Re: OT: Now they are doing away with Limbo!

Cheryl Perkins wrote:
> Janet Puistonen <boxhill@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I don't think this is "reasoning." I think it is "searching for an
>> excuse to indulge our preconceived notions." YMMV.
>
> You already said that. And, well, my mileage does vary.

My point is that I am in fact "discussing" their reasoning when I say that I
think they start from a false premise. I see no value in going on to quibble
with what they do with that false premise.

>>> No. The original Roman law made a distinction in inheritance law
>>> based on sex, which you could describe as sexist. Saying that
>>> everyone is going to get 'most favoured status' - i.e. be treated as
>>> a son in inheritance - is the exact opposite of sexist.
>
>> No. The original Roman law was sexist, and language that reflects
>> that sexism continues to be sexist.
>
> I said 'could describe' because I really hate applying an
> understanding of sexism from one century and culture to another. Only
> the very narrowest, most literal meaning of 'sexism' - different
> treatment of different sexes - might be relevant.

I don't think that's narrow at all. In fact, it is quite broad. The idea
that the sexes should be treated the same way is a huge understanding of
sexual equality.

> Getting into
> twentieth century ideas of how language should work in order to avoid
> sexism in a text written centuries earlier in a dfferent culture is
> going too far.

I have absolutely no desire to alter a text written centuries earlier, nor
did I ever indicate such a desire in any way, shape, or form. Yes, I think
the text reflects the ideas of a sexist society. So? So does most of
literature.
All literature reflects a cartload of "isms" in today's terms. One can
acknowledge that without having a wish to change it.

>> Although the *intention* of the writer may
>> have been comparatively egalitarian, the language itself is not.
>> Understanding the intent doesn't change that. The text is what the
>> text is. (If one were writing a hymn based on the passage, one might
>> choose to change the language. Really, it comes down to a matter of
>> translation. Is the translation to be literal or not? Most literary
>> translations are not literal. I can see virtues on both sides. It
>> depends whether one is approaching the document as a scholar does an
>> original text, or as someone trying to communicate with a
>> contemporary audience.)
>
> I want the best understanding of what the original text said
> (without, I admit, going to the trouble of learning Greek). I would
> infinitely prefer the original, with the explanation Jane provided,
> than someone's version that's been bowlderized to fit twentieth
> century ideas of non-sexist text.

So would I. But, for me, this text does not have any religious meaning or
use. I can see how those who are members of that religion and who are
actually trying to use the text for contemporary religious purposes might
want to change the *translation*--not the original, because that is what it
is--so as to make it more useful for their religious purposes in this age.

> People who have written hymns or poetry or essays or whatever
> inspired by the passage are certainly free to translate it and/or
> interpret it according to their own culture, tastes and inspiration.
>
> What can I say? I can still read and sing material that uses the older
> 'man' for 'human, and enjoy it. I use a far narrower definition of
> sexist than you do.

Where did I say that I couldn't read material that uses "man" for "human"
and not enjoy it? I read and sing such material every week. There would be
precious little left to read if one didn't. Sometimes the words bother me,
and sometimes they don't. That doesn't stop me from reading. Anyone who has
been a student of literature is well accustomed to reading with an
understanding of historical context.

Look, I sing in the choir at a Unitarian church. If we want to sing the
liturgical music of Bach, Mozart, and the like, we have to deal with the
fact that the words usual don't reflect our personal theologies. Sometimes
we change a word here or there, usually we don't. It depends. I don't agree
with the statements made even in many of the hymns in our hymnbook. Words
and their meanings matter to me. I confront the fact of dealing with the
meaning of words and the theological statement they make on a regular basis.
That doesn't stop me from singing the music.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolutionary hypotheses about religion
    ... understanding that, for instance, the fundies have about the Christian ... to the underworld" itself -- it's a metaphor for the journey of LIFE. ... but only those who have been taught its symbolism know ... It does seem to be a characteristic of all the best literature that it ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A Better Understanding of... your paper (... curl(V) = 0 ...)
    ... By the way, curl, rot and "Nabla"X are used interchangeably across all literature on 3D vector analysis, electromagnetic theory and hydrodynamics, even when one considers a single language. ... "A Better Understanding of curl= 0". ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Sneaking the Bible into public schools
    ... reference. ... That's why I think including the Bible in literature ... Would the Bible give us an understanding of genies such as in the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: query: grammars for Prolog?
    ... >in the literature or on the Web? ... >is primarily study and understanding, ... >any comprehensible notation will do. ...
    (comp.lang.prolog)
Loading