Saturday, September 12, 2009

Can you get fired for eating noodles?

In theory, yes.

My brother and his family moved back to Missouri last year, after he retired from the Navy. His wife has a degree in education and right away she was hired as a teacher in their local christian school.

When she was hired, she was told that she must abstain from all alcoholic beverages and foods. From her description, that also includes foods cooked with wine, beer, or whiskey as an ingredient.

Of course, I have a bit of an ethical problem with this ban. This is totally my opinion, but the way I see it is that that school has no business telling my sister-in-law what she can or can't do in her private life. As long as she what she is doing isn't illegal, christian or not, it's her business. If she dipped her noodles in a sauce with mirin in it at home, nobody should even be the wiser. Of course, before anybody protests, I talking about less than moderate consumption of alcohol. Soba tsuyu has less than 0.5% alcohol and dipping your noodles in it will not get you drunk.

Of course, if a teacher shows up drunk to class, I say can him/her. But firing someone for eating noodles with sauce? That would be stupid.

Here's a dangerous recipe!
Soba Tsuyu

½ cup water
1 teaspoon instant dashi (bonito buillion)
2 tablespoons Mirin (rice cooking wine)
2 tablespoons soy sauce
2 teaspoons sugar

Conbine all ingredients in sauce pan. Bring to a boil. Reduce heat. Boil slowly for 5 minutes. Transfer to container and chill. Serve cool with cooked cold soba, somen, or udon noodles (or any noodle you want to). Usually served in a separate bowl than the noodles.
Just don't tell your principal that you ate this, if you work in a christian school.

94 comments:

The Rambling Taoist said...

Aah, yes. Christian administrators firing underlings for inconsequential acts while they procure prostitutes (male AND female), score drug deals and choke their chicken while reading porn. All hail the baby Jesus!

Stephen said...

Yes, because that's what all Christian administrators do, right? They must fight against the atheists who worship the devil while killing babies and persecuting Christians.

Totally useless post.

Billy Deaton said...

See what happens where you're religious. Unreason creeps into every aspect of your thinking. This is such a good example. When your religion tells you alcohol is bad, you accept that that's true and you don't concern yourself with the reason for it. Of course, the reason concerns excessive consumption of alcohol, but since you don't question religious reasoning, you end up cutting harmless amounts of alcohol like wine-based sauces, beer-breads and rumcakes.

ethinethin said...

That was quite rude, Stephen. I'm "surprised you didn't censor yourself more for the sake of being a decent human being".

If anyone doesn't get it, that was a direct quote from Stephen regarding how rude atheists are.

Or do you make an exception for yourself?

Next we'll see the other christians jumping in and "condoning" Stephen's "immorality" (That was from Leo as he referred to rudeness as immoral).

Stephen said...

I replied with the exact thing he said, only turned it on the atheists instead of the "Christian administrators."

ethinethin said...

Oh, so it's okay for christians to meet rudeness with rudeness but not when atheists do it?

Totally useless post.

Stephen said...

LOL! You're an idiot.

GCT said...

Nevermind the fact that wine was frequently consumed in the Bible...

Not all Xian admins hire prostitutes, do drugs, etc. Some do, however, and those that do are hypocrites. Is that better?

Robert Madewell said...

GCT,
That wasn't wine, it was grape juice! At least, that's what my daddy told me. LOL!

Stephen said...

Much better.

DagoodS said...

I was raised in a “No Alcohol Allowed” household, and as a Christian was troubled by the lack of definition in this area.

Is it “No Alcohol”? If interpreted strictly, then cooking with wine/beer would be acceptable as long as you eliminate the alcohol itself. (Your recipe, for example, boils out all the alcohol.) However, Scope and Listermint would not be allowed. (Albeit, that is a different type of alcohol.)

What about rubbing alcohol? It is absorbed in your system.Or non-alcoholic near beer?

Or is it “the appearance of evil?” What about tequila in a glass? Looks like water. Curiously, my family loves sparkling grape juice (blech!) From a distance, doesn’t that look like champagne?

This is legalism in its highest form.

GCT said...

