Tonight's Topic: The Plague of Working Women!
Lou Dobbs: I want to do something I don't usually do. I'm going to turn to a study...
[rim shot!]
...Pew Research, showing that women have become the breadwinners in this country and a lot of other concerning and troubling statistics.
[crazy shriek! Laugh track laughing]
Our society is being torn in so many directions right now, this stuff is really at the margin as you watch the Republicans, the Democrats, this president his scandals and the appropriate investigation by the Republicans. When we're watching society dissolve around us.
[foghorn]
Juan, what do you think?
Juan Williams: Lou I just think this should be in large letters in every newspaper in America because what we're seeing with four out of ten families with the woman is the primary the breadwinner, you're seeing the disintegration of marriage, you're seeing men who were hard-hit in the recession in a way that women weren't...
[cats and dogs, living together! MASS hysteria!]
...You're seeing, I think, systemically larger than the political stories we follow every day – something going terribly wrong in American society and it's hurting our children and it's going to have impact for generations to come... Left, right. I don't see how you can argue this!
[laugh track]
Lou Dobbs: You mention children. And those are the children who survive. 54 million abortions since Roe V Wade. 54 million in this country!
[cue Darth Vader theme]
...What has been the impact of that, what does it say about our society, our education.. our high school drop outs! Erick, your thoughts on this study and what it portends?
[Doom! Destruction!]
Erick Erickson: Lou, I 'm so used to Liberals telling Conservatives that they're anti-science but this is, liberals who defend this and say it's not a bad thing are very anti-science...
[You keep using that word... I don't think you know what it means...]
...when you look at biology, when you look at the natural world, the roles of a male and a female in a society and other animals, the male is typically the dominant role, but the female is not antithesis, it's not competing, it's a complementary role.
We, as people in a smart society have lost our ability to have complementary relationships in nuclear family, it's tearing us apart. What I find interesting in the survey is that 3/4 of the people surveyed recognized having mom as primary breadwinner is bad for kids and bad for marriages and reality shows us that that is the truth...
[aaOOOOgah! Laugh track...]
That's all the time we have tonight folks, see you next week!
[cue Benny Hill theme song]
Saturday, June 1, 2013
Wise Men Comedy Show
Friday, May 31, 2013
Consider the Birds of the Air...
I was reading a blogmentary and the resulting comments today and thought I'd correct someone on the internets who was wrong.
The blogger said...
Have you heard of "red letter Christians"? That's a cute way of indicating those people who classify themselves as Christians by taking those red-letter texts -- you know, the ones that Jesus said -- as absolutely true and setting the rest aside as questionable at best...
...who would not be fine with it? Well, Paul, for starters. He's the one who wrote that all Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16-17). So if Jesus is God Incarnate (John 1:1-3), then all Scripture is, technically, the words of Jesus. (Remember, John refers to Him as "the Logos", the Word, the actual expression of God.) Even Paul's. Peter held that Paul's writings were Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). So if all Scripture is God-breathed, then what Paul wrote is just as much Jesus's words as what the red letter versions put up as Jesus's words. And, of course, Jesus held the Old Testament as Scripture, so that would be just as much Jesus's words as anything in the New Testament.
What do I do when Jesus and Paul disagree? Nothing, really. Because, well, they don't. So the problem isn't them. The problem is me. That's when I back up and figure out where I made the wrong turn. And, as it turns out, I usually find it pretty easily. But pitting Scripture against Scripture -- even Jesus against Paul or Peter or anyone else -- is a bad option if you're going to take Scripture seriously. Countering a Scripture with a Scripture is all well and good as long as you plan to make them agree...
And a commenter added the little jab...
The "red letter Christians" really tip their hands by implying that those words are inspired and that others are not. But why would they trust one Apostle's account of Jesus (any Gospel) and another Apostle's account (from Paul)? They implicitly deny the inspiration of scripture, and, not surprisingly, a lot of mischief follows.
The problems with this criticism (and ensuing false charges and attacks)...
1. We who are followers of Jesus, the Christ, really OUGHT to consider closely and take seriously Jesus' actual and direct teachings.
2. It demonstrates a bad, irrational, unbiblical approach to Bible study.
2a. The Bible makes THIS claim about "all Scripture..." That it is God-breathed/inspired and thus, useful for teaching and correction.
