Religion as an Invention by AnthonyT

My objection, as a Taoist, is to being classified as a philosophy and not a religion. Philosophies have we many, and we take each of them in part.

You can choose to practice part of a religion, sure. I am nominally jewish, and there are elements of judaism that remain. I'm also a residual christian, from my grandparents who were pretty christian and instilled me with values of that faith. I don't believe Jesus has bought me an afterlife, or that if I praise his name enough he will. I'm not sure what to call that, but it would definitely be a religion, probably a radical one.

There's a difference: I choose to practice parts of scientology because I believe them to be true. I would not call myself a scientologist. (they wouldn't call me one either, but that's because they're a church, which is another matter.) But I wouldn't because I cherrypick scientology. I think this is what you do with philosophy.

I don't cherrypick the Tao, Jesus or Judaism. I call myself a Taoist because I think that's where the path to enlightment lies. I might have some interpretations that other disagree with, but it is not the same relationship.

Secondly, I also take issue with any redefinition of the word religion to mean "western judeo-christian religion" and I also take faith, in this context, to be a synonym for religion, as generally accepted by the populous at large so creating distinctions here among us is splitting hairs.

The definition

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=religion

As to practice, ritual and practice are basically the same concept. Whether your practice has an actual purpose, like meditation, or it is all in your head, like animal sacrifice or whatever is in part a matter of whether or not you believe.

Do I believe in the power of meditation? Sure. Do I believe in the power of prayer? No. Might I be wrong? Sure. If someone wanted to argue a collective unconscious connecting everyone through some existential philosophy they could have a basis for proving that prayer works, but my offhanded analysis would be that it helps the person praying to get troubles off their mind, which is something that people also use meditation for.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=faith

Faith based initiative always makes me think "Want, Take, Have."

ETA: Let me put it another way. A friend of mine practices the drums, mike practices shooting guns at the range, etc. You don't have a right to practice, you're allowed to, within limits. My friend can't practice the drums at 3AM or if the neighbors don't like it. Mike can't practice shooting in the shopping mall or in school. This is not about the meaning of their lives, it's something they do.

No one can step in and tell Christians that they can't be christians anymore. The same is true of muslims and jews. This is because this is a fundamental part of who they are, and they have a right, protected under the constitution. This is religion.

Which group do you want to place your belief in?

I can tell you in China when they banned the practice of Taoism, it only lasted a few months, because Mao was facing a civil war if he didn't reverse his position. That's not just an idea or a hobby. Mao banned a lot of things and got away with it. People were unhappy, sure, but they accepted it.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 12:35 PM

Quote:
Omitting, for example, that someone should be stoned to death for wearing a mixed fabric. Most Christians will omit that belief in modern times, but it is still stated in their book.

Is it still an omission if it doesn't apply?

Quote:
..."The weaving of two kinds of material (wool and linen in Deuteronomy 22:11) may be a rule that would prevent loss by unequal shrinkage." There is no apparent application today for two reasons: (1) Most Christians do not make their own fabric or clothing today, and (2) clothing manufacturers do not mix these materials...

"Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee—Although this precept, like the other two with which it is associated, was in all probability designed to root out some superstition, it seems to have had a farther meaning. The law, it is to be observed, did not prohibit the Israelites wearing many different kinds of cloths together, but only the two specified; and the observations and researches of modern science have proved that 'wool, when combined with linen, increases its power of passing off the electricity from the body. In hot climates, it brings on malignant fevers and exhausts the strength; and when passing off from the body, it meets with the heated air, inflames and excoriates like a blister' [Whitlaw]. (See Ezek 44:17, 18.)"