DagoodS,
I used to know some Mormons who would not drink coffee or tea, because they were forbidden. From what I understand, they are forbidden because of the caffeine content and the fact that it's a drug. These Mormons had no problems, however, with drinking Coke, because it wasn't specifically banned.

Robert Madewell said...

I don't think that all the alcohol boilded completely out. However, the amount left in the sauce would be so tiny, you'd have to drink a pond full of sauce to get drunk. Even if none of the alcohol is boiled out, 2 tablespoons of 14% alcohol rice wine divided among 2 or 3 people would not get anyone drunk (2-3 teaspoons of wine per person).

Savonarola said...

1. Two tablespoons of ~15% alcohol content wine contain close to one teaspoon of alcohol, which will be long gone after five minutes of boiling.

2. The alcohol in mouthwash is the same as alcohol in wine.

Stephen said...

While I think this administrator is being somewhat nitpicky, I can understand one thing about his reasoning. When God says to avoid something, he expects us to completely avoid it. Even if in some cases is a ridiculously small amount, it's more a matter of obedience. If this administrator believes God condemns all alcohol use, then possibly he's thinking, "If she doesn't obey God, she probably won't obey me."

He is wrong here, and she should simply point him to the statement where Paul writes to Timothy that a little wine for his stomach trouble is ok, but even then he will probably say, "You were not using this medically so it doesn't apply."

I agree he was wrong, but I just thought maybe I could help give a glimpse into his way of thinking.

The Rambling Taoist said...

From a strictly Christian perspective, I think the above analysis is reasonable.

Robert Madewell said...

Stephen, I think you're right. However, lets call it what it is. Conformity. Be like us, or else. I'm sure that the administrator knows about pauls "wine for the stomach's sake" verse. He's just push his sensibilities on to others. It's the christian way!

The last school that she taught at not only banned all alcohol consumption, but also banned movie theatres, skating rinks (all kinds), and wearing shorts.

cl said...

Hello Robert...

"Of course, I have a bit of an ethical problem with this ban. This is totally my opinion, but the way I see it is that that school has no business telling my sister-in-law what she can or can't do in her private life."

Hey, I'm right alongside you here. I had to do a double-take when I read the title of this post. So, FMI - did they actually fire your sister-in-law for eating noodles soaked in alcohol?

Rambling Taoist,

"Christian administrators firing underlings for inconsequential acts while they procure prostitutes (male AND female), score drug deals and choke their chicken while reading porn. All hail the baby Jesus!"

What do the acts of unrelated believers have to do with this incident? What do blanket statements have to do with Taoism? Or, are your blanket statements actually representative of the "Rambling" part of your handle?

Billy Deaton,

On the money.

GCT,

"Not all Xian admins hire prostitutes, do drugs, etc. Some do, however, and those that do are hypocrites. Is that better?"

Yes, much better! We both know you appreciate the same courtesy when believers criticize atheists in print. Good comment.

"I used to know some Mormons who would not drink coffee or tea, because they were forbidden. From what I understand, they are forbidden because of the caffeine content and the fact that it's a drug. These Mormons had no problems, however, with drinking Coke, because it wasn't specifically banned."

Well duh! That's exactly the "non-thinking, non-reasoning" that Billy Deaton alluded to. I am - and always have been - in agreement with you (and most atheists I've heard) that most religious believers fall headlong into non-thinking legalism - and that such is an unhealthy abandonment of reason. As for me, I don't wait for green lights to cross streets - I go when I'm convinced it's safe to cross. I'm willing to bet you're the same way. You know, that whole letter-of-the-law vs. the spirit-of-the-law type thing.

Stephen,

"He is wrong here, and she should simply point him to the statement where Paul writes to Timothy that a little wine for his stomach trouble is ok, but even then he will probably say, "You were not using this medically so it doesn't apply."

If the administrator reacts thusly, perhaps the fact that "the Son of Man came eating and drinking" might suffice? If logic should still not suffice, perhaps this poor administrator is better left in God's hands.

Robert Madewell said...

CL, no she still works there. She really has no problem with the rules. This schools rules are actually a little more forgiving than the last one she taught at. I'm the one that has the problems.

Besides the noodles aren't soaked in alcohol. There's more fish broth and soy sauce in there than alcohol. The amount of alcohol in one serving is tiny.