2b. The Bible does NOT make this claim about the Bible:
* That the 66 books of the Bible = "all Scripture.";
* That it is a magic rule book and if you only can read all the rules pretty (but not exactly... sort of, but not always, but kind of literally) and rightly apply them all in your (and you, in everyone else's) life, then you will find salvation and the Right Way to behave (and the Right Way to tell everyone else how they should behave);
* That it never contradicts itself in any manner;
* That each line of text in the Bible is equally valid as all other lines;
* That if an OT rule and a direct NT teaching of Jesus conflict, that we MUST find a way to make them not contradict one another...
3. Indeed, it is abundantly obvious that the Bible DOES contradict itself, at least as far as moral teachings go. The OT quite clearly teaches that God's people should NOT eat shrimp, for instance, that doing so is an "abomination." AND YET, Jesus and other NT writers directly contradict this teaching. "It's NOT what goes in to a person that makes them unclean or a sinner, but what comes OUT of them..." Eating shrimp is specifically NOT a sin or an abomination in the NT. That is a contradiction.
4. So, the problem here is treating the Bible as if it claimed that it was a rule book (magic or otherwise). The idea - "IF there is a rule in the OT, THEN Jesus' teachings can NOT contradict it, we must make Jesus' teachings mesh with OT teachings." - is simply sloppy reasoning and Bible study. Additionally, this is a way (perhaps unintentionally) of undermining the teachings of Jesus, making them subordinate to OT Jewish rules and teachings. I would call that sloppy Bible study and disrespectful to the actual teachings of Jesus.
5. And as soon as I say that, someone will sputter, "but, but, but... Jesus SAID 'I did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it...'" and indeed, he did. But "fulfilling it" does not mean accepting each OT teaching and rule as a universally moral teaching. That is another way (perhaps unintentional) of undermining Jesus' teachings, making them captive to ancient rules and understandings and mores.
6. The use of "red letter" by some folk (such as the ones cited) is a way of disrespecting/mocking those who hold fast to Jesus' teachings and seems odd to me. Why would followers of Jesus (and his teachings) NOT be especially concerned about the "red letters..."? We in the Baptist/anabaptist tradition (and others) approach Bible study with this attitude: That we understand all of scripture through the lens of Jesus' teachings. Why wouldn't we? We're followers of Jesus!
7. We who do strive to hold fast to Jesus' teachings are not saying that some Bible teachings are inspired and some are not (well, some "red letter Christians" might, but it's not a given or a universal trait at all). Rather, we understand ALL of Scripture to be inspired and useful for teaching (what the Bible actually claims) but don't conflate that to mean that each line in the Bible holds equal weight and are equally valid moral teachings. Clearly, according to Jesus, this is not true (well, unless you try to make Jesus' captive and overruled by OT interpretations and rules).
Indeed, we strive to use Jesus' teachings as a lens to biblical interpretation BECAUSE we value all biblical teachings. Biblical teachings are only useful IF they are rightly understood. Jesus' Gospel teachings help us to rightly understand.
Again, why would followers of Jesus NOT pay particular attention to his teachings?
I know I've said much of this sort of thing before, but I had a little time and thought I'd do that silliest of things: Correct someone who was wrong on the internet. Call me sick.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
IRS "Scandal..."?
Far be it from me to defend the IRS, but as I've been listening to this news story, I have some questions...
No doubt you've all heard the story, "IRS employees targeted conservatives unjustly...," etc, wherein some in the IRS are accused of singling out and targeting for extra scrutiny conservative groups who've applied for non-profit status. My question has to do with the way this charge has been framed.
IS there any evidence that, in general, these IRS employees who've allegedly targeted "conservative" groups HAVE done so?
First, it appears clear that, if nothing else, we've sort of set up rules that make this job difficult for IRS employees. Some groups will apply for non-profit status, presumably so that they can do good for the community and some in the IRS are charged with the task of deciding if the application is legitimate.
The purpose of the non-profit status is to help those groups whose PRIMARY purpose to is promote the social welfare. Or, as it reads in the IRS code...
An organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting the common good and general welfare of the people of the community.