Lets keep the 'Abominations' as described in Leviticus in perspective. It was a 'Holiness Code' in a ritual manual for the Jewish priesthood. The acts are not considered inherently evil but taboo or unclean. Most Christians are not Jewish priest. Also some passages are just not relevant to today's world such as the clothing example you've provided and often misunderstood You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. which applied to the act of male 'sacred prostitution' and not homosexuality as we understand it today.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 1:16 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Deu 22:11 "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together." The "as of" bit would imply it's an example of mixed cloth garments, not a specific proscription against wool and linen being mixed.
From the same book as, "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the lord thy God." Also not planting divers seeds or plowing with divers animals. Unless only Jewish priests were planting and plowing, I think it was probably meant for the population in general. I'll ask the man who originally brought such things to my attention, who has read the Bible cover to cover in several different iterations, comparing and analyzing them, if you really want me to. Of course, if I bring him into it, you'll hear some real attacks on religion, which I am actually trying to keep at a minimum, whether DT thinks so or not.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 1:34 PM

Quote:
often misunderstood You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. which applied to the act of male 'sacred prostitution' and not homosexuality as we understand it today.

? You'll have to elaborate on this. I'm not aware of any ancient practice involving male hierodule. Though there were fertility gods, most of those as far as I'm aware had to do with fertility of the fields, it was fertility goddesses that primarily dealt with human fertility. As such, my understanding is it was mostly women who prostituted themselves for human fertility rituals, as either priestesses, or as a pre-marriage custom (though evidence for the later is scarce compared to the speculation).

Also, from the given text, the connection to sacred prostitution is not obvious.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 1:53 PM

My comments were pertaining to Levitivus, but I did quote deuteronomy in my post, I apologize if this caused confusion. I should have been more clear.

Concerning your quoted Deuteronomy, the translation works out to be a mite closer to '“The woman shall not put on [the weapons/armor of a warrior], neither shall a [warrior] put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”' and I'm doing a little research as too what that really means in the context.

We can go back and forth on the bible and how it ought to be interpreted, but my point is that not all Christians 'omit' things cause it's convenient or they don't feel like it. When I come across something that doesn't sound right to me, I investigate it, try and figure out what it really means rather than ignore it.

EDIT: I owe you another clarification and apology.
The verse concerning male lying with a woman is from Leviticus but it is Deuteronomy that forbids sacred male prostitution with

Quote:
Deuteronomy 23:18 You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute into the house of the LORD your God to pay any vow, because the LORD your God detests them both.

Afraid that's all I have time for for now, watching DWTS and then prolly sleeping before an early work day.

Edit again from itouch (great for comercials) if I can track down the article that explained doing away with sacred male prostitution I will link it or quote it. Anyhow they were basically 'updating' how things worked in the temple. Part of that was doing away with the 'sacred male prostitutes.' I read a fascinating study on the ancient hebrew traditions and sacred prostitution (the example was female oracles) in an anthropology class a couple years ago. This along with many other 'abominations' were being associated with idolatry which they were very much against.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 1:55 PM

PR

Have you seen the Red Lobster protests? I think you'd like it, can't find the youtube. The basic thrust was berating people for eating shellfish and wearing blended fabrics ;)

I read the bible cover to cover twice myself. It's a good cure for western faith. Everyone should do it ;)

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 4:28 PM

Incidentally DWTS happens to be on right now, and I happened to see a fairly impressive dance just now.

Hmm, the line in Leviticus still says lie with a MALE like as with a woman. But okay, the Dueteronomy one is talking about paying tithing with regular prostitution. There IS one about not going to see hierodules/ sacred prostitution, but men generally weren't hierodules.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 5:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Incidentally DWTS happens to be on right now, and I happened to see a fairly impressive dance just now.

Hmm, the line in Leviticus still says lie with a MALE like as with a woman. But okay, the Dueteronomy one is talking about paying tithing with regular prostitution. There IS one about not going to see hierodules/ sacred prostitution, but men generally weren't hierodules.

Leviticus is explicit: male homosexuality is an abomination, and those demand execution. OTOH, that's sandwiched in between the same for eating shrimp and wearing blended fabrics. My socks are 50% wool 50% cotton, which is what they're talking about, and it's really quite nice.

I think some tribe which didn't cut the tip of their dicks off probably wore it, so they had to be killed.

The thing about ancient wisdom is sometimes it was written by the Buddha, and sometimes it was written by some shmuck who was probably ancient world for Dick Cheney.