It's the ethics of controlling someone elses private life that I have a problem with.

Leo said...

So would you allow a child molester to teach your niece or nephew. Even if he only did it at home and never with a student?

Private lives are EXTREMELY important indicators of someone's ability to do their job.

Robert Madewell said...

Leo? That's not what I'm talking about at all and you know it. As I had mentioned before. Legal Activities! Just because I left out that "legal" in one comment doesn't mean that I condone illegal activities. Using that argument is a straw man and a dishonest one at that. Using wine to cook with and molesting a kid are very different things. By using that argument you are equivocating the two.

Leo said...

Not a straw man at all. You must realize that to the administrator in this case, she would be breaking God's law, which to him I am sure is every bit as valid as man's law. By accepting a job at a Christian school, she is saying that she sees the Bible as the final authority on all matters. If he feels she goes against that, he'd be within his rights to terminate her employment.

For instance, if you got a job at an upscale restaurant, came in cleancut and dressed the part, then came back day 2 with a mohawk and 20 earrings, that wouldn't be right.

Robert Madewell said...

Leo, your still not getting it. If you come to work in a mohawk, it's no longer something you are doing in your private life.

"By accepting a job at a Christian school, she is saying that she sees the Bible as the final authority on all matters."

Really? I'm not sure that follows. IMO, when you accept a job, you are agreeing to do the job, not believing everything your boss does. Her job is to teach, not to believe that the Bible is the final authority on all matters. Maybe what she teaches might require it, but I don't see that all subjects would. To teach math, for example, would not require you to believe that the Bible is the final authority on all matters. The only problem they'd probably have is with biology. You know what I mean.

My gripe was that she is restricted from doing something harmless in her private life.

Robert Madewell said...

By the way Leo, you did use a straw man.

Here it is.
"So would you allow a child molester to teach your niece or nephew. Even if he only did it at home and never with a student?"

Here's the definition of a straw man argument.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. From Wikipedia

Leo said...

You misunderstand a Christian school, Robert. Saying it is "a Christian school" does not mean only that it teaches Bible related courses. It means that it is a school whose doctrinal statement is that of the Bible, run by Christians, to teach Christian principles, along with general studies.

If she is not living in a Christian manner, which this administrator would probably feel included drinking alcohol, then she is not living up to the school's standards. Not to mention Christianity is a lifestyle, which is not something that should be turned off or on at the door.

That is why I say it's not a straw man. If she is not living as a Christian outside the institution, she ruins her testimony inside it as well.

ethinethin said...

Is the school funded by the public or is it entirely private?

It reminds me of Interstate Batteries (legally) weeding out non-christian employees (referred to as "parasites" in internal memos).

If the school is funded by tax money, then it would certainly be subject to all federal discrimination laws. If it's funded entirely by the church and its sheeple, I'm not sure. Churches are exempt from a lot of laws, despite being operated like normal corporations.

Robert Madewell said...

Ok Leo, you're still not getting it and you are ignoring the straw man. You're straw man was that you equivocated child molesting to drinking alcohol. You know that that is not my position, but you used the argument anyways. That's what a straw man is. I'm not calling that other stuff strawmen. Only the "child molester" argument. Please admit it, Leo. Stop being dishonest by trying to misdirect my accusation.

"If she is not living in a Christian manner, which this administrator would probably feel included drinking alcohol, then she is not living up to the school's standards."

First, we're not talking about drinking alcohol. My article was about food cooked with alcohol*. Also, who are we to judge whether someone is "living up to" a christian standard. Private lives should be just that, private. As long as you are not doing anything illegal or harmful, why should anyone care? Besides, it would just be too much work to check out everybody's private life. That would be a witch-hunt, anyways.

Robert Madewell said...

* For the record, I drink alcohol so rarely that I can say I don't drink. Maybe a 6-pack a year and even then I drink them slowly over a week or so. However, I do cook with wines, such as mirin, marsala, and sherry and sometimes beer.

GCT said...

Robert,
"To teach math, for example, would not require you to believe that the Bible is the final authority on all matters."

Doesn't that depend on what you're supposed to say pi equals?

Leo said...

"who are we to judge whether someone is "living up to" a christian standard."

