Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="No⁃Designation Man" data-source="post: 1489470" data-attributes="member: 22702">I appreciate that you took your time to clarify where you personally stand on this. I agree with you that physical (head) infirmities should have physical (surgical) intervention when needed, not just being dismissed with the victim left to suffer unnecessarily. You are also correct in stating that &quot;there is nothing in the NT that suggests a physical infirmity should go uncorrected.&quot; Quite the opposite; the writer of the bible book of Luke, was a physician (Colossians 4:14).My issue is that the original &quot;phrenology&quot; and &quot;physiognomy&quot; - I would expand to say that the modern application is &quot;lookism&quot; - the idea of compartmentualizing a person&#039;s entire character and moral worth, based on head-bumps, or (pronounced) aesthetic features that are considered unappealing. Both phrenology and physiognomy were used (abused?) to do just that. Perhaps it&#039;s the history of the (mis)application of the two fields that are the most concerning, rather then the fields themselves?As for Saul; remember that if something superficial impresses people into a misguided &#039;auto-positive&#039; evaluation, then someone who lacks (or is the opposite of) that superficial trait will be given a misguided &#039;auto-negative&#039; evaluation.Yes, the human heart, as mentioned in 1 Kings, is referencing, not the literal organ, but a person&#039;s deepest motivations. My original inclusion of that scripture was to further emphasize what most people now foolishly ignore, that being &quot;it&#039;s what&#039;s on the inside that truly counts&quot;. And it is.You&#039;ll have to enlighten me (elsewhere) as to what you&#039;re suggesting with this.[USER=21667]@Papist[/USER]Out of respect, I&#039;ll end my comments on your thread with this post. My original, related observation, is now veering off into hijacking your thread with another issue.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="No⁃Designation Man, post: 1489470, member: 22702"] I appreciate that you took your time to clarify where you personally stand on this. I agree with you that physical (head) infirmities should have physical (surgical) intervention when needed, not just being dismissed with the victim left to suffer unnecessarily. You are also correct in stating that "there is nothing in the NT that suggests a physical infirmity should go uncorrected." Quite the opposite; the writer of the bible book of [I]Luke[/I], was a physician (Colossians 4:14). My issue is that the original "phrenology" and "physiognomy" - I would expand to say that the modern application is "lookism" - the idea of compartmentualizing a person's entire character and moral worth, based on head-bumps, or (pronounced) aesthetic features that are considered unappealing. Both phrenology and physiognomy were used (abused?) to do just that. Perhaps it's the history of the (mis)application of the two fields that are the most concerning, rather then the fields themselves? As for Saul; remember that if something superficial impresses people into a misguided 'auto-positive' evaluation, then someone who lacks (or is the opposite of) that superficial trait will be given a misguided 'auto-negative' evaluation. Yes, the human heart, as mentioned in 1 Kings, is referencing, not the literal organ, but a person's deepest motivations. My original inclusion of that scripture was to further emphasize what most people now foolishly ignore, that being "it's what's on the inside that truly counts". And it is. You'll have to enlighten me (elsewhere) as to what you're suggesting with [B]this[/B]. [USER=21667]@Papist[/USER] Out of respect, I'll end my comments on your thread with this post. My original, related observation, is now veering off into hijacking your thread with another issue. [/QUOTE]

Verification