The strange thing about the bible is how many times over history which texts have been considered canon has changed. Things that were once considered mad rantings of a genocidal lunatic are now sacred, and have been since the 1880s, when mad genocidal lunatics inserted them, this is the sort of thing that people might want to see to. Also, other things that actually had something to do with the lives and values of hebrews and the life of christ were deleted from the book.

Also, some "translations" are just pure fabrication. The reason the revelation of St. John the Divine looks so prophetic in the way it describes metal carriages and metal birds that rain down fire is that it was written in 1880 when the concept was really pretty well understood, and it was less of a prophecy, and more of an order blank, but it wasn't calling for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, it was calling for it in WWI.

People make up texts to tell the sheeple what to do next.

The bible should be reduced to a group of stories and ancient wisdom that actually reflects the values that helped that society, not tales of how to mass slaughter the undesirable canaanites.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 6:15 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Why did the Jews have all those rules back then? I believe it is because God wanted them to be unique and seperate people, since he picked them and all. I don't believe we really need to do all those things now though, for instance Peter learnt about how it was okay to eat any animals we wanted in his vision in Acts etc. Paul talks about the rutting-with-same-sex stuff in Romans 1 though so most Christians see it as still not something we do.

DT, what proof do you have that Revelation was written in the 1880s? I must confess I've never heard that particular conspiracy theory before. Anyways. I've never enjoyed DWTS, but I'm glad you guys like it. The only part of AI I watch (rarely at that) is the tryouts, I like laughing at the bad singers. I wish there was Trad Irish Idol, I could handle watching/trying out for that.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 6:31 PM

It's also nice that the church has rescinded on at least some of Peter's misogyny, and now says that not only can women participate in the church, but also that they can achieve salvation. Considering how important women converts were in the times of the church during Roman persecution, you'd think the Council of Nicea would know better. But I guess it was more important to perpetuate certain power structures.

I wonder about Peter, he took serious issue with Mary Magdalene and the other women in Jesus' life. I suspect jealousy.

As for the bible, new versions and translations are released all the time, with the language just slightly tweaked to validate whatever views the then-translators wanted it to have. The King James bible was a very superstitious book, it's leveled out since then, but other agendas have slipped in ideas. I don't know as well as DT does about the rewrites, but I do know that on some matters, like war and occupation, that certain world leaders have followed it "religiously."

This sounds like the source DT is drawing from for his claim.

Quote:
The English Biblical scholar, Robert Henry Charles (1855–1931), reasoned on internal textual grounds that the book was edited by someone who spoke no Hebrew and who wished to promote a different theology to John's. As a result, everything after 20:3, he claims, has been left in a haphazard state with no attempt to structure it logically. Furthermore, he says, the story of the defeat of the ten kingdoms has been deleted and replaced by 19:9-10.[17] John's theology of chastity has been replaced by the editor's theology of outright celibacy, which makes little sense when John's true church is symbolised as a bride of the Lamb. Most importantly, the editor has completely rewritten John's theology of the Millennium which is "emptied of all significance".[18]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 2:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Why did the Jews have all those rules back then? I believe it is because God wanted them to be unique and seperate people, since he picked them and all.

Actually, the concept of a unified ancient jewry is a myth. The ancient tribes were constantly at war with one another, and worshipped different gods. At some point a king of Jerusalem replaced the names of all gods with the tetragammon YHWH, or Jehovah/Yahweh as we say it in English and Hebrew. This is not an actual god, but a placeholder name. The origin of "I am" is for "I am he whose name cannot be spoken." I did much pondering on the board as to the reason for that, and eventually I decided that it was much like the King David and King Arthur myths, which create illusion of historical unity by merging the lives of different people, similarly, YHWH creates the illusion of one God, for the purposes of uniting Israel. It didn't work, and it was fairly poorly done, and becomes obvious to anyone carefully reading the bible, as said God would come across as wildly schizophrenic. Also, worth noting that Israel contains El in the name, who was the God of Galilee and parts of Assyria, who had tracked west across north central asia, changing his name from Enlil to Ellil and in hebrew just to El. Later, El (meaning high, or the high one, as he was god of the sky, also interpreted as heavens) married Him, the sea goddess, and his name was changed to Elohim, which is believed by some Rabbis to be a name for the devil, which is odd, since they call their country Israel "to serve El"

Quote:
DT, what proof do you have that Revelation was written in the 1880s? I must confess I've never heard that particular conspiracy theory before.

