Evidence for God from Science

Butterfly wrote:I have shown that the laws contained in the Bible are biased and the bias is based on gender.

And I have given an alternate unbiased version. You can claim anything you want. What you absolutely CANNOT claim any more is that no one offered a plausible counter-answer to your theory. What did you say before about showing only one example to disprove a theory? Done.

Byblos wrote:

Butterfly wrote:I have shown that the laws contained in the Bible are biased and the bias is based on gender.

And I have given an alternate unbiased version. You can claim anything you want. What you absolutely CANNOT claim any more is that no one offered a plausible counter-answer to your theory. What did you say before about showing only one example to disprove a theory? Done.

What was your "unbiased version" again, that showed no bias while adhering to what is actually written in the Bible? I must have missed it.
-

Butterfly wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Butterfly wrote:I have shown that the laws contained in the Bible are biased and the bias is based on gender.

And I have given an alternate unbiased version. You can claim anything you want. What you absolutely CANNOT claim any more is that no one offered a plausible counter-answer to your theory. What did you say before about showing only one example to disprove a theory? Done.

What was your "unbiased version" again, that showed no bias while adhering to what is actually written in the Bible? I must have missed it.

Then go back and re-read my last post.

There are many women in single parent households and two parent households that take the leadership role in the family and do as well or better than men.

There are women who do very well. I work with many such families. And quite frankly it is not hard to do 'better' than many men today.
That isn't the issue. Men failing to fufill their role (which they do) is not evidence against the role.

So the only reason you claim your position as head of the family is because you believe God's bias to be valid.

Again, you are only showing your bias and begging the question. Your statement is loaded to prove what you already believe. It's like me saying. Your biased opinion is biased. You really ought to stop.

And what about marriages that have no children, why is it suddenly when a woman gets married she needs a man to be her head, when all the time she was single she did just fine?

Fine according to what? As I've said, platitudes, no substance. arbitrary.

What does male circumcision have to do with the cleansing and purification time of the mother? At the most you could apply male circumcision to lessen the time of the babies purification and cleansing, but even that wouldn't really work because circumcision was for a specific covenantal reason...it had nothing to do with purification or cleansing.

I don't know, do you? No. That is why I said 'PERHAPS.' In other words, I am saying it is a possible consideration, but I'm not claiming it must be the answer.
It's possible, since the covenant of circumcision came FIRST, with Abraham, that it was given consideration in the Ceremonial laws. But, as Byblos pointed out, there are other potential explanations that it is NOT arbitrary and thus NOT bias in that it is discriminating against women. The point is that you have made up your mind. You approach the text with your "God bias" and read that into it, ignoring any other possible consideration.

The passage in Leviticus specifically says that the time of the mothers cleansing and purification is doubled if she has a female child. That is biased whether or not you think it is justified because of culture.

Only because you've made up your mind and stubbornly refuse to consider that you could be wrong and that there could be a perfectly VALID reason.

jlay wrote:If we just start with the text from Genesis we see that at the minimum, it isn't arbitrary. But the initial order was a result of consequence. To the woman he said,“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Genesis 3:16

You say it isn't arbitrary? You mean it's not arbitrary to increase pain in childbirth and cause the man to rule over the woman for the rest of human history because Eve was deceived by a serpent? What in the world does being deceived by a serpent have to do with increasing pain in childbirth and male ruler-ship? For that matter why would anyone put a male in a leadership position when it was the male (Adam) who let the woman (Eve) talk him into eating the forbidden fruit?

-
Mock the scripture all you like. Just because something isn't important to you, doesn't mean it is not important. Cause and effect. If you read the text, the male faced consequences. Again, all you've done is set YOURSELF and your subjective values as the basis to judge the Bible and its God. It is egotistical and totally unflexible.

jlay wrote:

Butterfly wrote:There are many women in single parent households and two parent households that take the leadership role in the family and do as well or better than men.

There are women who do very well. I work with many such families. And quite frankly it is not hard to do 'better' than many men today.
That isn't the issue. Men failing to fufill their role (which they do) is not evidence against the role.

Me giving my opinion on what I personally think about the biblical roles of men and women has nothing to do with my argument of gender bias.

jlay wrote:

Butterfly wrote:So the only reason you claim your position as head of the family is because you believe God's bias to be valid.

Again, you are only showing your bias and begging the question. Your statement is loaded to prove what you already believe. It's like me saying. Your biased opinion is biased. You really ought to stop.