The Bible tells us we can recognize salvation by the "fruit" a person bears. "Judge Not" is taken out of context very often. There is an entire book of the Bible about "Judges" God gave the ability to judge. There are qualifiers such as having your own life in order first, but we are capable of judging certain things.

GCT said...

Leo,
"The Bible tells us we can recognize salvation by the "fruit" a person bears."

Using whose interpretation?

Leo said...

God's. There is only one literal interpretation of the Bible. Many applications, one interpretation.

GCT said...

Leo,
"God's. There is only one literal interpretation of the Bible. Many applications, one interpretation."

And, how do you know what god's interpretation is?

Leo said...

Because I can comprehend basic English.

GCT said...

"Because I can comprehend basic English."

A) The book wasn't written in English.
B) The version you are using has errors in it.
C) Other people who are quite capable comprehending basic English (I would say that you've not shown your capabilities by any stretch) come to different conclusions than you.

So, wanna try again? How do you know that YOUR interpretation is the same as god's interpretation? How do you know that you can't be wrong about it? Are you claiming infallibility here?

Leo said...

The King James Bible is Gods word perfectly preserved in the English language.

Robert Madewell said...

English is the new Aramaic!

Seriously, How do you know that the KJV is the word of God and inerrant? How can you know that about any book?

GCT said...

"The King James Bible is Gods word perfectly preserved in the English language."

The KJV is known to be a bad translation of the older manuscripts. It contains stories that are shown to be late additions (like Jesus saying, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone) and other errors that have been documented. You might want to rethink your stance here.

Besides, even if we grant that the KJV is perfectly preserved as the word of god and the English is perfect in it, you still haven't answered us how you can know that your interpretation is correct and that all others are wrong. Some very smart people interpret the Bible differently than you. Are you claiming that they are necessarily wrong? How do you know that? Are you claiming that your interpretation can not be wrong and that you are infallible?

My guess is that you'll ignore all these points again.

Leo said...

"Are you claiming that your interpretation can not be wrong and that you are infallible?"

No, I am saying that I read and study with constant prayer and pleading. While people may take the Bible accounts and apply them different ways for different lessons, there is only one literal interpretation. It's like reading a book that says, "Grass is green." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what it's saying.

ethinethin said...

The bible is not as simple as "grass is green" though. And different groups of so-called literalists come to different interpretations.

I find your opinion of the KJV very strange, Leo. I guess you don't really know the history of it, but that comes as no surprise.

Leo said...

Actually I do. I've studied it extensively, and did not start on the "KJV-Only" side of the fence. I am as certain the KJV is the preserved word of God as I am of God's existence.

GCT said...

"No, I am saying that I read and study with constant prayer and pleading."

Prayer and pleading? And, that helps how? Oh, you think god comes and tells you what the words mean, don't you? But, what about all the other people that claim the same thing and come to different interpretations than you? Why do you keep avoiding this point?

"While people may take the Bible accounts and apply them different ways for different lessons, there is only one literal interpretation."

It's not simply different applications of one interpretation that you all agree on. Are you seriously going to contend that it is?

"It's like reading a book that says, "Grass is green." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what it's saying."

Oh really? Then why is there so much confusion and disagreement over what the Bible actually says?

"Actually I do. I've studied it extensively, and did not start on the "KJV-Only" side of the fence. I am as certain the KJV is the preserved word of God as I am of God's existence."

Thanks for making me laugh this morning.

Leo said...

"But, what about all the other people that claim the same thing and come to different interpretations than you"

Such as?

Robert Madewell said...

Leo,

If KJV is the perfect word of God, why does it have grammatical and logic errors? Here's an article that I wrote some time ago about a certain logic error in the KJV.

Click Here

ethinethin said...

I like your point about how the quality of writing is poor compared to the contemporary Shakespeare.

One thing I always found funny about the KJV is that they specifically took words that were archaic even in their time to lend gravitas to the text. Joseph Smith did the same thing when writing his book, sorry, "translating" his book.

When I was a christian (I was raised christian), my father gave me a bible that was some standard, but it would give footnotes about certain words, and in the footnotes, give the details of the greek and hebrew equivalents, to show how they may have translated it incorrectly or alternative translations that could make a difference in the text.

