Not per se. He specifically pointed out that he had not come to do destroy the law, but to fulfill it. One can see it as a revision. Though, since Jesus didn't sit down bespectacled and write a book of the law, followers were forced to interpret laws through his life and action so to speak, technically boiling down to subjective, agreed upon, interpretations.
Early christians did a way with most of the laws in the old testament to make the religion more attractive to non-jews (what do you mean I can't eat pork? what do you mean I can't sleep with my wife for seven days after she menstruates? you want me to do WHAT with my penis?)
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Originally Posted by Phredreeke
Early christians did a way with most of the laws in the old testament to make the religion more attractive to non-jews (what do you mean I can't eat pork? what do you mean I can't sleep with my wife for seven days after she menstruates? you want me to do WHAT with my penis?)
Very nice heathen c.a 50 ad imitation you got there!
But it's true, Paul the Apostle(Saul of Tarsus) made some major(read crazy f00 straight contradictory) changes to Jesus teachings. Kinda stupid that the entirety of modern Christianity cherishes good ol' Saul to the extent that it does.
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames
You can say what you want, but the only thing that has EVER stood in the way of equal rights has been religion and the fact that it brings people up to believe that certain people are unfavorable in the eyes of their religion and it also brings people up to believe they should be squeamish and ashamed of natural bodily functions.
It's a humongous generalization, but I see your point and I mostly agree with it. Though, I'd personally put the focus on how distortion of ideas, practiced through group control through human history, (among other things) tend to lead to such results.
You are absolutely correct, it was a huge generalization. I personally see most modern religions as a means of control, and it's kind of a circle. The ruling class puts up these scapegoats as a means to get the population arguing amongst themselves, the sheep (not always religious types, which is where my generalization was) will use these as justifications for their ignorance, and the politicians will swoop in and pretend to be on everyone's side (except those filthy communists). There are many parts to play in trying to create a "controlled" society, it was a bit unfair to point at religion as the only driving force behind it, although I do have to say it is quite a huge part.
When it comes to the LGBT (Lesbians, Gays, Bixsexuals and Transgender)[...], any potential legislation raised for their rights is thrown out simply because of that "T" at the end.
I totally agree on the hypocracy shown towards LGBT individuals contra others. I'm happy to say that I live in a country were LGBT individuals equal rights is very prominent(both in legislation and reality) in contrast to most other countries.
Well, I actually have a big beef with the LGBT as well. They have a huge priority towards the LGB, but most of them could care less about transsexuals. They treat them kind of like the annoying little brother your mom makes you take along with your friends because he's got no friends of his own. It's to the point where it's almost as if they don't even understand the condition themselves, not helping where they need it and often helping when no help is needed. Especially in terms of the GLAAD going after Seth MacFarlane for that family guy episode about Quagmire's Dad. Yes, that's just what these people need GLAAD, to make them look like a bunch of whiny babies that can't take a joke.
With all this shit happening, it's a wonder that any non-white, any women, any homosexual or transsexual would still want to be religious. Keep in mind, these people hate you, have hated you (or at the very least are secretly disgusted by you) and were rather you be dead based on their shoddy interpretation of their 2000 year old desert scribblings.
It's important to remember that it's not a polemic. The examples of religious views you gave are akin to fundamentalists, and rest assured that the absolute majority of religious people(I'm tempted to say only fundamentalists constitute the rest) strongly disagree with fundamentalist religious beliefs, and are equally occupied with seeing fundamentalism not having power in public areas like legislation.
I'm also going to half agree with you on this one. It's true that most of the 'voice' comes from the most outrageous end, but they don't just get what they want being a small minority, someone has to back them up. Part of this is as you said before, distortion of ideas. The media likes to play a lot of 'dualities' when it comes to deciding things. "You're either for us or against us, democrat or republican, patriot or communist/socialist, etc". So it usually comes down to "Those unruly darkies that want to rape and kill you or these pious champions of good, the Christians" or "Those disgusting AIDS ridden gender bending prostituting shemales or the children. You can't vote against children can you?"
Cudos to your active support of a vulnerable group in society.
Thanks, if you watched that video I posted not too long ago, Jim Jeffries, one particular bit he said "The bible is too wordy, all the stories are too wordy, the ten commandants are a load of S#$%, you don't need these things. The bible should be one sheet of paper, and on that piece of paper it should say 'Try not to be a cunt'. And if you do that everyday, you'll be a good person." I've always tried to think like that, and it's nice that someone has put those thoughts into such an elegant few sentences.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
[...] it was a bit unfair to point at religion as the only driving force behind it, although I do have to say it is quite a huge part.