Just the actual texts in physical form, but I'm sure there's a ton of information about this online.

rewritten, not written, It's been rewritten again many times. I have many texts here in old fashioned printed matter, it changes to meet the war demands of kings. It's not really the word of God. I am dubious that it existed in any form that would resemble the current, but I'm sure the information is out there.

The bible's radical rewrites aren't exactly a mystery. The 1880 rewrite was one of the more extensive: Over 30,000 changes were made. The part that people miss often when considering this is that it was not just minor changes like the names of Gods, or profound political ones, like the insertion of the word "witch" but really truly radical changes like which books would be or wouldn't be in the bible.

It's entirely possible that some books have no basis in the original text at all, the one that has come most under fire for this is the gospel of John. I find it more likely that books were written and added "loosely based" on some ancient text, sort of like the way spielberg and company make movies from Phillip K Dick stories, or maybe more like Albert Broccoli's James Bond movies, thinly and loosely constructed from short stories by Ian Flemming

Quote:
I wish there was Trad Irish Idol, I could handle watching/trying out for that.

How are you on Flogging Molly?

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 2:39 AM

Byte,

When me and Antimason went through this one a couple years back the number of sources was staggering, and there was little agreement other than that there had been radical edits. In fact, radical edits have been going on for a long time. The Hebrew bible was adapted from the Sumerian, but parts of it came from the Assyrian and Egyptian, and additional books from various parts of Israel which were added and subtracted from time to time, and also at times, radically edited.

The book of John and the revelation of St. John the Divine would have been written in Greek, not Hebrew. It's quite likely that Greek, and not Aramaic, was Jesus's native language. He was a member of a Nazarene cult that worshiped El and were offshoots of Zoroastrianism, as the result of a Persian conquest of Galilee centuries earlier.

The whole thing had buggerall to do with Judaism until really the council of Nicea, at a time when Jerusalem had a pronounced influence in Rome, decided that it did. They were promoting a Judah-based agenda for a religion which has been extinct for millennia, like the language it wrote. No one speaks the language, because it was written in shorthand, and can't really be deciphered, but a modified alphabet was reconstructed into a Hebrew language in a three year project form 1887-1890. Most Hebrew sacred texts were then translated *into* Hebrew from their various source languages.

An ancient Hebrew bible exists as source material for its 15th c. German translation, which has been revisited many times.

Riona

As for all these rules, and why they exist, it's because they all had some survival advantage for their tribe, either against some other tribe, or against nature. Some were good ideas, others sucked. Anyone who wants to know the literal true word of God is going go mad trying. They're going to be stuck with inconsistent conflicting texts of a society in a state of perpetual war writing in shorthand of long dead languages about Gods that don't exist, have been renamed in text written in myriad different languages which have been edited both properly and maliciously on hundreds of occasions with probably a million or so edits in all, some as radical as completely discarding the gospel of Thomas, or adding John.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 4:00 AM

I'm assuming Sin is somewhere in there among the many gods represented.

Definitely can see Sin in the Islamic representation of god, they like their crescent moons and bull horns symbology.

Or maybe... It looks like Sin is supposed to be the son of Enlil? As well as chief of the gods and lord of wisdom, so the two entities eventually merged into one which was both son and father. Later on when biblical scholars were rewriting all the old gods as demons, the name Sin instead became synonymous with our current definition of sin, "any act of transgression, especially a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle."

