263 replies to this topic

[speedz99]

brvheart, on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012, 1:15 PM, said:

But you guys think that anyway, so why use that logic to claim he is racist?

I suppose it's the same circular argument we get into around here all the time. Basically, I think that, either way, your take is incorrect. Option A: We can interpret the bible based on today's sensibilities and knowledge of that period in time. In this case, the argment that "dog" might mean something completely benign is extraordinarily silly...you must be able to see that. No matter how he meant it exactly, it was a derogatory term for something. Why he was racist/sexist/whateverist is a whole other topic. Maybe he had to fit into society in order to be taken seriously. Who knows. Or maybe the part of him that was a man was subject to the day's societal norms.Option B: We can't interpret the bible based on today's sensibilities and knowledge of that period in time. In this case, we don't know what "dog" means. But, again, but that logic none of the bible can be truly understood, not even words we think should have obvious meanings, so no christian should be able to say for sure what any of it means, which would kind of put a damper on the whole thing. There's no religion if you don't know what any of it means.

[DJ Vu]

speedz99, on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012, 12:37 PM, said:

No matter how he meant it exactly, it was a derogatory term for something. Why he was racist/sexist/whateverist is a whole other topic. Maybe he had to fit into society in order to be taken seriously. Who knows. Or maybe the part of him that was a man was subject to the day's societal norms.

I did some googling to see what the common explanation is for this. One popular theory is that Jesus learned from this. "Hey, these dogs are people too!" This woman, who Jesus calls a dog, opens Jesus’ eyes to a reality he had not expected. God’s love overflows further than ever asked or imagined. Yes, through Jesus God invites the Jews to the table of eternal life, but it’s an extravagant banquet. The table can’t hold all the food; when God provides, there is always more than enough. God is like my dad; he always makes way too much food for the people he invites for dinner. There are always leftovers.But this theory would need to have a starting point that Jesus was racist first. Seems kind of dumb to me.Another theory is that he was teaching her (us) how to pray. Seems like a stretch to me, but makes more sense than the first one from the standpoint of not requiring a racist savior.

[speedz99]

DJ Vu, on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012, 1:45 PM, said:

But this theory would need to have a starting point that Jesus was racist first. Seems kind of dumb to me.

Yes, that theory is silly.

DJ Vu, on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012, 1:45 PM, said:

Another theory is that he was teaching her (us) how to pray. Seems like a stretch to me, but makes more sense than the first one from the standpoint of not requiring a racist savior.

Yeah, it's a stretch to assume that he was basically just saying no to teach her to keep asking if prayers aren't answered. She obviously already knew to keep asking (and he should have known that she knew), so it was pointless. I guess that I could buy the extraordinary stretch that he went through that whole show because he knew it would end up being written about in the bible, so it was done to teach the reader a lesson.

[Balloon guy]

DJ Vu, on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012, 12:45 PM, said:

I did some googling to see what the common explanation is for this. One popular theory is that Jesus learned from this. "Hey, these dogs are people too!" This woman, who Jesus calls a dog, opens Jesus’ eyes to a reality he had not expected. God’s love overflows further than ever asked or imagined. Yes, through Jesus God invites the Jews to the table of eternal life, but it’s an extravagant banquet. The table can’t hold all the food; when God provides, there is always more than enough. God is like my dad; he always makes way too much food for the people he invites for dinner. There are always leftovers.But this theory would need to have a starting point that Jesus was racist first. Seems kind of dumb to me.Another theory is that he was teaching her (us) how to pray. Seems like a stretch to me, but makes more sense than the first one from the standpoint of not requiring a racist savior.

Not sure what makes you think that is a popular theory, it fact it would be a deviation from the entire doctrine of who Christ is.Also not sure why you guys failed to understand that Samaritans were like Baptists to Methodists. They were Jews with a different focus. Therefore Christ was showing them that their opinions of each other were ignored by God, and He saw them as all the same, sinners in need of grace.

[DJ Vu]

speedz99, on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012, 1:22 PM, said:

I guess that I could buy the extraordinary stretch that he went through that whole show because he knew it would end up being written about in the bible, so it was done to teach the reader a lesson.