I always thought that was a good thing to have, since I don't speak greek (except certain binomial names, hehe) or hebrew and so I couldn't read the bible in its original form.

It actually seems like a weakness to the KJV that undermines the point of people claiming the KJV is a perfect translation, since it is just one of many interpretations of the original text.

GCT said...

Leo,
Let's look at a very simple example.

I will assume that you believe Genesis literally happened in 6 literal days (24 hour periods) correct?

What if I told you that there was a school of thought that went from a literal interpretation and decided that each "day" was really 1000 years? What would you say to that? Yet, it's based on literally interpretting scripture.

See, god says to Adam and Eve that the day that they eat of the fruit is the day they will die. Yet, that's not what happens, is it? Nope, Adam lives to the ripe old age of 969 (or something like that, if memory serves). If someone literally interprets "day" in that sense, then god is a liar. Therefore, some have interpretted "day" to mean a period of 1000 years (also remember the verses that claim that 1000 years is but a day to god) and you end up with a timeline in Genesis that has each "day" equal to 1000 years. Yet, it's a literal interpretation. Riddle me that Batman.

Leo said...

There are places where yom is used in either a literal sense, or a figurative sense. If one takes a look at the context clues, it clears up any confusion. If you've studied your bible, you'll notice that every other time in the bible where it is written that one night and one day, the use of "yom" has been literal. The creation account uses this same language, which shows that the author's intention was one literal day. If you are going to do a word study of any kind, you need to find the author's pattern of usage, and in this case, it's very clear.

ethinethin said...

There are places where yom is used in either a literal sense, or a figurative sense.

Wait, but, I thought you said the bible was supposed to be read literally. Now you're saying there is some figurative parts (which implies it is open to interpretation). Which is it?

Also, why do Matthew and John fuck up the lineage of Joseph? I've never understood that, how they both came up with two entirely different family trees for the same guy. I would think that contradiction alone would prove that the bible is not infallible.

ethinethin said...

Sorry, Luke, not John.

ethinethin said...

Matthew 1:15-16 (King James version): 15And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 16And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23-38 (King James version): 23And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

Matthew says "Jacob -> Joseph -> Jesus"
Luke says "Heli -> Joseph -> Jesus"

These are abridged, of course, because it continues and continues with entirely different lineages, trying to trace the family line to David, but the most important part is quoted above. This is the King James Version, and reading it LITERALLY, Joseph appears to have two fathers.

The standard apologetic is, of course, that one is the lineage of Mary, but that is not the case if you read it literally. Show me how this can be read literally to mean one of those is Mary's lineage.

I will also point out that it is a variable number of generations. Of course maybe some generations lived longer than others, or conceived at different times, but I think the rational explanation is you have two competing writers writing the same thing at the same time and both getting it different.

The Rambling Taoist said...

Ethinethin,
Since you brought this up -- I happen to agree with your analysis -- it gives rise to a question: Since it supposedly wasn't Joseph's sperm that impregnated Mary, why trace bloodlines at all? I mean, Joseph is simply the step-dad, not the biological father, so, Leo, why should anyone give a diddly about this whole lineage thing in the first place?

GCT said...

Leo,
"There are places where yom is used in either a literal sense, or a figurative sense."

Sorry, but I'm going to conclude that you've just lost the debate. Why? Because you said that you can understand the Bible by reading the ENGLISH translation of the KJV which is supposedly perfect. Now, you are claiming that one must look at the hebrew words and decipher meaning from the surrounding text instead of looking at the literal words used in the KJV. Sorry, but your whole argument is now shot.

"If one takes a look at the context clues, it clears up any confusion."

Actually, no it doesn't, which is why some Xians are literal 6 day advocates and some aren't.

"If you've studied your bible, you'll notice that every other time in the bible where it is written that one night and one day, the use of "yom" has been literal."

So, where it literally means one night and one day, "yom" is used literally to mean a day? Thank you for the tautology.

"The creation account uses this same language, which shows that the author's intention was one literal day."

Which is what I was pointing out to you, that others who take the Bible literally come to a different interpretation than you. Of course, we both know that you don't think the Bible is literal in everything it says, since you admit it above. I'm also going to assume you don't really think bats are birds and that pi is equal to 3.