Shekina may have been an amalgamation of goddesses and god-wives, then also merged in with the overarching God idea.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 6:11 AM

Byte,

Sure. It's speculated that he was the initial God of the cult in Jerusalem. Sin worship was pretty widespread in the area, but the cult of Sinai were what we might call radical extremists of their day. They were particularly driven by a fear of the encroaching advancement of africans up the arabian coast of the red sea. Mt. Sinai and the Sinai peninsula is named for their god. It's been claimed many many other things, like China, or Sina, locally, but this is probably nonsense and a linguistic coincidence, Chin was a common family name which rose to dynastic power.

I would pick this one over "Molech" since Molech actually means king and in the reference that are translated as Molech, mlk=king, lmlk=molech=to the king, to is translated as sacrifice, and mlkm=molech, their=their king. Early kings like Ba'al later became deified and were referred to as gods. The book of Ba'al was written by his wife Anat, which is a common story (Aisha actually started Islam based on the writings of her husband Mohammed) But by the time of King Zebub of North Israel, Ba'al was considered god of Fire, a name he got for introducing the smelting of iron to Israel, though much of his actual sacred book is devoted to the construction of windows, he was most concerned with men not sneaking in during the night to bang his daughters which he had seven of. I imagine it kept him up all night ;) I also figure this is where the thing in Buffy with the "hearty beets" comes from.

Anyway, there are some specific gods that mlkm was used to refer to that slip my mind at the moment, but the name Malcolm et. variations come later from this.

This image of feeding molech children to be burnt is probably propaganda, those archaeologists have found statues with ashes of the offerings, it's unclear which god they are to or whether the offerings were alive or even human. It's also possible that stillborn or dead children were burnt by some cults as a ritual or superstition related to disease, etc. and probably the numbers were high, hence, this rather than giant graveyards.

Anyway, the cult of Sinai migrated out of Egypt to Zion, which may share a name origin, and most probably brought the egyptian gold based economic system with them, and became very powerful, and ultimately took over or formed the kingdom of Judah, which was in tremendous disarray at the time. When the cult arrived, the city of Jerusalem was standing, but completely abandoned, a mystery like Tikal, not yet settled as far as I know, but possibly similar reasons, the collapse of local agriculture, or possible a plague. Plagues tend to hit the places of high population density because of a much higher rate of contact, thus transmission.

Anyway, prolly more than you wanted to know. I guess one more detail, the wars of ancient Israel were largely based on the mad desire of Judah to conquer all of Israel, and some rather gruesome incidents where they massively exterminate the other tribes, some of which are still in the bible.

This is basically the same sort of logic as Nazi Germany, which intended to depopulate eastern europe and replace the local population with Germans. They're still doing it of course, but now they're calling themselves the EU and doing it through propaganda and economic manipulation, through the Euro, which is of course based in Frankfurt, by issuing power, not that it would really be any better if it was actually based in Brussels as it claims. Frankfurt banking industry of course is what spawned the Reichsbank, and Deutchbank, which now dominates the Euro. The major media arm of propaganda is Bertelsmann, the media conglomerate that made its fortune on being the primary creator of Nazi propaganda.

When you look into this stuff in depth, the way things work becomes clear in an abstract view, but thing become less certain rather than more.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 6:16 AM

Interesting. Quick off topic: is this where all the German national debt is coming from, their banks trying to buy power for a nationalist agenda?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 6:31 AM

Riona and Happy: just wanted to put in some obligatory reassurance that discussing the evolution, translation, and so on of the bible does not discredit the current beliefs of any Judeo-Christian religion.

By nature, the more metaphysical beliefs of Judeo-Christian religion, such as in heaven or God, can not be proven or disproven, and a discussion about old human interpretations of any God has no bearing on the actual existence of those ideas. Similarly, I'm not bothered by most of the rules those religions follow, I mostly take issue with a select few interpretations which are by no means the view of the majority.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 6:33 AM

Same place as ours. All of Europe is rapidly becoming in debt to the Euro Consortium, who holds issuing power of the currency. The balance of this issuing power is based in Frankfurt, Germany in the same way that the balance of ours is based on Liberty Street in NYC.