Probably should've just healed her without insulting her first and then told the parable of the master and his dog.

[brvheart]

speedz99, on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012, 2:37 PM, said:

I suppose it's the same circular argument we get into around here all the time. Basically, I think that, either way, your take is incorrect. Option A: We can interpret the bible based on today's sensibilities and knowledge of that period in time. In this case, the argment that "dog" might mean something completely benign is extraordinarily silly...you must be able to see that. No matter how he meant it exactly, it was a derogatory term for something. Why he was racist/sexist/whateverist is a whole other topic. Maybe he had to fit into society in order to be taken seriously. Who knows. Or maybe the part of him that was a man was subject to the day's societal norms.Option B: We can't interpret the bible based on today's sensibilities and knowledge of that period in time. In this case, we don't know what "dog" means. But, again, but that logic none of the bible can be truly understood, not even words we think should have obvious meanings, so no christian should be able to say for sure what any of it means, which would kind of put a damper on the whole thing. There's no religion if you don't know what any of it means.

A: I have never once argued the fact that it wasn't derogatory for something, so this entire option is moot. B: We can know many things in the Bible based on seeing them in context throughout the Bible, so I don't agree to your conclusion that if we can't know for sure what someone's motivations were in a very specific situation, then the entire Bible is irrelevant.

[speedz99]

Balloon guy, on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012, 2:24 PM, said:

Christ was showing them that their opinions of each other were ignored by God, and He saw them as all the same, sinners in need of grace.

By calling her a dog and then giving in after she begged for a while? Wouldn't it be better to show them by being pleasant in the first place?

DJ Vu, on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012, 2:24 PM, said:

Probably should've just healed her without insulting her first and then told the parable of the master and his dog.

You'd think.

[speedz99]

brvheart, on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012, 2:25 PM, said:

A: I have never once argued the fact that it wasn't derogatory for something, so this entire option is moot.

Ah. So he was being a jerk, just not necessarily a racist jerk. How could I have been confused by your argument?

brvheart, on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012, 2:25 PM, said:

B: We can know many things in the Bible based on seeing them in context throughout the Bible, so I don't agree to your conclusion that if we can't know for sure what someone's motivations were in a very specific situation, then the entire Bible is irrelevant.

Overall, I don't hate this argument...but I'm sure you'd say that by the context throughout the Bible you can definitively conclude that Jesus was an awesome, not at all jerky kind of guy. And when showed this example (and I'm sure others) you have to hide behind, "Well, but that part we can't really understand for sure." Seems hypocritical, and like you'll only say it's hard to understand the parts that go against your overall opinion.

[DJ Vu]

Balloon guy, on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012, 1:24 PM, said:

Not sure what makes you think that is a popular theory, it fact it would be a deviation from the entire doctrine of who Christ is.

Google hits. Maybe some commentary from some of those google hits.

[brvheart]

speedz99, on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012, 3:31 PM, said:

Ah. So he was being a jerk, just not necessarily a racist jerk. How could I have been confused by your argument?

I disagree that he was being a jerk, but my entire point was discussing the fact that he wasn't racist, so I'm not sure how you missed it.

[brvheart]

DJ Vu, on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012, 3:44 PM, said:

Google hits. Maybe some commentary from some of those google hits.

It's definitely not "popular", in Christian circles, that Jesus didn't know stuff.

[SilentSnow]

speedz99, on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012, 2:31 PM, said:

Overall, I don't hate this argument...but I'm sure you'd say that by the context throughout the Bible you can definitively conclude that Jesus was an awesome, not at all jerky kind of guy. And when showed this example (and I'm sure others) you have to hide behind, "Well, but that part we can't really understand for sure." Seems hypocritical, and like you'll only say it's hard to understand the parts that go against your overall opinion.

Might as well be more direct- Biblical interpretation is an unsolvable problem, as shown by the countless thousands of different interpretations. You can personally believe whatever you want about the bible, but due to its extreme vagueness you can't reasonably postulate a religion in which unbelievers are punished for not interpreting the bible the way you do.

