Maybe if the left had more followers than the right ... they would be considered more effective."

Hard to argue with that kind of logic.

[boudy 0]

"Many a long dispute among divines may be thusly abridged: It is so. It it not so. It is so. It is not so." Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanac, 1743

[kbordson 8]

Or maybe "Uh-huh" "Nah-ah" "Uh-huh" "Nah-ah" "Uh-huh" "Nah-ah" "Uh-huh" "Nah-ah" "Uh-huh" "Nah-ah"
Followed by a "MMMMOOOMMMM!"

[VanillaSkyGirl 6]

Quote

Whether it's due to a desire to take the high road or lack of political savy probably depends upon one's perspective.

If and when people are able to discuss things without getting petty, without degradation, without arrogance or name-calling, that is definitely taking the high road, imo.

*** know that my views on average, fall well to the left of center, yet I don't consider myself to be an extremist. Catch 22?

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

The left tends to over-discuss issues and try to get to the core of issues, whereas I see the conservative protocol often just making quick decisons. The left has been disempowered based primarily on the convergence of the fiscal right and conservative right since the late 60's, which is why they are less effective; fewer members. Maybe if the left had more followers than the right did they would be considered to be more effective.

So a "conservative" edit your comment might be -
"Maybe if the left had more followers than the right ... they would be considered more effective."

Hard to argue with that kind of logic.

Thanks for the cut-n-paste, but what I'm simply saying is that the left seems to be less effective due to having fewer members. This is an end/means type argument, but it doesn't mean the left has a devalued mission because they have fewer follwers. That would be like saying that you always get what you pay for, bigger is better, etc...

[VanillaSkyGirl 6]

Quote

Ok, yahoo seems to agree with me. But I guess it was just pre-revolution, rather than just post.

See here:

Quote

...the terms date back to pre-revolutionary France. In 1789, the French National Assembly was created as a parliamentary body to move control of issues, such as taxation, from the king to the citizenry.

Inside the chamber where the National Assembly met, members of the Third Estate sat on the left side and members of the First Estate sat on the right. The Third Estate consisted of revolutionaries, while the First Estate were nobles. Thus, the left wing of the room was more liberal, and the right wing was more conservative. In the next few years, the revolutionaries would take over and countless noble heads would roll, but that's another story.

Word Detective corroborates the idea that "left wing" and "right wing" date to the seating arrangements of the 1789 French National Assembly. The Mavens' Word of the Day also confirms the phrases' origin.

Thank you, Tom. Your post confirmed what I remember having been taught in school.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quotes and cites are to be taken in context and weighted appropriately by use of common reason, not special interest, IMO. With that, the Bible is based upon faith, not fact, so I feel it can be quoted with an asterisk pertaining it to be limited within its context and boundary. That means it isn't usually suitable to be cited as a general basis for fact and the construction of life, unless read within a group that subscribes to that faith.

Remember that I'm an atheist, personally.

If you are a true believing christian, you're likely to view the Bible as the ultimate authority for all things. That means that you'll refer to it in many situations, because for you it is relevant in all of them.

That's really no different from me referring to an article written by Lawrence Tribe (he's a constitutional scholar, and former president of Harvard, if you don't recognize the name) when discussing free speech. Sure it's not case law, but it is a supporting source that I believe has validity and weight. Same thing when you cite an op-ed piece from the NY Times, or WSJ. You're referring to a source that effects your views, to try to explain why you think what you do. In some cases, you are borrowing the words of speakers more eloquent than yourself, because they have stated your views with more precision, or prettier words, than you are personally capable of.

I really think that the underlying issue has to do with what you accept as an authoritative source. If you remember that people quoting the bible are generally doing so in the belief that it is an authoritative source, the original poll question can be re-worded as:

"Why respond to a question or contribute to a discussion with quotations from authoritative sources?"

There are lots of good reasons to do that.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[VanillaSkyGirl 6]

Quote

I really think that the underlying issue has to do with what you accept as an authoritative source. If you remember that people quoting the bible are generally doing so in the belief that it is an authoritative source

That concept has never escaped me. I went to private, Catholic schools from 1-12 grade, studied religion every school day and had biblical concepts taught at home and in church. Although, I currently do not agree with man-made religion (and see myself as spiritual, not religious), even to this day, much of my moral values are directly derivative from having been raised with religion and God in my life. This doesn't mean that I cannot make my point in conversation with a non-religious person without directly involving religion or the Bible.

People can say and quote whatever and whomever they wish, but I question why they feel the need to constantly bring their religious viewpoints into conversations where it may not be necessary. It just doesn't seem effective, nor inclusive to people who do not share the same viewpoints. It makes me think that a person quoting the Bible to an athiest is a little lacking in tact and social skills, since they know that the other may not be in agreement with those points of view.

It's like constantly referring to colors and visual aesthetics to someone who cannot see. The blind person may struggle to understand the concept out of politeness, but it would be so much effective to communicate with the blind person by talking and keeping the visual references out of the conversation. Now, if the blind person is asking what something looks like, then you can bring up visual aesthetics without seeming like an insensitive person. Otherwise, the visual concepts do not need to be discussed at all. To a blind person, all the other senses may be more important and heightened instead, so why not focus on those senses instead of on the one which is irrelevant to him/her?

By the way, this may be a strange comparison. For the record, in no way am I saying that by not having religion in one's life, one is blind...in case, anyone tries to read more into my comparison than what I intended to write.

Quote

the original poll question can be re-worded as:

"Why respond to a question or contribute to a discussion with quotations from authoritative sources?"

