|
Post by ken on Mar 6, 2014 15:53:55 GMT -6
Sure, but I'd like to you to be insightful too. A guy pops in, posts a series of drippingly condescending posts until he starts getting a bit of push back. He then complains about the tone of discussion. It's a bit much. For me personally, I will he stayed, but we've met this particular type before. He's just another drive by crackpot who wants to talk about his pet theory then leave if anyone challenges it. Hell Ken--you've got 1000x the spine of that guy. Well, yeah, but we've trained Ken pretty well, too, and he's shown he's not at all a bad learner when convinced he's right and we're wrong. < big grin > Stamina and persistence, he's definitely got. I can honestly say so even at the times when I feel Ken's persistence is that of a mosquito that no amount of smacking will deter. Gotta give the guy credit for sticking to his guns, that's for sure. I think that was a compliment........... < grin >
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Mar 6, 2014 16:13:13 GMT -6
Well, yeah, but we've trained Ken pretty well, too, and he's shown he's not at all a bad learner when convinced he's right and we're wrong. < big grin > Stamina and persistence, he's definitely got. I can honestly say so even at the times when I feel Ken's persistence is that of a mosquito that no amount of smacking will deter. Gotta give the guy credit for sticking to his guns, that's for sure. I think that was a compliment........... < grin > Yup. Good call, although I can hardly blame you for sounding a bit uncertain. That's okay, Ken, and understandable as many times as your case gets gangpiled by the Evil Trio of us.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Mar 6, 2014 16:26:17 GMT -6
Ken--you're a doofus, but you're our doofus.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Mar 6, 2014 16:28:02 GMT -6
Ken--you're a doofus, but you're our doofus. LOL... Thanks Flitz... somewhere there I felt loved!
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Eliott on Mar 6, 2014 17:24:44 GMT -6
That's laughable. The fact that the Bible is literature seems almost by accident. History offers an entirely different picture of the Bible. The ignorance demonstrated here is breath-taking. Just breath-taking. How is it possible if you are an adult? If you are 15, I would excuse it but I would still find you culpably undereducated. I wonder if you will understand me if I type very slowly? The Old Testament consists of poetry, stories, court chronicles, legend, historical narratives and law. I am sure I am forgetting something. But whatever. It is literature in the most essential meaning of the word. History has not offered an entirely different picture of the Bible. It has proved many things correct and it has also debunked some things. When prejudice leads you into gross ignorance, it is time to rethink your position. You people are beyond belief. You are virtually completely ignorant of the subjects you bring up and then dare to call arrogant someone who actually knows better. I had the pleasure of stumbling on a post in which someone demanded of a poster that she provide a bibliography to prove what she said. She did so within what? 10 minutes? It made her point, no ifs, ands or buts. And it enraged the Beast and liitle Dot. She and the repellent Dotwhatchamacallit simply showered more ignorant snark and hate on her. I imagine she got a good laugh out of the two of them. I found you by following the link on Proboards. You can advertise for members all you like but until you can treat people with a modicum of respect, This forum won't grow. There just aren't that many people who want to give angry atheists a bully pulpit. And I do mean bully. Of course, that might be what you really want. A tiny perch from which to hurl imprecations at a world that finds you and your pretensions ridiculous. If so, have at it.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Mar 6, 2014 17:44:39 GMT -6
That's laughable. The fact that the Bible is literature seems almost by accident. History offers an entirely different picture of the Bible. The ignorance demonstrated here is breath-taking. Just breath-taking. How is it possible if you are an adult? If you are 15, I would excuse it but I would still find you culpably undereducated. I wonder if you will understand me if I type very slowly? The Old Testament consists of poetry, stories, court chronicles, legend, historical narratives and law. I am sure I am forgetting something. But whatever. It is literature in the most essential meaning of the word. History has not offered an entirely different picture of the Bible. It has proved many things correct and it has also debunked some things. When prejudice leads you into gross ignorance, it is