The problem is, WHAT is the measure for "primarily engaged in promoting the common good..."? It appears to be left rather vague, making the job of this department of the IRS a difficult one. It would seem obvious that a group providing housing or job skills for the homeless or unemployed is primarily promoting the common good, but what of a more political organization that, say, is fighting against (or in favor of) abortion? Is that "primarily promoting the common good"? Who decides?
If nothing else, hopefully this "scandal" will raise attention to this problem and help lead to clarification.
But, back to my problem with this "scandal."
First, let me be clear: IF it turns out to be the case that this office of the IRS was populated by partisan Democrat hacks who deliberately targeted conservative groups because they were conservative, that is wrong, wrong, wrong and the problem should be addressed.
However, from all evidence that I've seen thus far, these employees (and their managers who knew about it) weren't generally targeting conservative groups at all, much less for political reasons.
Rather, at a time when many tea party-type groups were being formed and applying for non-profit status, these employees made the call to target specifically applications that were "tea party" or "patriot"-styled groups. And what was the reason for this?
Was it because these groups were primarily conservative and these were liberal partisan hacks? Then hold them accountable and clarify the rules.
On the other hand, if they did it because tea party groups have tended to be pretty virulently anti-gov't, anti-tax groups who have tended to be more political in nature, rather than "primarily" operating for "the common good," well, then, give these employees Gold Stars, they seemed to have been doing their job.
The tea party-types that I have read have tended to say things like "taxation = theft!" and "Big gov't is STEALING our money, let's put an end to it!"... that is, they come across as pretty politically opposed to taxation in general AND pretty political in nature and those qualities SHOULD raise a red flag for a tax collecting agency.
Consider: There is on the Left in the Peace Wing, a pretty small group that supports withholding a percentage of tax dollars - those dollars that would go to the "war machine." I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the notion, myself, although I'm not part of it.
Now, if groups who agreed with this idea started proliferating in the way that the tea partiers did in the last decade and they began organizing and applying en masse for non-profit status, then I would expect it to be not unreasonable for the IRS to "target" groups with "anti-war tax" in their title/mission statement.
By "targeting," they weren't simply dismissing the tea party groups - indeed, it appears most groups got their non-profit status. It just means that because these groups seemed to be questionably out to "primarily promote the common good" and more political in nature, that they looked at their applications a little more closely.
From all I've seen so far, this does not seem inappropriate to me, nor does it seem to violate any laws or any internal IRS rules.
Am I mistaken? If so, where specifically? What rules have they violated? What laws have they broken?
Do I support clarification of these "primarily for the promotion of the common good" rules so it's not left so vague? Sure, that would be a good thing. But let's not blame the IRS if their only sin is doing their job as best they can. If it turns out that these employees and managers did NOT "target" the tea party groups as part of a partisan attack, but just doing their jobs, I am hopeful that Congress and the Right-eous attackers will apologize for creating a "scandal" where none existed.
Friday, May 17, 2013
Best Final Episode Ever?
The TV show, The Office had its final episode last night. Now, I am no fan of TV, as a general rule, and think we'd do better to spend less time watching it. I am, therefore, loathe to spend any time talking up a TV show, but, well, here we go....
I have enjoyed The Office over the years. The last few seasons, the quality of the shows has declined, as is common in even good TV shows, and I didn't watch it as regularly. Still, I tuned in last night for the final episode and must say that I thought it was great, perhaps the best final episode of any TV show ever.
(NOTE: Since most Final Episodes have not been all that good, that may be feint praise... my previous favorite Final Episode was Newhart.)
This Office finale was almost certainly too sentimental. Some might complain that being sweet and sentimental forced some characters to play out of character. But it's a final episode, I can cut them some slack for even over-the-top sentimentality.
I thought it had a nice balance of wistful remembrances and solid humor.
But probably the reason I enjoyed the show so much was because they took the opportunity to wax poetic and philosophical - and a departing is a perfect time to do that - and they did so in a way that I didn't find preachy or treacly, just pleasant.
A few favorite quotes...
Jim, reflecting upon his years in the incredibly inane and unimportant "paper selling" business...
“Even if I didn’t love every minute of it, everything I have I owe to this job. This stupid, wonderful, boring amazing job.”
Andy...
“I wish there was a way to know you’re in the good old days before you’ve actually left them.”
What do you think? Any Office mates out there?
