Disbelief in human evolution associated with greater prejudice and racism

[2PhiloVoid]

"Today" such Christians effectively control one of our two major political parties. Is that enough to make a difference to you?

Of course it makes a difference. It's just that in light of my expectations of Eschatology, I try to go several steps further in my Trans-Purple non-partisan ethical deliberations regarding the inherent qualities in the agendas and philosophies of this or that political "party" ...

I think it's safe to say that where politics is concerned, corruption and a lack of foresight knows no bounds, and this is the case whether someone is wearing a red-hat or a rainbow colored one.

I, therefore, choose to forgo either, but I have concern for both.

 

[sjastro]

What does applying an evaluation through modern western law have to do with the exegesis and hermeneutics of the passages in question? I'm not following. Are you simply saying that your main concern here is only with how some Theonomically inclined Christians in the modern world may interpret and apply these passages? I'm not sure that simply being a Christian and thinking that Deuteronomy 22:24 was moral and applicable for its time is the same thing as a Christian thinking that it should be all too easily applied to today's world and laws. One does not automatically follow the other.

My response is not about hermeneutics but an examination of the Bible’s applicability in modern society using Deuteronomy 22 as a point of reference.
It has nothing to do with how one interprets the Bible; Deuteronomy 22 is incompatible with modern society values which have evolved with time.
I've mentioned the shift from a presumption of guilt to one of innocence as one example, adultery and fornication no longer being capital crimes is another.

Really? Which parts of the article I linked earlier would apply in this case, do you think?

I thought this is quite obvious and here are a couple of examples.
If there are no witnesses the default position of Deuteronomy 22:24 applies and the victim is stoned to death.
Alternatively if there are witnesses who happen to fall into the following category, “Maimonides lists ten classes of persons who are not competent to attest or testify, namely: women, slaves, minors, lunatics, the deaf, the blind, the wicked, the contemptible, relatives, and the interested parties (Yad, Edut 9:1)”, the default position once again applies.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My response is not about hermeneutics but an examination of the Bible’s applicability in modern society using Deuteronomy 22 as a point of reference.
It has nothing to do with how one interprets the Bible; Deuteronomy 22 is incompatible with modern society values which have evolved with time.
I've mentioned the shift from a presumption of guilt to one of innocence as one example, adultery and fornication no longer being capital crimes is another.

Well then, it sounds like we have two different, separate concerns.

Just remember that the 10 commandments are also incompatible with so-called "modern society values."

I thought this is quite obvious and here are a couple of examples.
If there are no witnesses the default position of Deuteronomy 22:24 applies and the victim is stoned to death.
Alternatively if there are witnesses who happen to fall into the following category, “Maimonides lists ten classes of persons who are not competent to attest or testify, namely: women, slaves, minors, lunatics, the deaf, the blind, the wicked, the contemptible, relatives, and the interested parties (Yad, Edut 9:1)”, the default position once again applies.

If there are no witnesses? I thought there was a requirement for the presence of witnesses who saw the acts of sin being committed. No?

 

[sjastro]

Well then, it sounds like we have two different, separate concerns.

Just remember that the 10 commandments are also incompatible with so-called "modern society values."

The 10 commandments are a moral code unlike the Deuteronomic code which is a legal code.
"Modern society values" views adultery as immoral but you don't execute people for committing adultery based on another "modern society value" that adultery is not a crime.

If there are no witnesses? I thought there was a requirement for the presence of witnesses who saw the acts of sin being committed. No?

In your link women or disabled people are not competent to be witnesses which is the equivalent of not having witnesses at all.
Remember the issue according to Deuteronomy is whether the woman is being raped or is a willing participant, but if you don't fit the bill for being a witness than the woman is doomed.

What was the point of the link in the first place?
It also fails "modern society values" because it is highly offensive to women, disabled people or anyone with a moral compass as the worth of a witness is based on discrimination.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The 10 commandments are a moral code unlike the Deuteronomic code which is a legal code.
"Modern society values" views adultery as immoral but you don't execute people for committing adultery based on another "modern society value" that adultery is not a crime.


In your link women or disabled people are not competent to be witnesses which is the equivalent of not having witnesses at all.
Remember the issue according to Deuteronomy is whether the woman is being raped or is a willing participant, but if you don't fit the bill for being a witness than the woman is doomed.

What was the point of the link in the first place?
It also fails "modern society values" because it is highly offensive to women, disabled people or anyone with a moral compass as the worth of a witness is based on discrimination.

Oh, it sounds like you're the observant scholar here. So, tell us all about the sanctity and philosophical inviobility of "Modern society values." I'm all ears. Take me to school, sjastro!

 

[sjastro]

Oh, it sounds like you're the observant scholar here. So, tell us all about the sanctity and philosophical inviobility of "Modern society values." I'm all ears. Take me to school, sjastro!

Am I supposed to take your snarky post seriously?
Aspects of the Bible considered unacceptable today according to "modern society values" was brought about by social change.
The only philosophy involved here is the idea of sociocultural evolution where society moves forward through evolution brought about by social change.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Am I supposed to take your snarky post seriously?

I'd be more than happy to remove the snark altogether if you consider talking to me as a fellow educated adult. Is that something we can agree to do for each other here since we're both Christians, however differently we may come at it respectively? Thus far, I get the sense that you're wanting to speak to me in a more or less unilateral way, as if I have nothing to bring to the conversation. I hope I'm wrong about this, and it's be great if I am.

Aspects of the Bible considered unacceptable today according to "modern society values" was brought about by social change.

Ok. I'll take a look at the link so I can reorient my focus on the point you're wanting to concentrate on.

The only philosophy involved here is the idea of sociocultural evolution where society moves forward through evolution brought about by social change.

Yeah, we can get into that if you want. I don't think too much of it since some of it leans at times in a Lamarckian direction, but I'm also open to learning something new.

 

[sjastro]

I'd be more than happy to remove the snark altogether if you consider talking to me as a fellow educated adult. Is that something we can agree to do for each other here since we're both Christians, however differently we may come at it respectively? Thus far, I get the sense that you're wanting to speak to me in a more or less unilateral way, as if I have nothing to bring to the conversation. I hope I'm wrong about this, and it's be great if I am.

Ok. I'll take a look at the link so I can reorient my focus on the point you're wanting to concentrate on.

Yeah, we can get into that if you want. I don't think too much of it since some of it leans at times in a Lamarckian direction, but I'm also open to learning something new.

I’m afraid we will have to agree to disagree.
As you stated in a previous post we talk past each other as you see this as philosophical issue where as from my perspective it involves the social sciences.

Thanks for your participation in any case.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I’m afraid we will have to agree to disagree.
As you stated in a previous post we talk past each other as you see this as philosophical issue where as from my perspective it involves the social sciences.

Thanks for your participation in any case.

I see both sides, actually. But thus far, I'm not even sure where your locus of concern lies. It almost seems like you're concerned that someone today will latch on to O.T. ideas or faulty interpretations of them and then end up abusing women with them.

Is this the direction you're attempting to lean into? Or do you have some other locus of concern in mind?