Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell
Really. This statement sounds like you assume that "finding the truth" is VS. "swinging the pendulum."
|
Actually, it is. Finding truth should bring thinking to a common place.
But the pendulum just keeps moving against competing forces. When it gets far enough in one direction, it moves to the other. While it is true that given enough time it will stop where the forces are all in agreement (literally in the middle, at the bottom of its period in the case of an actual pendulum) the goal of seeking the truth is to shortcut the constant swings of simply fighting for getting one way over the other and instead try to find where there is no more movement because it is the right place in which all the forces are satisfied. (Still not a perfect metaphor. The never are.)
Finding the truth has a different goal from just getting the pendulum swinging. And when you begin to conjecture beyond what your evidence supports, you are moving beyond what you can call truth. Therefore it is something other than the search for truth. And more like another attempt to just swing the pendulum in the way you want it to go.
You are correct that the pendulum moves when truth dictates it. But if the movement is because of truth, the metaphor of the pendulum ceases to apply. Instead it will be more like the willful setting of a column on a foundation for the purpose of holding up a building. I realize that the fact that we are unlikely to get any truth absolutely correct means that it may eventually be revisited. But the process of getting it set, and then the eventual start of a new inquiry on the topic will not look like a pendulum, but a rational attempt to right a foundation. (For us Texans, like calling Olshan to repair a foundation.)
We have something that has been (legitimately) sticking in the craw of a lot of women for a long time. And as women have been getting a lot of pull in secular society for some time now, they are also starting to get some pull in Christian society. If the objective is to find the truth, then we are not talking about a pendulum. But if the objective is to turn the tables and put those men in line, even making it evident that women were righteous from the beginning, even not driven from the garden, and not in any way responsible for the fall of mankind, then you are talking about something that I do not see the truth supporting and instead taking on the appearance of an attempt to just swing a pendulum of thinking.
"This side has gone to far, so let's move it to the other side."
I hope that the book is not actually doing that. And that the portions you are bringing out are too void of context to read them correctly.
You need to understand that delving into speculation with no support does your cause no good. It removes you at least somewhat from the realm of someone who is seeking the truth and places you in the realm of someone ready to spin fantasy and shove on the pendulum.
This is how Lee got us. Found people who wanted something different. So he gave us different. And he gave us excitement. And a lot of emotion . . . . Along with a lot of nonsense.
I don't care how correct your underlying premise about the whole thing is. You are tanking your credibility with this kind of argument. It won't be given the time of day by even those who already agree with that for which you do have support.
And if your statements about taking any kind of serious stand that woman was not required to leave the garden needs clarification, then you don't get it. Those statements should not have been made in which case they would not need clarification. It is something that could start as a line of thinking and shortly thereafter die as clearly implausible. And therefore not get recorded in the book (if it is) or stated here on the forum.
Why do I say this? Because it could only be supported by declaring that:
- Every detail has to be stated or it does not exist (without caring that the positions argued for are equally unstated)
- "Man" cannot mean both the man and the woman (all of mankind)
- Neither Adam nor Eve needed the other to "multiply"
- The flaming sword blocking the entrance to the garden would not apply to the woman (not stated)
- Assuming the man and the woman had to be in the same place, the driving of one out was not effectively driving them both out
And based on discussions on some serious topics in the past, it was the persistence of some to insist upon more than they could support that caused the topics to explode.
You set a good topic. But you keep peppering it with statements undermining the credibility. And the need to characterize verses in terms of "lemons" and "grapes" is often viewed as an indicator that the arguments do not stand on their own. That the truth needs to help from name calling.
That should concern you. And it should cause you to take note instead of digging in your heels.
Before you just go after me again, remember that I am on your side. I may not have the particular insight that Jane thinks (and probably rightly so) she has found in the Bible. I agree with the overall premises. If you are getting pushback from the inside, don't just fight. Consider it. Since there are 2,000 years (more like 5,000+ years) of misunderstanding, you are fighting an uphill battle with so many. Don't make your fight harder by even distancing those who should be your biggest supporters.