I absolutely agree that religion is very much(although not in the slightest exclusively) used as a means for "crowd control" all over the world.
In my book that's a very serious offence, to exploit individuals innermost beliefs in the ways we see around the globe.
I'm also going to half agree with you on this one. It's true that most of the 'voice' comes from the most outrageous end, but they don't just get what they want being a small minority, someone has to back them up. Part of this is as you said before, distortion of ideas. The media likes to play a lot of 'dualities' when it comes to deciding things. "You're either for us or against us, democrat or republican, patriot or communist/socialist, etc". So it usually comes down to "Those unruly darkies that want to rape and kill you or these pious champions of good, the Christians" or "Those disgusting AIDS ridden gender bending prostituting shemales or the children. You can't vote against children can you?"
I definately agree on the media's role as major opinionator, they are the absolutely biggest reason imho for fueling the belief that religion and secular society is a polemic. Religion in the media is either
.a) "Look at these crazy religious people! Theys gone m-a-d!"
or
.b) "[...] good, Christian values."(Whenever an election or the ilk is coming up)
That's mostly due to that a balanced, normal, person that also holds some religious belief is not exactly headline news. It's just a balanced, normal, person like any other, with the exception that s/he holds some religious belief in her/his heart. I mean, it's no alien or something.
'Try not to be a cunt'. And if you do that everyday, you'll be a good person."
Maybe not my choice of wording, but the principle is absolutely true.
I think the experience is different in the UK to the US. You would not catch a politician coming up for election going on about Christian values, or religion in general. Tony Blair waited until his prime-ministry was over before 'coming out' as a Catholic. Christians are seen as lepers over here. Like the other day, at work, a female colleague pointed out a man she thought was attractive, and I just said simply "Oh yeh, Paul, he's a Christian", and she responded with "Eurgh..." and turned her face up.
That's because most American's aren't capable of critical thinking due to our education system that has to be watered down to make it look like more kids are doing better. It's like they've come to equate religiousness with responsibility.
I don't know what it's like in the UK, but most Christians seem to think that they don't have it easy because of their beliefs, even though their beliefs don't really cause any kind of hindrance...? It's usually their group that causes the hindrance on everyone else. They kind of act like Eminem in this parody (which was spot on, by the way).
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
I don't think it's anything to do with levels of education. (Trust me, the average child in the UK today is not very bright). But we - speaking as an English person born in 1988 - were not brought up with any kind of religious education beyond 'Jesus died on a cross' and 'heaven is nice'.
The young people of England do not even think of religion. God just doesn't figure at all. It is not an issue with the importance of, say, who Katie Price is shagging, or what colour should I paint my nails. Celebrities are the religion of the idiots. But that's a whole nother debate.
I have kind of abstained from this thread as I generally do not discuss religion or politics much these days, but I still have my opinions.
Although I will soon have a PhD in a science/engineering field I would like to believe there is a God, Heaven et al because I hope something exists after our very brief time on this planet.
I am not overly religious, I try not be a bad person as I do not want to upset the man upstairs. That is pretty much my life philosophy.
And Matt is correct on the state of a lot of UK's young (Celebrities etc) and brightness. I was shopping in a small family owned hardware store some time ago, and the girl at the counter needed a calculator to work out what 15% was of £10 (we had a 15% Value Added Tax rate for a while). Best part is she did not believe that I had worked it out in my head...
Personally I can't stress enough the need to look into stuff yourself. Lots of people let their opinions be determined by documentaries, based on the principle that the people who made them must have done all the research they needed.
I've actually found that's often not the case.
That's one of the reasons why I do what I do, going door to door and talking to people about this. Even your average vicar lacks some of the most basic Bible knowledge, it's terrifying that these people are then interviewed on TV and actually treated like experts. It's purely based on the fact that 'they're a vicar, so they must know!... right?'
There've been situations, for instance, where a vicar will complain when we don't call him 'Father so and so'. You show him Matt 23:8-12 where Jesus talks about religious titles like Rabbi, Leader and Father and says Christians shouldn't use such titles, because they're all brothers. And the vicar says "Oh... I didn't know it said that"
If you just go back to scripture a lot of stuff becomes clearer. One good example is Hell. If Hell is a lake of fire where the evil go to burn forever, why does Revelation 20:14 say Hell itself is cast into the lake of fire? And verse 13 says Hell gives up those dead in her, which isn't consistent with it being the permanent home of the wicked dead. Once you figure that out you can trace it back through scripture and it becomes clear that Biblical Hell is actually the common grave of man - everyone who dies goes to hell, good or bad, it's just the state of deadness. Jesus indicated the 'lake of fire' is called Gehenna, not Hell. The two, which the churches consider to be words for the same thing, are actually clearly distinct when you take them back to scripture.