time to rethink your position. You people are beyond belief. You are virtually completely ignorant of the subjects you bring up and then dare to call arrogant someone who actually knows better. I had the pleasure of stumbling on a post in which someone demanded of a poster that she provide a bibliography to prove what she said. She did so within what? 10 minutes? It made her point, no ifs, ands or buts. And it enraged the Beast and liitle Dot. She and the repellent Dotwhatchamacallit simply showered more ignorant snark and hate on her. I imagine she got a good laugh out of the two of them. I found you by following the link on Proboards. You can advertise for members all you like but until you can treat people with a modicum of respect, This forum won't grow. There just aren't that many people who want to give angry atheists a bully pulpit. And I do mean bully. Of course, that might be what you really want. A tiny perch from which to hurl imprecations at a world that finds you and your pretensions ridiculous. If so, have at it. Mr. Elliot, While you are quite correct about the genrae that compose the library-of-books-that-is-the-Bible, I think you missed what Steve (who would not categorize himself as a student of the Bible) was trying to say. As for Dot, she asked you for links because you presented as scholarly consensus something that arguably is not. In other words, she was asking you to support your thesis. Beyond that, you might want to adjust your tone before you complain of disrespect. It should be obvious to all serious readers that you aren't much of an exemplar of the respect you demand. FB
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Eliott on Mar 6, 2014 19:19:57 GMT -6
The castration theory is the scholarly consensus and that is not arguable. Heaven alone knows why you think it is. If either of you spent 5 minutes online you would know this. You don't even have to go to the library. Why you think you know what you do not know I cannot say. I also don't care. Dottie Dearest did not demand that I support my thesis. She demanded that I go off like a good little boy, do her work for her, so she could blow it off when I deliver the goods. But OK. It will be amusing to watch her dismiss it and huff and puff impotently in the belief that her snark is clever. Bergsma, John Sietze, and Scott Walker Hahn. "Noah's Nakedness and the Curse on Canaan (Genesis 9:20-27)." Journal Of Biblical Literature 124, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 25-40.
"Exegetes since antiquity have identified Ham’s deed as either voyeurism, castration, or paternal incest. (p.26)"
Zakovitch, Yair, Valerie Zakovitch, and Avigdor Shinʼan. From Gods to God : How the Bible Debunked, Suppressed, or Changed Ancient Myths & Legends. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2012
"In Biblical Hebrew, “see nakedness” carries also sexual meaning, as, for instance, in Leviticus 20:17: “If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, so that he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness . . . they shall be cut off in the sight of their kinsfolk.He has uncovered the nakedness of his sister, he shall bear his guilt.” Our suspicions are strengthened by Noah’s reaction: “Noah woke up from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him” (Genesis 9:24). The words “done to him” are a bit strong for referring to the consequence of merely being “seen”— which leaves no physical trace— whereas upon waking, Noah is immediately aware that some-thing has been done to him." (p.131)
Available online
Wikipedia has a good summary
“The Words of a Wise Man’s Mouth are Gracious” (Qoh 10,12), Festschrift Gunter Stemberger, ed. Mauro Perani (Walter de Gruyter: Berlin, 2005), pp. 257-265.
"What did Ham do to Noah? While this paper will focus on the two rabbinic interpretations of castration and sodomy, it should be noted that the biblical text itself has been subject to numerous explanations, most of which (whether modern or premodern) assume that Ham must have done something to his father although the biblical narrative claims that he only looked at him. (p.3)"
Rabbi Buchwald’s Weekly Torah message.
"Faced with a number of very challenging questions, the commentators go to great lengths to try to explain Noah’s esoteric words and message. They are particularly perplexed by the mordant curse that Noah directs at Ham and his son Canaan. What did Ham do to deserve eternal condemnation? To justify Noah’s furious response, many commentators interpret the biblical expression (Genesis 9:22): “Va’yahr Cham ah’vee Chanaan ayt ehr’vaht ah’veev,” to mean far more than Ham seeing Noah’s nakedness. regard Ham’s actions as a sexual assault, asserting that Ham either sodomized Noah or castrated him."
