brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at
Mon Aug 5 11:26:03 EST 2002

JDay123 at (Jd) wrote:
>In, Re: brain sizes: Einstein's and women's, 
>Bob LeChevalier wrote... 
>>But it is still dishonest argument, in that the selection of verses
>>and their interpretation is based on the political position they (and
>>you) are coming from.
>Not true.

Indeed true.

>If it were, everyone who killed another in self defense would
>be thrown in jail.  The argument asserts that the act of self defense
>does not violate the 6th commandment, "Thou shalt not kill", therefore
>law is one the side of the Bible.

And that argument is merely a matter of interpretation.  It is a
subject for debate, not for definitive judgment.

>  Besides, it's found in Christian Doctrine also... both Roman Catholic
>and Protestant with references being that of Jesus himself, and Thomas
>Aquinas.  Roman Catholic doctrine upholds the right and duty of self
>defense. “Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if
>he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.” See Catechism of the
>Catholic Church 1994, sections 2263-65 (citing and quoting Thomas
>Aquinas).  In Protestantism also, the individual has the personal and
>unalienable right to self-defense, even against government... Samuel
>Rutherford, Lex, Rex [1644] 1982, pp. 159-166, 183-185 (Sprinkle
>Publications edition.)

Cute. You feel no guilt about criticizing the Talmud, while citing the
Christian Talmud.  (You do realize that that is all the Jewish Talmud
is, is the "catechism" or collection of doctrinal writings and
interpretations like that of Aquinas, that arose in a period over a
thousand years.  The difference is that the Talmud preserves the
actual arguments rather than rendering a definitive doctrine.)


You can't find sufficient Bible verses to selectively interpret to
make your case, so you turn to non-Scriptural writings.  The mere fact
that Protestantism doesn't accept the Catholic catechism, and
Catholics don't accept the Protestant document, shows that these are
political representations of different factions.

>Jesus advised his disciples to arm themselves in
>view of likely persecution. Luke 22:36" 

More selective Bible verse, twisted to serve your purposes.  Let's
look at the entire passage:

>[34] And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.
>[35] And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
>[36] Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
>[37] For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
>[38] And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

And we see that Jesus says NOTHING about self-defense against
persecution.  He merely called for swords in order that written
prophecy would be fulfilled.  (It seems clear to me that Jesus went
about intentionally doing things so as to fulfill all prophecies
concerning the Messiah, which makes that fulfillment significantly
short of miraculous, but this is beside the point).  When the
disciples said that they had two swords amongst them, Jesus said this
was sufficient; he thus was NOT advising each of the disciples to be
armed and the point of the swords was NOT self-defense.

Continuing, we see what the swords were intended for:
>[49] When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
>[50] And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.
>[51] And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.

And if this isn't clear, we turn to Matt 26 for the parallel account:
>[51] And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.
>[52] Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
>[53] Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

And we see that Jesus was most certainly NOT commanding that they use
the swords 'in view of likely persecution' "for all they that take the
sword shall perish with the sword".

See what I mean - selective Bible quotation to prove your point,
ignoring that which does not support you. (But I don't call you a
liar, merely self-blinded.)

Now I don't pretend to know the Bible half as well as you (which is
why I say "self-blinded" and not "ignorant", though maybe I should say
that we are all "ignorant", I Cor. 13:9-12); I don't habituate the
Bible study newsgroups and I do my studies on my own with all the
limitations that inherently result.  You can no doubt come up with
dozens of interpretations to support your case, and those who disagree
with you can come up with just as many to oppose you, as I just did.
Who is to judge?  I'm certainly not going to trust YOU to do so.

Anyone who thinks that the Bible gives definitive answers on political
matters is fooling themselves.


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list