It doesn't matter that the FED is inside the US, or the the Euro which is based on the FED is inside Europe, the bankers still hold the power. If a nation, such as Ireland owns no issuing power, there is no way for it to get out of debt. In order to operate a govt., they must borrow money, which they pay back by taxing their populous, which means that the economy will sink forever, making it a slave state.

The way such states are created is with economic incentives. Economic "balancing" offers are made to bring lesser economies "up to scale" with more successful ones. This is essentially a bribe. It means that during the short reign of the current politicians, the economy will flourish, and they can do whatever they want. Afterward, their people will be enslaved for eternity, but they're politicians, and don't care.

It's pointless to have any discussion about defeating or displacing TPTB without an underlying understanding of where it is they get their power from, and how they use it. The most essential piece of their power is the issuing of currency. If you could take from them that alone, you could do a lot of damage to their empire.

Other keystones to knock out besides the issuance of fiat (currency and land grants) would include their control commodities, their propaganda network, their intelligence gathering apparatus, their illusion of legitimacy (democracy et al.), their military superiority and the authority granted to their central govts.

I'm probably missing a few because I just got up, and you never hit 100% off the top of your head but those were intentionally placed in descending order of importance.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 11:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Riona and Happy: just wanted to put in some obligatory reassurance that discussing the evolution, translation, and so on of the bible does not discredit the current beliefs of any Judeo-Christian religion.

By nature, the more metaphysical beliefs of Judeo-Christian religion, such as in heaven or God, can not be proven or disproven, and a discussion about old human interpretations of any God has no bearing on the actual existence of those ideas. Similarly, I'm not bothered by most of the rules those religions follow, I mostly take issue with a select few interpretations which are by no means the view of the majority.

Trust me, I know

I rather enjoy these discussions when it feels more inquisitive/informative and less hostile.

My personal belief is that while the old testament can be quite fascinating, (or complicated and frustrating depending on your thoughts and circumstances) it has little bearing on the day to day lives of most Christians. That Jesus was a pretty shiny guy, efficiently summarizing our faith in two commandments:

Quote:
1. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength;
2. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

Of course, him taking on all our sins past present and future, granting us forgiveness and the eternal life we don't deserve was pretty shiny too. Just my opinion, but I think setting an example like that kinda encourages forgiveness. Christianity is about forgiveness and redemption, not wool and linens, not trimming beards, and not hatred of any sort.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 3:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
My personal belief is that while the old testament can be quite fascinating, (or complicated and frustrating depending on your thoughts and circumstances) it has little bearing on the day to day lives of most Christians.

Some of those early books, genesis esp. play majorly for most Christians though, as do the psalms.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 3:10 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Shiny.

You guys have every right to discuss whatever you want, whether I agree with or believe in what is being discussed has no bearing on whether you have the right to discuss it.

Paul seems a bit down on women too, I think it was his personal opinion because in the new testiment we see him say things like "I do not permit a woman to teach" etc.

I believe that, even though God refers to himself as He, as do we, he is able to love as a woman would too and has the traits often associated with women in regard to loving us etc. while still having the "manly" traits too.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 3:13 PM

The old testament is our history (religiously speaking), I wasn't exactly implying we throw it out the gorram window, lol. I was mostly referring to things like the outdated non-applicable rules concerning animal sacrifices, the trimming of beards and the like.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 4:12 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I was mostly referring to things like the outdated non-applicable rules concerning animal sacrifices, the trimming of beards and the like.

Did I not point out the update by omission thing? I could have sworn I did.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 4:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I was mostly referring to things like the outdated non-applicable rules concerning animal sacrifices, the trimming of beards and the like.

Did I not point out the update by omission thing? I could have sworn I did.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

And I asked if you consider it omission if it does not apply? I try not to swear too much, but I'm pretty sure I said it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 4:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Shiny.

You guys have every right to discuss whatever you want, whether I agree with or believe in what is being discussed has no bearing on whether you have the right to discuss it.

Paul seems a bit down on women too, I think it was his personal opinion because in the new testiment we see him say things like "I do not permit a woman to teach" etc.