See also (http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dmg2/what%20did%20ham%20do.pdf) "What Did Ham Do to Noah?" Now, just for the fun of it and in the hopes of seeing a head or two explode, the coming new approach to the story is to see Ham's crime as one of maternal incest. And no, I won't cite it. Look it up.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Mar 6, 2014 20:03:40 GMT -6
Uh-huh, no scholarly consensus demonstrated. Thanks for providing sources that prove my contention that there are much-argued and widely divergent interpretations. As should be obvious shortly, I'm particularly appreciative of this confirmation that only seeing his father naked may constitute Ham's violation. "Either/or" do not a consensus signify by any stretch of the imagination. Take your own prior advice and read carefully before contradicting your own contention so beautifully. Here's your contention verbatim: The castration theory is the scholarly consensus and that is not arguable. Consensus, as I pointed out earlier, means scholars AGREE that a particular interpretation is valid. You insisted that there's a scholarly consensus that sexual violation was what was done to Noah. Your own sources prove that there is no consensus that either sodomy or castration is necessarily what is alluded to but rather that there are only contending interpretations with some very good justifications for each. There are very good arguments for castration, sodomy and probably any number of other egregious sexual violations as legitimate interpretations. There is also equally sound support for viewing a parent's nudity as a significant cultural taboo for which the curse upon Ham's son Canaan was considered just and appropriate. FB's source gives an especially good analysis of why that interpretation makes sense. (I was mistaken, I note upon reviewing my interpretation, in stating that Noah placed the slavery curse upon Ham. It was upon Canaan, Noah's grandson.) Moreover, as I stated, regarding Ham's having merely seen his father naked as a legitimate reading renders Shem and Japhet's act of slipping into the tent backwards with heads covered so as not to disrespect their father accidentally quite sensibly consistent. Respectfully and deferentially seeking to cover Noah's nakedness makes eminent sense if the context is indeed violation of a strict social taboo. Any further disrespect is effectively prevented by the two good sons' placing blankets to cover their father from additional violation by sight. If you want to be respected, Mr. Eliott, then demonstrate yourself worthy of it. Your various ad hominems directed at me and FB neither invite respect nor wound either of us. An apology for your various mutilations of my name would be a pleasant alternative to what we've seen from you to date. Are you actually interested in civil and possibly productive discussion? Prove it.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Eliott on Mar 6, 2014 20:26:39 GMT -6
LOL! LOL! LOL!! You are so predictable which is why I was able to predict you would blow off the obvious. You wouldn't admit to being wrong if God and 40 of his angels took over the forum and told you to shut up and listen. You are pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Mar 6, 2014 20:35:00 GMT -6
Well, so much for hoping that civility might be your aim as well as mutual respect and eventual regard.
More invective and ad hominems. < YAWN! > Tiresome and tedious.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Mar 6, 2014 20:42:24 GMT -6
You wouldn't admit to being wrong if God and 40 of his angels took over the forum and told you to shut up and listen. Poor reading comprehension and retention amply demonstrated as well. What's this if not an admission of having been wrong? From my posting immediately prior to yours-- I commend you again for brilliantly contradicting yourself. Well done!
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Mar 6, 2014 21:19:01 GMT -6
Eliott,
You take the Bible much too seriously. I've got you pegged for a biblical version of a Trekkie. What are you dressed as right now................oh, wait, I know.................you're dressed as a "Ham". What's next week's theme? Abraham's foreskin? Send us a selfie.
If the Bible were first and foremost literature, it wouldn't have changed the world as much as it has.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Mar 6, 2014 21:45:05 GMT -6
Eliott, You take the Bible much too seriously. I've got you pegged for a biblical version of a Trekkie. What are you dressed as right now................oh, wait, I know.................you're dressed as a "Ham".... Hoo, boyee! I obviously read far too much. What popped into mind upon reading this was Scout Finch's ham costume that kept her from seeing her attacker and running the night Boo Radley saved her life by employing Bob Ewell's butcher knife already used to slash Scout's costume upon Ewell himself, fatally. Helluva good book. Too bad Harper Lee had only one brilliant piece of literature in her, but what a masterpiece it is!
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Mar 6, 2014 21:56:33 GMT -6
LOL! LOL! LOL!! You are so predictable which is why I was able to predict you would blow off the obvious. You wouldn't admit to being wrong if God and 40 of his angels took over the forum and told you to shut up and listen. You are pathetic. That was funny. You're very entertaining.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Mar 6, 2014 22:02:17 GMT -6
Not much of a contender for your Mr. Sensitivity title, is he, Steve? Nowhere near your subtlety and finesse.
|
|