Leo said...

You try so hard, GCT. It's admirable that you care so much, even if you are completely off-base.

"Because you said that you can understand the Bible by reading the ENGLISH translation of the KJV which is supposedly perfect. Now, you are claiming that one must look at the hebrew words and decipher meaning from the surrounding text instead of looking at the literal words used in the KJV."

You can do the exact same study without ever looking to the hebrew. Find the word day in the Bible, then judge by the context clues whether it means day as in a 24 hour day, or day as in a select time period. The hebrew is not necessary to do this.

GCT said...

Leo,
"You try so hard, GCT. It's admirable that you care so much, even if you are completely off-base."

I'm off-base because you claim that the KJV written in English is the inerrant word of god, is easily interpretted in a literal fashion, and unambiguous but that you have to decipher the hebrew words in order to actually read it and you have to interpret the hebrew meanings in order to read it "correctly" - which you haven't backed up how you know your version is correct, BTW, except by asserting that which is now shown to be false - and I'm off base? Where, then, are you?

"You can do the exact same study without ever looking to the hebrew. Find the word day in the Bible, then judge by the context clues whether it means day as in a 24 hour day, or day as in a select time period. The hebrew is not necessary to do this."

Thank you for explicitly strengthening my position that you are indeed wrong and have lost the debate. Since when does the word "day" mean a "select time period" (as in thousands of years) as opposed to a 24 hour period? This plainly shows that you are not reading the Bible literally, as you claim to do. Sorry, but you've lost. Take your lumps and admit it. You are a cafeteria Xian, just like all other Xians. You claim to literally read it word for word, but you don't. You take the bits that you want to be literal and make those literal and then "interpret" the rest and claim that those are literal.

Oh, and you also have no claim now to the Bible being easily interpretted or that your interpretation is the same as "god's" interpretation, because your whole (bad) argument was based on this and it just failed...horribly.

Leo said...

GCT said..."Since when does the word "day" mean a "select time period" (as in thousands of years) as opposed to a 24 hour period?"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/day (definitions 8, 10, and 11)

(I didn't get Merriam Webster because they are apparently part of the worldwide "God" conspiracy that wants to ruin the world with things like the Golden Rule. MUHAHAHA!)

Now take your lumps and admit it GCT. Your whole last post was based on the false assumption I was wrong.

The Rambling Taoist said...

Leo,
Here is but one example of the difficulty in translating Hebrew to English. Hmm. It's not as clear and simple as you say!

ethinethin said...

Leo, why did you ignore my post about the lineage of Joseph?

GCT said...

Leo,
"http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/day (definitions 8, 10, and 11)"

Good catch, but none of those apply here. god is not talking about "in the days of" or anything of the sort. He literally claims that this and that happened on this day, and that Adam and Eve will die the day they eat of the fruit. Now, try evading again, but your argument is shot full of holes.

"Now take your lumps and admit it GCT. Your whole last post was based on the false assumption I was wrong."

Um, you are wrong. See, that's what's called a conclusion based on empirical evidence, not an assumption. You really need to work on these concepts.

Leo said...

ethin, what did you want me to address?

GCT, the Bible uses day with both meanings numerous times. Yes, God was using it in those ways. You ask for evidence, I give it to you, and you still deny it. I'm done with you.

ethinethin said...

Hypothesis: the bible is the inerrant word of god.

Observation: the bible contains an error (the lineage of joseph).

Conclusion: the bible is not the inerrant word of god.

Leo said...

I refuse to waste time on these arguments if you won't even attempt to resolve them yourself.

Quick cut and paste that explains it well: "Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), though David’s son Nathan. There was no Greek word for “son-in-law,” and Joseph would have been considered a son of Heli through marrying Heli's daughter Mary. Through either line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke’s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, “so it was thought” (Luke 3:23)."

ethinethin said...

Leo, you:
Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy

Luke:
Luke 3:23-38 (King James version): 23And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

It says Joseph is the "son" of Heli, not the "son in law". This is the king james bible and I am reading it literally.

Seriously, Mary isn't even mentioned in this passage.