Originally Posted by Matt Boothman I don't think it's anything to do with levels of education. (Trust me, the average child in the UK today is not very bright). But we - speaking as an English person born in 1988 - were not brought up with any kind of religious education beyond 'Jesus died on a cross' and 'heaven is nice'.
The young people of England do not even think of religion. God just doesn't figure at all. It is not an issue with the importance of, say, who Katie Price is shagging, or what colour should I paint my nails. Celebrities are the religion of the idiots. But that's a whole nother debate.
Originally Posted by ..::hagar::.. And Matt is correct on the state of a lot of UK's young (Celebrities etc) and brightness. I was shopping in a small family owned hardware store some time ago, and the girl at the counter needed a calculator to work out what 15% was of £10 (we had a 15% Value Added Tax rate for a while). Best part is she did not believe that I had worked it out in my head...
Great points, but I can guarantee that the education level of education in America is waaaay worse. The story you mentioned hagar, at least she knew what she had to do to get that, a small handful of people in this country wouldn't be able to. It's also to the point where one of the top technical schools in the country, MIT, is only getting about 5% of it's students from America, and the majority of scientists and doctors are from foreign countries. I'm sure it seems pretty bad from where you're at, but really, it's much worse over here.
I'm not saying that only stupid people believe in God (though it's very rare for an intelligent person to have these beliefs) but it makes them more susceptible to it. Another part of it has to do with indoctrination. Regardless of thinking that UK isn't very religious, it still is one of the most religious countries in the world.
Originally Posted by Phredreeke Yes, Boothman is right. There are manu stupid atheists as well as many brilliant religious people.
Of course. I'm not trying to say that, and of course that would be a duality (if all atheists are smart then all religious people are idiots.) Go onto a religious or anti-religious video on youtube and take a look at the comments section, swing a bat and you'll hit an idiot, regardless of "which team their playing for".
Originally Posted by DeadmanDines Personally I can't stress enough the need to look into stuff yourself. Lots of people let their opinions be determined by documentaries, based on the principle that the people who made them must have done all the research they needed.
You can usually point out people who do this, especially if they're talking about a subject you're familiar with (for example, the creationists that hate evolution so much but still think the theory states we evolved from monkeys, a person can live for millions of years, and say other stupid crap like "if we evolved from monkeys how come there are still monkeys?", and of course the fact that evolution and religion does not disprove one another and that they fight it tooth and nail simply because they've been brought up that way.)
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
And on the notion of UK contra USA religiousness of politics, Theology PhD Tina Beattie has some good points for the equation in her book The New Atheists. She notes that "America is a relatively young nation, founded on secular ideals underpinned by a deistic notion of God, and it's religious identity primarily influenced by Protestant Christianity. Britain on the other hand, like the rest of Europe, has a longer, more complicated and more bloody religious history, and it has also developed a more thoroughly secular political ethos. [...] Whereas a confession of atheism miht still damage them seeking office in American public life, British politicans are viewed with suspicion if they give the impression of allowing their personal religious beliefs to inform their political decisions."
How one interprets causality in this is anyone's guess. I personally tend to find my attention pointed toward how british legislation is potentially self-aware of it's history and has direct experience of the transformation from intolerance to tolerance. Remembering it's past, it instinctively reacts towards potential religious influence of state. Whereas American legislation is based on equality/tolerance from it's initiality, it hasn't been forced to fight it's inner demons regarding religious influence, making it - in a sense - naive.
This is a fairly blunt, generalizing and reductive perspective, but you get the point.
Sorry for the wall o' text, but I think it makes an interesting read.
On the matter of Biblical interpretation and it's potential usage in politics, one of the most interesting aspects I've come across is looking into the bible's(foremost the hebrew bible) history, composition and original language. For instance, calling upon the bible against gay rights. If one were to look objectively and freed from socio-historic imposition, one would find that the bible is at it's best vauge on the subject of homosexuality.
Actually, in the entire Old testament there are only two verses that explicitly address the legality of sexual relations with the same sex. One of those verses has been cited to death, Leviticus 18:22;
(KJV)
22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination
Other translations are typically "Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abbhorrence".