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Save Your Indignation, Part Deux
On the same theme as the last post, a whiny blogger recently listed a whole list of religious folk getting in trouble for refusing service to others because of their "religious beliefs..." for things like a florist not being able to refuse service to send flowers to a wedding between gay folk or adoption agencies refusing to allow gay folk to adopt, etc.
The blogger said...
What is in common with all these stories? Yes, there is a whole lot of "look what 'gay marriage' is doing to religious freedom", but that isn't in all of these cases. Yes, it does look like religious persecution is starting in America, but it's a little hard to support the term "persecution" when it is so spotty and rare. What, then? The common element is religious convictions in the public square. Obama, for instance, allowed the Roman Catholic Church an exemption for contraceptives because the Roman Catholic Church is, well, a church. Their subsidiaries, their services, their other programs? Not protected. Neither are private citizens who own businesses such as Hobby Lobby. That is "the public square" and religious persuasion in the public square will not be countenanced. You are free to believe what you want in private; just don't exercise your religious convictions in public.
And he may be right that some people are getting in trouble for their "religious beliefs" but he reaches the wrong conclusion. They are NOT getting in trouble for exercising their religious convictions in trouble. You can do that all day long if you want.
They are getting in trouble for illegal discrimination which results in harm to others.
That is a big difference.
Let me run down a list of examples of the difference.
Does your religion teach you to help the poor? You are free to express those religious beliefs publicly.
Does your religion teach you to kill the infidel? You are NOT allowed to express that belief publicly.
Does your religion teach you to not steal, to not lie, to not cheat? You are free to express those religious beliefs publicly.
Does your religion teach you to discriminate against "the gays," "the Jews," Muslims, Christians... and refuse to let them in your business? You are NOT allowed to express that belief publicly.
Does your religion teach you to hate the behavior of gay folk, black folk, muslim folks, Christian folks? You are free to express those religious beliefs publicly.
Does your religion teach you to kick "the gays," "the Blacks," Muslims, Christians, those who fornicate out of your rental property? You are NOT allowed to express that belief publicly.
Get the difference. Yes, there ARE some limits we place on our liberties. We are free to think that some people are hell-bound sinners, but your liberty to believe that STOPS at the line of harm. You can think Muslims are sinners, but you can't kill them, beat them or refuse service to them.
So it's NOT the case that "religion in the public square is not to be countenanced." It's the case that we have reasonably concluded that your right to believe what you want ENDS at harm.
Stop whining and complaining about the pending "persecution..." you just look silly.
Or not, you remain to be whiny as hell in the public square in the name of your religion. It just comes across as a rather pathetic, wimpy religion, but you remain free to be pathetic if you want.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Save Your Indignation
...and put your persecution complex on hold, right-winged zealots.
Recently, some in the more fundamentalist/extremist camp have been up in arms (literally??) about a news story. The Pentagon has recently reiterated an existing policy against proselytizing. Some in the extremist camps have pointed to this to prove their poor persecution and the state of our godless society and president.
They are, of course, never ones to let facts interfere with a good pity party.
The facts, from the Pentagon...
A statement released May 2 by Defense Department spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen clarified the military’s policy that “members of the military are free to share their faith as long as they don’t harass others.” Christensen continued:
“Service members can share their faith (evangelize), but must not force unwanted, intrusive attempts to convert others of any faith or no faith to one’s beliefs (proselytization),” said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Pentagon spokesman, in an email.
“If a service member harasses another member on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, or disability, then the commander takes action based on the gravity of the occurrence. Likewise, when religious harassment complaints are reported, commanders take action based on the gravity of the occurrence on a case-by-case basis.”
Christensen said there are no plans to single out evangelical Christians for punishment, despite claims of activists.
“The U.S. Department of Defense has never and will never single out a particular religious group for persecution or prosecution. The Department makes reasonable accommodations for all religions and celebrates the religious diversity of our service members,” he said.
"Free to express their faith AS LONG AS they don't harass others..."
So, is it the case that these extremists want to reserve the right to harass others or are they just looking for reasons to whine?
Or maybe a bit of both?
Facts: 1
Zealotry: 0
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Happy Bicycling Month!
An 80-year old man goes to the doctor for a checkup.
The doctor is amazed at what good shape the guy is in and asks,"How do you stay in such great physical condition?"