You just don't want to "waste time on this" because your hoisted by your own pitard.

A literal reading says nothing about Mary, yet you claim the KJV of the bible can be read literally from front to back and without external sources, and yet you claim this passage says something it doesn't say.

This is why I'm asking you, you're contradicting yourself.

Don't copy and paste from something. Address this point directly and honestly.

I ask again, who do you think you're converting if you're constantly arguing so dishonestly?

GCT said...

Leo,
"GCT, the Bible uses day with both meanings numerous times. Yes, God was using it in those ways. You ask for evidence, I give it to you, and you still deny it. I'm done with you."

First off, you've given no evidence to support your claims.

Second, what you are claiming now is in contradiction to what you originally claimed and what I took issue with. You don't even recognize that you've moved the goal posts and contradicted yourself!

Third, your claim was that the KJV in English is the inerrant word of god and that one can literally interpret it, but here you are claiming that one must figuratively interpret it by using different definitions for the same word. IOW, you've lost the debate, plain and simple.

Leo said...

"It says Joseph is the "son" of Heli, not the "son in law". This is the king james bible and I am reading it literally."

The word Son-in-law didn't even exist back then!

GCT said...

Wow Leo, another epic fail for you.

ethinethin said...

The word Son-in-law didn't even exist back then!

Back in the time when the King James bible was written? I beg to differ (as "in-law" has been around since at least the year 1300, probably longer).

But the greater question, then, is why do they not specifically address that Mary is the daughter of Heli? They don't even mention her. There are no contextual clues to tell you that this is Mary's genealogy.

Leo said...

It was not a word when the scripture was written. The translators weren't in the business of adding words.

Luke's gospel was written primarily to the Gentiles. Also his particular gospel puts more emphasis on the human side of Jesus. This is why he doesn't just concentrate on the lineage concerning what made him the Messiah the Jews had heard about, but rather went all the way back to Adam. As you alluded to earlier, unless you were a Jew wanting to see how the Messiah could come from "the house of David" you'd be more interested in his mother, as Jesus really had no blood relation to Joseph. As far as Mary not being mentioned, this is not unusual during the time period in which this was written.

ethinethin said...

As far as Mary not being mentioned, this is not unusual during the time period in which this was written.

It was not unusual to trace someone's genealogy without mentioning them? Why is Joseph even mentioned, in the context of telling the gentiles the ancestry of Mary? It doesn't make sense.

I'm not being obtuse here, it just doesn't seem to add up by literal reading; you have to have knowledge of cultural norms which were not mentioned and were not prevalent when the translation was made.

Do you even understand why I'm skeptical here, Leo?

Leo said...

I do understand, however, you must realize that only the males were recognized in these genealogies, even if tracing the genealogy of the mother.

GCT said...

Leo doesn't even understand why this whole entire exercise defeats his original point!

Robert Madewell said...

Actually Matthew does mention women in the geneology.

And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; Matthew 1:5

Leo said...

You must realize that only the males were recognized in the very beginning of these genealogies, even if they were tracing the genealogy of the mother. It was perfectly normal to skip the first woman but then mention five, six, or even one thousand females after that. It was a different cultural time. In fact, it's more or less conclusive, scientific proof that Jesus is the Son.

The Rambling Taoist said...

In fact, it's more or less conclusive, scientific proof that Jesus is the Son.

Well, except for the fact that there's no substantive proof that Jesus was a real person and not a mythic figure. Other than that, the "proof" is ironclad?

Leo said...

100% scientific, irrefutable. God doesn't lie, the Bible says he doesn't lie, and the Bible doesn't lie. I don't know why you atheists don't just accept Jesus into your hearts, but I am content in knowing that you will when you see him walk among us in the end times.

The Rambling Taoist said...

If there is a God, I would hold that she probably doesn't tell falsehoods. However, the bible is a book written by men and, just because men write that God doesn't lie, this doesn't make it true.

Ya know, you should study the HISTORY of religion -- how it has developed through history. Each religion is built on the backs of previous ones and the Judeo-Christian versions are no exceptions.

In fact, if you study the history AND sociology of religion, it becomes readily apparent that ALL religion is human-created. In essence, humans have historically created gods in the acceptable image of the corresponding culture.