Again, my opinion which I gave in response to your statements has no bearing on the validity of my argument of biblical gender bias.

jlay wrote:

Butterfly wrote:And what about marriages that have no children, why is it suddenly when a woman gets married she needs a man to be her head, when all the time she was single she did just fine?

Fine according to what? As I've said, platitudes, no substance. arbitrary.

Again, these are just your and my opinions which have no bearing on my gender bias argument.

jlay wrote:

Butterfly wrote:What does male circumcision have to do with the cleansing and purification time of the mother? At the most you could apply male circumcision to lessen the time of the babies purification and cleansing, but even that wouldn't really work because circumcision was for a specific covenantal reason...it had nothing to do with purification or cleansing.

I don't know, do you? No. That is why I said 'PERHAPS.' In other words, I am saying it is a possible consideration, but I'm not claiming it must be the answer.
It's possible, since the covenant of circumcision came FIRST, with Abraham, that it was given consideration in the Ceremonial laws. But, as Byblos pointed out, there are other potential explanations that it is NOT arbitrary and thus NOT bias in that it is discriminating against women. The point is that you have made up your mind. You approach the text with your "God bias" and read that into it, ignoring any other possible consideration.

Like I said, even if you want to give allowance for circumcision as a possibility for the male baby's time of purification, that has nothing to do with the mothers time of purification and cleansing and that is what the text is all about...purification and cleansing for the mother who has just given birth to a baby.

jlay wrote:

Butterfly wrote:The passage in Leviticus specifically says that the time of the mothers cleansing and purification is doubled if she has a female child. That is biased whether or not you think it is justified because of culture.

Only because you've made up your mind and stubbornly refuse to consider that you could be wrong and that there could be a perfectly VALID reason.

Whether or not you think a reason is valid has nothing to do with whether or not it is BIASED. That is my argument. So far no one has been able to show that the passage in Leviticus is not gender biased.
-

Butterfly wrote:What does male circumcision have to do with the cleansing and purification time of the mother? At the most you could apply male circumcision to lessen the time of the babies purification and cleansing, but even that wouldn't really work because circumcision was for a specific covenantal reason...it had nothing to do with purification or cleansing.

jlay wrote:I don't know, do you? No. That is why I said 'PERHAPS.' In other words, I am saying it is a possible consideration, but I'm not claiming it must be the answer.
It's possible, since the covenant of circumcision came FIRST, with Abraham, that it was given consideration in the Ceremonial laws. But, as Byblos pointed out, there are other potential explanations that it is NOT arbitrary and thus NOT bias in that it is discriminating against women. The point is that you have made up your mind. You approach the text with your "God bias" and read that into it, ignoring any other possible consideration.

Butterfly wrote:Like I said, even if you want to give allowance for circumcision as a possibility for the male baby's time of purification, that has nothing to do with the mothers time of purification and cleansing and that is what the text is all about...purification and cleansing for the mother who has just given birth to a baby.

I think you missed Jlay's point, he was saying (well at least I think he is, but Jlay will probably answer for himself) he doesn't know the reason behind the law because the Bible does not give a reason and you are presuming a gender bias which may or may not be the case. You cannot say it is fact without further information, all you have is a plain reading of the text making this is a clear case of your own presuppositions clouding your perception of the Bible.


Dan

Butterfly wrote:Whether or not you think a reason is valid has nothing to do with whether or not it is BIASED. That is my argument. So far no one has been able to show that the passage in Leviticus is not gender biased.

Just keep sticking your head in the sand and keep repeating the same thing over and over again, but I will call you on it every time. Either you read my post and are deliberately ignoring it, which makes you a liar, or you didn't read it for fear of what it says, which makes you ignorant. So which is it? Once again, I provided a very plausible counter-answer to your bias theory where the bias in Leviticus 12 and elsewhere is actually in FAVOR of, not against women. Are you really that afraid to acknowledge reading it? I mean you can disagree with it but you can't claim it doesn't exist.

I gotta say Byblos your last post was very interesting, that law has been bugging me all week and now it has been laid to rest in my mind.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I gotta say Byblos your last post was very interesting, that law has been bugging me all week and now it has been laid to rest in my mind.

You mean you actually read my post?

Byblos wrote:

Butterfly wrote:Whether or not you think a reason is valid has nothing to do with whether or not it is BIASED. That is my argument. So far no one has been able to show that the passage in Leviticus is not gender biased.