I'm a cyclist," says the old guy, "and that's why I'm in such good shape. I'm up well before daylight and out and ride my bicycle."
" Well," says the doctor, "I'm sure that helps, but there's got to be more to it. How old was your dad when he died?"
"Who said my dad's dead?"
The doctor is amazed. "You mean you're 80 years old and your dad's still alive. How old is he?"
"He's 100 years old," says the old cyclist. "In fact he rode with me this morning, and that's why he's still alive . . . he's a cyclist, too."
"Well," the doctor says, "that's great, but I'm sure there's more to it than that. How about your dad's dad? How old was he when he died?"
"Who said my grandpa's dead?"
Stunned, the doctor asks, "You mean you're 80 years old and your grandfather's still living! Incredible! How old is he?!"
"He's 118 years old," says the old cyclist.
The doctor is getting frustrated at this point, "So, I guess he went bike riding with you this morning too?"
"No. Grandpa couldn't go this morning because he's getting married today."
At this point the doctor is close to losing it.
"Getting married!! Why would a 118 year-old guy want to get married?"
"Who said he wanted to?"
Monday, April 22, 2013
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
The Birds are Flown...
As any visitors may have noticed, I've been quite busy of late, tending to my parents and taking on other projects, which has left me a bit understaffed emotionally to worry too much in writing about political debate. But, just briefly, I've noticed that the opponents of marriage (ie, those who nominally support marriage and recognize its benefits, but only if it's between two straight folk, not two gay folk) are appearing to slowly recognize the reality that public opinion has shifted and they are now on the losing side of history.
You might be inclined to think this loss would be accompanied by some humble self-reflection, but you would be mistaken. From what I am seeing on the interblogs, the recognition that they've lost is there, but otherwise, reality seems to elude them.
I'm speaking primarily about the lack of understanding on their part as to the reason they lost the argument against marriage equity. As with most arguments/debates, one side "wins" and the other "loses" when one side makes the case in a way that appeals to those listening as the most rational and/or moral argument.
For many out there, the reasons they lost are clear (in their mind) and include...
1. The devil always wins out in the short term
2. Pro-marriage-equity types have "controlled the language"
3. Pro-marriage-equity types have taken over the media
4. Pro-marriage-equity types have subverted our public schools
5. Our side is willing to do anything to win, including lie, cheat and twist facts
and, the ever popular...
6. The public is too dam dumb!
I've tried pointing out that it seems clear that they are losing/have lost the debate about marriage because their "side" appears to more and more people to be less moral and less rational and that the way the go about "debating" the topic mostly involves calling people stupid and/or evil for not agreeing with them and being disrespectful in their approach to disagreement.
I've pointed out to some conservatives that perhaps the main point they've lost on is their failure to reasonably address the "Where is the harm?" question. That is, it is quite obvious to most people that two rational adults, committing to love, honor and respect one another, to be there in sickness and in health... that THIS is not going to "destroy marriage" and that there simply is no obvious harm/no serious downside to such arrangements. That such love and devotion to another person/your family is an objectively, self-evidently Good and Rational idea. How is it NOT?
Not only do they not address the question. Ever. But what they do/have done instead is berate and demonize the Others for failing to recognize the brilliance of their position, even if they can't answer this obvious question.
Instead of answering, "I know it SEEMS like two adults committing to a loving, healthy marriage relationship is an obviously good thing, but the problem is - the harm that comes from this is..." and giving some specific real world answers (something other than "the harm comes from this is... that God disagrees with that behavior. I know because God told me..."), instead of doing that, they consistently drop back to repeating and repeating meaningless hunches and, when that fails, personal attacks.
Yes, we KNOW it is your opinion that God disagrees with that behavior. We disagree. Now what?
No, we are NOT trying to "destroy marriage." No, we are NOT simply trying to be blandly agreeable. No, we are NOT just WANTING to embrace evil. No, it is NOT the case that gay people are incapable of being faithful and moral. No, no, no, to all these attacks. We live in the real world and can see obvious evidence contradicting these attacks, and that makes THEM seem to be the immoral ones, for repeating lie after lie, twisted truth after twisted truth, false witness after false witness.