Leo said...

Unlike God, the Rambling Taoist lies. I'll stick with God, thanks.

Leo said...

I see 4 posts that I didn't make that have my name on them. And oddly GCT hasn't posted much around them. Coincidence? Maybe.

GCT said...

Leo,
WTF are you talking about? If you look at the times I post, I normally don't post during those times that these supposedly phantom Leo posts arrived. Not only that, but if we count back 4 comments by you, you'll notice I did post after at least one of them, meaning that you either can't count or you are that stupid.

If you think I'm impersonating you (I'm not) then I'll say right now that Robert can go and look at the IP addresses and see that you are making stuff up. For all I know, you're looking like a clown and you've finally realized it, so now you are trying to wiggle out of it.

Besides, your arguments are clownish, peurile, inane, etc. Why would I have to impersonate you to make you look bad when you do that so well yourself?

Leo said...

I would appreciate it if Robert would check the IP's.

GCT said...

He can be my guest. You don't need any help to look foolish.

Leo said...

Get a life, GCT.

GCT said...

Don't get mad at me because your arguments are self-defeating.

Robert Madewell said...

"Currently, there is no way one can get the IP address of commentators for those using the Blogger commenting system. This is one way you can try to guess the IP address of commentator. First you have to install a hit counter on your blog if you do not have one already. There are various free hit counters available, including sitemeter and statcounter. Sitemeter is good for summaries. I prefer statcounter for its more detailed statistics." Click Here

I'm not going to add anymore widgets and gadgets on my blog. I have plenty already.

My suggestion, Leo, is to set up an account on blogger or an OpenID site, so you can comment on my blog (and others) with an account. It would be obvious if someone else commented as Leo anonymously.

Is it ID theft if someone steals your psuedonym? LOL!

Leo said...

Is it a pen name if you aren't using a pen?

ethinethin said...

Fail at greek roots again, Leo.

pseudo nym: false name

Robert Madewell said...

Actually, I thought what Leo said about pen names was funny.

Seriously, Leo you can comment anonymously all you like. I won't disable anonymous comments. I think, though, that it would be within your interest to open a blogger account. I can tell the difference between blogger accounts and anonymous commentors (maybe).

However, I can think of a way to fool myself, maybe. I'm not telling because I don't want to give anyone ideas.

And ... whoever is "Poeing" Leo, please stop.

"100% scientific, irrefutable. God doesn't lie, the Bible says he doesn't lie, and the Bible doesn't lie. I don't know why you atheists don't just accept Jesus into your hearts, but I am content in knowing that you will when you see him walk among us in the end times."

Hey Leo, was that you? When I saw that I was going to post something like this, before I read further.

Leo, that way over the top even for the staunchest fundies I know. I'm calling you out as a Poe!

If that was you then, I'm calling Poe. If not, then oh well.

Robert Madewell said...

Also Leo,

If you open a blogger account, you can write your own blog! You obviously have alot to say, so why not say it. I'd be a regular commentor on your blog.

Leo said...

No, that post was not mine.

Leo said...

This the trick you meant?

Robert Madewell said...

Not exactly Leo, but close. Instead you link to the other person's blogger profile.

As a matter of fact, I did it right now.

Robert Madewell said...

Here's the difference. This comment has my avatar and the other doesn't. Other than that, I can't really tell. What'll make it even harder is you can disable avatars in the comments and I can even turn off my own avatar. In that case, I'm not sure I could tell at all, since, I can't check IPs.

Now, that it's out, we're probably going to see all kinds of comment clones now.

Robert Madewell said...

Hey look, the icon's different!

Leo said...

anonymity is the great and horrible thing about the internet.

joe said...

Sorry to drag up an old post, but I stumbled into this blog through a misdirected Google while reading up on Mirin. :) Your wife may be interested in shin mirin. In theory--I haven't tried it--it has Mirin's flavor but is alcohol free.

Gosh, though. These comments! You happen to mention that your wife is subjected to the quirky rules of one particular sect and the Offended Christian Brigade get their knickers all in a twist and go accusing you of supporting "child molester" teachers. What nutters! Lacking any sense of proportion or common sense.