Just keep sticking your head in the sand and keep repeating the same thing over and over again, but I will call you on it every time. Either you read my post and are deliberately ignoring it, which makes you a liar, or you didn't read it for fear of what it says, which makes you ignorant. So which is it? Once again, I provided a very plausible counter-answer to your bias theory where the bias in Leviticus 12 and elsewhere is actually in FAVOR of, not against women. Are you really that afraid to acknowledge reading it? I mean you can disagree with it but you can't claim it doesn't exist.

It doesn't matter if you "twist" the text to make it appear as if it is in favor of the woman, because she has a longer purification and cleansing time if she has a female baby, it is still Biased. That is my argument.
-

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I gotta say Byblos your last post was very interesting, that law has been bugging me all week and now it has been laid to rest in my mind.

How does making the bias go one way instead of the other make any difference? The bottom line is that the woman bearing the child is subjected to a different length of time for purification and cleaning depending on whether her baby is male or female. The text gives no indication that the period of time given is for anything other than purification and cleansing of the mother.
-

Danieltwotwenty wrote: I think you missed Jlay's point, he was saying (well at least I think he is, but Jlay will probably answer for himself) he doesn't know the reason behind the law because the Bible does not give a reason and you are presuming a gender bias which may or may not be the case. You cannot say it is fact without further information, all you have is a plain reading of the text making this is a clear case of your own presuppositions clouding your perception of the Bible.


Dan

The Bible does give a reason for the law, and that is the purification and cleansing of the mother. Purification and cleansing were very important around anything having to do with blood, that was the reason for the purification and cleansing ritual after the birth of a baby, there is always a lot of blood involved...which is no different if the baby is a female or male.

Like I have said many times, it doesn't matter if you come up with a reason why you think there is a time difference...the fact still remains there is a bias and its based on gender.
-

Butterfly wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote: I think you missed Jlay's point, he was saying (well at least I think he is, but Jlay will probably answer for himself) he doesn't know the reason behind the law because the Bible does not give a reason and you are presuming a gender bias which may or may not be the case. You cannot say it is fact without further information, all you have is a plain reading of the text making this is a clear case of your own presuppositions clouding your perception of the Bible.


Dan

The Bible does give a reason for the law, and that is the purification and cleansing of the mother. Purification and cleansing were very important around anything having to do with blood, that was the reason for the purification and cleansing ritual after the birth of a baby, there is always a lot of blood involved...which is no different if the baby is a female or male.

Like I have said many times, it doesn't matter if you come up with a reason why you think there is a time difference...the fact still remains there is a bias and its based on gender.
-

Byblos has provided a reasonable explanation for the difference in the cleansing ritual. It is only biased in the sense that men are different from women, it's like saying the Bible God is biased because men are stronger than women which is obviously riddicules.


Dan

Butterfly wrote:The text gives no indication that the period of time given is for anything other than purification and cleansing of the mother.

The text also gives no clear indication of why it is so and you are reading in a gender bias which may or may not be there. But according to Byblos there may be a reasonable explanation for the difference which makes it an intrinsic property of being a female, that the cleansing ritual may be extended after giving birth to a female child, being that the female child will through her period lose life in the future, so the mother goes through a cleansing ritual for those potential loss of life.


Dan

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Butterfly wrote:The text gives no indication that the period of time given is for anything other than purification and cleansing of the mother.

The text also gives no clear indication of why it is so and you are reading in a gender bias which may or may not be there. But according to Byblos there may be a reasonable explanation for the difference which makes it an intrinsic property of being a female, that the cleansing ritual may be extended after giving birth to a female child, being that the female child will through her period lose life in the future, so the mother goes through a cleansing ritual for those potential loss of life.


Dan

That is a pretty far stretch to try and justify bias. If a female child grows up and "loses life through her period" as you say, she would be required to go through her own purification and cleansing ritual, her mother can't do that for her. In the same manner as a father cannot be circumcised for his son.

Besides that the text specifically addresses the issue of purification and cleansing because of the mother giving birth, it gives one time for purification and another time for cleansing, they are broken up into two parts and each part is twice as long for giving birth to a female child. I know you want the Bible to not be biased, believe me I didn't either and I tried every way possible to convince myself it wasn't so. Maybe it would have worked fine if there were only one or two verses, but there are hundreds of them and when I tried to justify them I knew in my heart that was all I was doing was "trying to justify them". The reason I picked only one verse to start with here is so that we could focus on just one verse at a time. I've got many more, which is what lead me to the conclusion that the Bible is overwhelmingly biased toward the male.


-