First, it's not a poll question. It's a discussion thread. Second, in reference to what you wrote, no. That is definitely putting words into my mouth or using your own subjective interpretation of what my original, specific question was asking, in order to answer it in a more simplistic manner. The original question is more specific/complex than what you wrote and falls into a gray area because religion is involved. I do not agree with changing my question or anyone's questions, in order to answer it more effectively with a black/white cure-all answer. You have rationalized your own answer by changing the original thought behind my question.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

First, it's not a poll question. It's a discussion thread. Second, in reference to what you wrote, no. That is definitely putting words into my mouth or using your own subjective interpretation of what my original, specific question was asking, in order to answer it in a more simplistic manner. The original question is more specific/complex than what you wrote and falls into a gray area because religion is involved. I do not agree with changing my question or anyone's questions, in order to answer it more effectively with a black/white cure-all answer. You have rationalized your own answer by changing the original thought behind my question.

I haven't seen anyone use religious quotations when they weren't referring to religion, or religious figures. Is it really happening a lot?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[gmanpilot 0]

Quote

I haven't seen anyone use religious quotations when they weren't referring to religion, or religious figures. Is it really happening a lot?

Sure they do, for example:
"By their fruits ye shall know them." That phrase is somewhere in the Bible, but it's probably more usefull outside the biblical domain as "Actions speak louder than words".

_________________________________________
-There's always free cheese in a mouse trap.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

By their fruits ye shall know them.

This looks like it might be from the KJV Bible, do to the old English format.

Quote

Actions speak louder than words

This sounds more proverbial than Biblical. While it can probably be found in one form or another in the Bible, as many proverbs do, it is unlikely that was its first manifestation.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[TomAiello 26]

Sorry, I was trying to illustrate, not put word in your mouth.

I guess what I'm saying is that if you view something--anything--as an authority, you're likely to refer to it in support of your positions.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[badenhop 0]

I haven't seen anyone use religious quotations when they weren't referring to religion, or religious figures. Is it really happening a lot?

Maybe not a lot, but it happens.
I remember a professed non-Christian using a biblical
quote for a completely non-religeous reason recently.
K763 / Rhonda Lea / Pearls before swine / Dec 11.

==================================

I've got all I need, Jesus and gravity. Dolly Parton

http://www.AveryBadenhop.com

[EBSB52 0]

Along the same lines as this thread, I was in Walgreen's in Texas on vacation over Christmas. I was waiting for my GF to buy some crap so I was milling around looking at books. I saw this book that was the Bible's quick reference. It was alphabetized, so I started with "A" in my bordom. I immediatley saw, "Abomination" so I further reviewed. It listed what is known as transvestitism as an abomination and I was hocked. I thiought the term, "abomination" was reserved for the worst of the worst, but apparently the Bible uses it loosely. Anyway, it had a Duteronomy reference so I looked at a handy bible right there and it was true.

Not that I place any faith or give the Bible much credence before that, after that I was left realizing the Bible has a ridiculous theme to it. With all the Famine, disaster, incest, molest, murder, rape, and many other evils out there, how canthis even make the list? It didn't spare comedians dressing up in women's/men's clothes for comedic value, it just plainly staed that teh wearing of the opposite gender's clothes is an abomination to God.

Tell me if you think this diminishes the Bible's ability to be taken seriously.

[Belgian_Skygirl 0]

I find it very unappropriate when somebody quotes a passage from the bible in a discussion in order to persuade the other one, because it holds no sense...

Well, imagine you meet a.. Iraki and you have a discussion with him about women's beautiful hair and he suddenly quotes a passage from his holy book, the Koran, which states that women are not allowed to show their hair... that is not an argument... but he believes his holy book is the holiest of all, just as a christian thinks about his bible.

When people quote a passage from the bible, to me it is the same thing as people quoting a passage from another holy book.. it has no value to me.

Quoting a writer or somebodyyelse is usually done with another goal. People that are very strict in no matter what religion seem to use every opportunity to pass their love for their religion to another person.. they do it on meetings, in discussions, ... I don't think they can do that...

You know... many wars have religious reasons, and everybody is convinced their religion holds the truth, so those arguments copied from holy books, are a way to force somebody in a opinion. Because i not, not every opportunity would be used to quote from the bible, as we all have brains an can talk for ourselves...

-------------------------------------------------

No dive, like skydive... wanna bet on it?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Bonus question - does anyone know the _real_ origin of the terms right and left as applied to politics?

Bonus-Bonus question: How was the width of that aisle established?

[Zenister 0]

Quote

it just plainly staed that teh wearing of the opposite gender's clothes is an abomination to God.

well if women wear men's clothing they'd be able to sneak into the stonings.. cant have that...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[VanillaSkyGirl 6]

Quote

Sorry, I was trying to illustrate, not put word in your mouth.

Thank you for being considerate. I do understand and agree on a more general level with what you were trying to explain.

Quote

I guess what I'm saying is that if you view something--anything--as an authority, you're likely to refer to it in support of your positions.

Yes, I agree with that statement. I had wanted to go beyond this knowledge to promote deeper discussion within this thread. Thank you for your response.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

How was the width of that aisle established?

Something to do with sword lengths?

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Something to do with sword lengths?

You are a wise man

• Quote

[VanillaSkyGirl 6]

Quote

Something to do with sword lengths?

You are a wise man

[SkyDekker 1,465]

you can start here

Historically done so two opposing politicians cannot attack eachother. The red lines on the floor are two sword-lengths removed from eachother. Hence, politicians on eitehr side (left and right) are not allowed to step in front of those lines.