I believe that, even though God refers to himself as He, as do we, he is able to love as a woman would too and has the traits often associated with women in regard to loving us etc. while still having the "manly" traits too.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

Right on Riona. It's my opinion that Jesus was a feminist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 5:03 PM

Very likely so, I'll give you that much. There's plenty of interpretation about the resurrection and his order that he not be touched, but that's probably more due to supposed divinity than the witness being female.

Jesus kept a close circle of female friends and relatives that were actively involved in his life, where other men of the time kept them cloistered and in the background. He let them actively participate in ceremonies and other religious gatherings.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 5:44 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I was mostly referring to things like the outdated non-applicable rules concerning animal sacrifices, the trimming of beards and the like.

Did I not point out the update by omission thing? I could have sworn I did.

And I asked if you consider it omission if it does not apply? I try not to swear too much, but I'm pretty sure I said it.

You can say it doesn't if you want, but it doesn't change the existing passage. I even quoted it for you.
It's your book, man. I don't think any of it applies.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 6:46 PM

Paul was a dick.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 7:48 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Sometimes I wish that some of the apocryphal texts had made it into the book, because there were some that held interesting insights and better attitudes towards women.

Of course, the likelihood is that whatever really transpired in Biblical times... an army of men through several generations conspired to trim, edit, rewrite, and re-interpret the Bible to suit their needs and tastes.

The mere fact that one can step into a book store and find dozens of renditions of the Bible with minor tweaks proves that God does not preserve the contents of the book from alteration. The Bible is a text in the custodianship of human beings, and I think it must be viewed with a critical eye. No matter whether you believe in God or not, it is a surety that humans have tampered with that text through the ages.

We have only our own intellect and good conscience to guide us in what seems true, right, and just.

May God sort us out kindly in the end.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 12:22 AM

Quote:
You can say it doesn't if you want, but it doesn't change the existing passage.

I never claimed the passage changed, only that it no longer applies. Maybe this is just a matter of semantics, but I don't feel it is willfully 'omited' when it does not apply to us. This is my interpretation. You are welcome to yours.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 1:54 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Paul was a dick.

Amen.

But he was also a hardass. He was watching Christians grow soft and spoiled, and he wanted them to suck it up and live the life, like the early, early Christians did. So I think some of his harshness comes from that.

But yeah, no question. He was a dick too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 1:57 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I never claimed the passage changed, only that it no longer applies. Maybe this is just a matter of semantics, but I don't feel it is willfully 'omited' when it does not apply to us. This is my interpretation. You are welcome to yours.

My problem with fundamentalism and the literal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures is that they pick and choose what they believe "no longer applies."

Meaning, they are not as literal as they say they are. They make tons of arbitrary exceptions from their literal interpretation, and then thump the Bible for the rest.

Why the few texts against homosexuality aren't lumped in with the few texts on stoning adulteresses, I will never understand.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 3:44 AM

Eh, both Paul and Peter have some preserved letters outside of the bible that suggest their views. Peter didn't like women, and Paul was militant. And some of that carries through in their respective gospels, though I can't speak to how much editing and translation shenanigans happened with the gospels.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 6:18 AM

My earlier post got deleted.

The gist was that it's well establish that Emperor Pius sent Paul down to turn the Christians into good Romans as a mole. It's assumed that Pius intended to drag Christianity into the Pantheon, or perhaps destroy it. Paul instead converted to Christianity and then changed what Christianity was to make it more Roman. I don't see any reason to assume that this was off track from what the Emperor wanted, it was probably Mission Accomplished. (If you're a pro-Paul christian, I get where you might disagree with this analysis, but you can see where it's coming from.)

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 6:32 AM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I never claimed the passage changed, only that it no longer applies. Maybe this is just a matter of semantics, but I don't feel it is willfully 'omited' when it does not apply to us. This is my interpretation. You are welcome to yours.
My problem with fundamentalism and the literal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures is that they pick and choose what they believe "no longer applies."

Meaning, they are not as literal as they say they are. They make tons of arbitrary exceptions from their literal interpretation, and then thump the Bible for the rest.