However, these translations are interpretive, not literal. Jacques Berlinerblau, whom I mentioned in a previous post, offers us an undogmatized view on the verse;
"A literal, secular translation of Leviticus 18:22 might read something like this: And with a male you will not lie lying downs of a woman (miskebe 'isa) It is an abomination."
He goes on to show the second verse were miskebe 'isa makes an appearance, Leviticus 20:13;
(KJV)
13If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
He once again offers a more accurate - though not neccessarily more clear - translation:
"And a man that will lie with a male lying downs of a woman (miskebe 'isa), the two of them have committed an abomination. They will die. Their blood is upon them."
As he notes, it is fairly plausible to assume some type of sexual encounter between two males is considered abhorrent. The problem lies in that no one actually knows what lying downs of a woman actually entails. Scripture is silent on the matter, so scholars - convinced that scripture is always coherent and universally true - have made suggestions ranging from all homosexual acts to solely anal sex. Another detail that has intrigued interpreters is that there is no reference to the age or social status of the participants. Both points being crucial variables in Greek and Roman thinking on the matter.
Another point is that these verses have nothing to say about same-sex relations between women, so I guess all the closet lesbians of fundamentalist christianity can take a chill-pill and come out into the open, Jesus certainly has nothing to say against them.
To solve the puzzling phrase, "lying downs of a woman", it is obvious that interpreters have leaned on the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, where the unruly mob of men demand that the male guests be brought out so they "may know them". Everyone knows how the story goes. Though an intriguing fact, noticed by Anglican Derrick Sherwin Bailey in a 1955 study, is that the sins of Sodom is never associated to sodomy. A few examples of associated sins are arrogance, adultery and lying.
So it is amazing and horrifying that the lying downs of a woman, unclear as they are, has managed to hold it's role as cornerstone for the persecution and demonizing of gay people.
Any good Christian will now object and point to the New Testament and (supposedly)Paul's words in Romans 1:26-27(which is one of the three passages in the entirety of the New Testament that bears directly on same-sex relations):
(KJV)
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Jacques Berlinerblau shows on various ways how these verses are problematic(if you do not agree feel free to read pages 106-109 in his book The
Secular Bible). One of the most technical problems is the fact that investigation of the wording only implies that this refers to what we call "bisexuals". It is shown that the men is only at error after abandoning their natural lust of women and proceeding with same-sex honky-tonks. To quote John Boswell, Paul derogates "homosexual acts committed by apparently heterosexual persons." So technically, Paul has nothing to say about those whom we might call "natural" or "biologically" gay.
A loophhole, yes, but orthodoxy as throughout history made use of an abundance of loopholes for their matter, so why shouldn't we?
The two remaining passages supposedly regarding homosexuality in the New Testament is 1 Timothy 1:8-10:
(KJV)
8But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
9Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
The underlined part is the one in question, often directly translated to just "homosexuals". The problem that once again rises is that the greek word translated as "homosexuals", "sodomites" and the ilk is arsenokoites. Berlinerblau points to New Testament scholar Dale Martins research on the word using contemperaneous Greek documents. The contexts in which it appears suggest to him that sins of an economic nature are being discussed. He wonders if arsenokoitein "refers to some kind of economic exploitation, probably by sexual means: rape or sex by economic coercion, prostitution, pimping, or something of the sort."
He states:"I am not claiming to know what arsenokoites meant, I am claiming that no one knows what it meant."
The term makes another apperance in 1 Corinthians 6:9:
(KJV)
9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
The two keywords used are malakoi(effeminate) and arsenokoítai(abusers of themselves with mankind), some translations even jam em' into one big "homosexuals".
It is noted that effeminate men of the time are not by definition homosexuals, and as seen earlier, arsenokoítai has a very uncertain meaning. So it's not truthful to hold the bible against the right and orderly of homosexual individuals, only dogma is against it, not the actual source for the dogma.
As I said: Sorry for the wall o' text, but I think it makes an interesting read.
Which reminds me, I've heard a few things a while back that suggested Jesus was actually gay himself. Whether the argument holds water or not, it's still kind of interesting.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by Matt Boothman Of course he wasn't gay. You ever seen a gay guy with a massive unkempt beard, going round in a brown robe?
Actually the bible depicts his beard to be clean and braided, and he wore a shiny pink silk robe. OMG Haaaalaaay loo yaaaaaaaaaaaaah boys!
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Advertisement
Post Reply
Very nice heathen c.a 50 ad imitation you got there! 