[Balloon guy]

SilentSnow, on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012, 2:27 PM, said:

Might as well be more direct- Biblical interpretation is an unsolvable problem, as shown by the countless thousands of different interpretations.

Care to elaborate on this? I'm curious if you know of more than 3 different interpretations.

Quote

You can personally believe whatever you want about the bible, but due to its extreme vagueness you can't reasonably postulate a religion in which unbelievers are punished for not interpreting the bible the way you do.

Extreme vagueness?I think you are confused...more than normal.

[vbnautilus]

SilentSnow, on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012, 3:27 PM, said:

reasonably

Yeah I don't think they are too worried about that.

[BaseJester]

brvheart, on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012, 12:50 PM, said:

How are you coming to the conclusion that the dog comment was related specifically to the woman's race and not, for example, her hair color or gender or shingle style on her house?

By reading the verses, in which Jesus specifically explains himself:

fighter, on Friday, February 17th, 2012, 1:19 AM, said:

24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

"Of Israel" is not a hair color or gender or shingle style. You have to hypothesize an author who is actively hostile to his readers knowing what the hell he is talking about to even entertain the notion that the verses would contain irrelevant details (the woman's origin) but leave out other details that are vital to understanding the message.You could certainly argue that "of Israel" is a political distinction, but I think that is also splitting hairs on which sort of prejudice his statement represents.

[Balloon guy]

[img]http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/oLlhlnMKhUmyWHf7rSGu0Q--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD01MTI7cT04NTt3PTM5OA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/AFP/photo_1329911233444-9-0.jpg[/img]Are these people racist?Or prejudiced towards Christians?

[BaseJester]

Balloon guy, on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012, 11:16 PM, said:

[img]http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/oLlhlnMKhUmyWHf7rSGu0Q--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD01MTI7cT04NTt3PTM5OA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/AFP/photo_1329911233444-9-0.jpg[/img]Are these people racist?Or prejudiced towards Christians?

He's probably a Republican.Are you considering basing a religion on this particular individual?

[speedz99]

brvheart, on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012, 3:06 PM, said:

I disagree that he was being a jerk, but my entire point was discussing the fact that he wasn't racist, so I'm not sure how you missed it.

Your entire point was that we don't know if he was being a racist. I'm saying it doesn't matter if it was racist, per se, because no matter how you classify it he was being a jerk. Not sure how you could possibly disagree with that."Please help me!""No. You're a dog.""But please!""Ok fine. Everyone look at how benevolent I am!"Seriously man, come on. Jesus was a fucking jerk to that woman, regardless of exactly why he was being a jerk.

[BaseJester]

brvheart, on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012, 2:10 AM, said:

To come to this conclusion I'm going to need more information...What time period did this event happen in? Was it more than 2,000 years ago?Were dogs and vets looked down upon in that society?Were women looked down on?Can you describe all possible reasons for the white doctors initial response, including his views on women, men, animals, area of origin, belief system, race, etc?Was the medication expensive?Did this woman have health insurance?Could the doctor be referring to her inability to pay for his services, and her color was just a coincidence?Can you please explain the ins and outs of circumstantial evidence?

BRIAN: Ohh. Look. There was this man, and he had two servants.ARTHUR: What were they called?BRIAN: What?ARTHUR: What were their names?BRIAN: I don't know. And he gave them some talents.EDDIE: You don't know?!BRIAN: Well, it doesn't matter!ARTHUR: He doesn't know what they were called!BRIAN: Oh, they were called 'Simon' and 'Adrian'. Now--ARTHUR: Oh! You said...EDDIE: Ohh.ARTHUR: ...you didn't know!BRIAN: It really doesn't matter. The point is there were these two servants--

[SilentSnow]

Balloon guy, on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012, 5:08 PM, said:

Care to elaborate on this? I'm curious if you know of more than 3 different interpretations.

There are far too many verses people disagree about to bother to list. It's a little amazing that you would even bother to dispute this point, but it is pretty damaging to the Christian view so I guess you have to put up some sort of token disagreement. Here are a few that seem to directly refute the modern christian/neocon worldview. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys.For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.Thou shalt not kill.