But rather than admit that they simply did not do a good enough job of convincing people that their position is both moral and rational, they go on the attack against all the stupid people who are too stupid and evil to agree with their hunches.
I hope that, as time goes on, they can begin to let the bitterness and vitriol go. That, for their sake, they can recognize that - even if they still ultimately disagree with us - they simply failed to make their case in a convincing enough manner.
Look, as an anabaptist peacemaker, I know what it's like to hold minority positions. We peacemakers did not want the US to invade Iraq for no good moral reason. We thought it was an abundantly obvious mistake. But, in the end, we could not convince our fellow citizens in sufficient numbers to agree with us.
Does that mean that I think the public at large is evil or stupid, for disagreeing with our collective pacifisty wisdom? Does it mean I think they "control the language?" No, we simply failed to convince enough people at the time in sufficient numbers and with sufficient momentum so as to stop the invasion.
Live and learn. What can we do next time (God forbid) to better make our case?
We did this (before my time) with the Viet Nam War. The protestors then who were righteously opposed to an immoral war took many actions that were quite obviously (at least in hindsight) a poor approach to making their case. Demonizing your fellow citizens as "baby killers," for instance, is not a good way to make a rational argument.
Live and learn. Give up blaming, learn to recognize your mistakes and reflect on how you can better present your view on a debate the next time around.
Live and learn, friends, live and learn.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Grace-full Easter!
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven...
Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also...
Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
...And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin; and yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these...
Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (for after all these things do the Gentiles seek) for your heavenly Creator knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and all righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you...
The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you...
The sabbath was made for humanity, and not humanity for the sabbath...
Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.
~Jesus
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Beady album review
An album review for the first CD from Beady (the band featuring my kids) can be found at...
musicalmagnificence
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Evidence and Reason
In the previous post, the suggestion was made that I incorrectly conflate the parable of the Good Samaritan with the historical account (they say) of the Hebrew people leaving Egypt. The suggestion was made that I erred because I treated the historical text as a fiction, although it was okay to treat the parable as a parable.
Some considerations...
Good Samaritan:
1. The story of the Good Samaritan, told in Luke 10, Jesus answers the question "who is my neighbor?" by telling the story of the Good Samaritan.
2. The text does not identify the story as a parable. It is a story that Jesus tells. If I understand my actual history of the area correctly, the story could very well be based on an actual event - the Jericho Road in the story was known to be plagued by violent robbers.
3. The point of Jesus' story stands whether or not it was based on an actual event. The historical veracity/accuracy of the story is irrelevant to the moral lesson. We have no reason I can think of to worry about whether the story is fiction or not.
=======
Hebrew slaves in Egypt:
1. The story of the Hebrews in Egypt is found in Genesis and Exodus. The story has a feel of a historical story, but not necessarily a strictly factual historical story.
2. In fact, in the time period from which these stories come, there is no historical record or known evidence (that I've heard of) of people telling historically accurate histories in the manner we would tell such stories today.
3. Additionally, there is no/very little in the way of archeological evidence to support the story taken literally. In the Bible story, the Hebrew people are enslaved by Egypt for ~400 years and the Egyptians were very dependent upon these Hebrew slaves.
And yet, there is no archeological evidence to support the claim (or maybe very little - I don't know enough to state definitively, but the general consensus appears to be that there is no serious archeological evidence to back it up).
4. Which is not to say that the story is not based on at least some factual points. Clearly, after all, there was a Hebrew people. Clearly, they came from somewhere and had a beginning in the region somewhere. I'm just saying there is no (little?) hard physical/archeological evidence to support the claim.
I'll stop there for now.
My question (or one of them) is this: On what basis do we feel we need to insist the Exodus story is a literal history, told more or less in modern literal historical style?
It does not identify itself as a literal history. The Samaritan story does not identify itself as a parable. Nowhere in the Bible is there any insistence that these stories must be taken in a specific style.
Why could it not be more of a period-appropriate epic story teaching moral lessons (which would seem to at least some folk to be the obvious style it is written in, given the textual and contextual evidence)? Why must it be considered a literal history?
Don't answer too quickly, please. Just consider: Is the sum total of the reason to take it as a literal history that, this is the way it's traditionally been considered?
And, if that is the sum total of the reasons, do you think that is enough?
Maybe more later, that's all I have time for now.