Why the few texts against homosexuality aren't lumped in with the few texts on stoning adulteresses, I will never understand.

Ditto ditto. Thanks for that, CTS.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 9:52 AM

Evolution: Adultresses raised their children to think it wasn't such a bad thing; gay men generally didn't raise kids even if they had them. Ergo, they got no votes in the evolution of the religion.

Think about it: There is no real constant religious faith that lasts more than a couple hundred years. Every religion will splinter, doctrine will change, etc.

Whatever splinter group has the most kids is going to win. I guess that means in the future all Christians will be Amish and all Jews will be Satmars, and Muslims will be whoever, Wahabi? Not sure.

But not the 20-year future, the 200-year future. Point being, on the side, that whatever else these groups believe will also likely influence the final beliefs. Not saying that all the beliefs will remain, but that the new religion will evolve out of them, and not evolve out of, say, the Shakers.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 10:32 AM

Quote:
My problem with fundamentalism and the literal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures is that they pick and choose what they believe "no longer applies."

Meaning, they are not as literal as they say they are. They make tons of arbitrary exceptions from their literal interpretation, and then thump the Bible for the rest.

Why the few texts against homosexuality aren't lumped in with the few texts on stoning adulteresses, I will never understand.

Probably because in the text attributed to homosexuality, homosexuality did not exist as we understand it today. Was God angry at the sodomites because they wanted teh homo buttshex, or because they wanted to rape his angels? Romans 1:26-27 refers to the Greco-Roman practice of pederasty (a hetero practice ironically enough).

Also, are you calling me a fundamentalist?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 10:42 AM

Quote:
Probably because in the text attributed to homosexuality, homosexuality did not exist as we understand it today.

Um, of course it existed, and not in much different form than today. The Greco-Roman pederasty was NOT heterosexual. The Greeks even believed a relationship between men was better than one between men and women, because women were inferior, and so homosexuality was more a relationship between peers.

They had arguments about whether platonic love between men was better than romantic/erotic love between men. Seriously. That's where the term comes from, Plato's arguments about this.

Though, granted, the Sodomites were probably more along the lines of "anything that moved" than pure homosexuality. I seem to recall Lot offering up his two daughters (I think they were refused, but still, it's suggested if the angels weren't so pretty it might have worked).

But, you're not fundamentalist Happy, you're pretty easy going and we like that about you. And hey, if you want to be tolerant, then that's in your favour. I think we ought to credit people for what they say they believe, and not what the generalizations are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 11:00 AM

It describes an erotic relationship between an older man and an adolescent boy outside the immediate family. While not 'hetero' (or homo IMO) in nature, it was practiced by many hetero men, unless you consider that the 'act' determines sexuality.

Today we understand that some people are just made homo or hetero and there is nothing wrong with that. A homosexual need not have gay sex to qualify.

Sorry if that's not a great answer for now, I might add more later but I gotta go, 1 more lesson to teach.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 11:08 AM

Music is good.

Em, I dunno. I just think it's a stretch to say that it was not homosexual, or at the very least bisexual, considering the long running views on women at the time. It's better argued that heterosexuality for the Greeks and Romans then was not like the present day.

Even in the present day you have guys who get married and have families, then come out of the closet and leave their families. That's almost certainly homosexual. So by my consideration it was homosexual back then as well.

Imagine if you will a world where, yes, guys are married, but mostly only so that they have children, otherwise they have nothing to do with their wives and either spend all their time with courtesans and hierodules (heterosexual) or other men/ boys (homosexual). People they admire either physically or intellectually, which generally women and wives were not admired for either. There were rare occasions where women were admired (Helen of Troy comes to mind) or where a guy genuinely liked his wife and spending time with her. But there was an off balance between the lifestyles; the arts, literature, and religious practice suggest homosexuality was seen as preferable to heterosexuality.

As I'm researching it, I'm seeing that the passage in Romans is taken out of context, with Paul mostly angrily decrying Roman salaciousness in art, architecture, and prostitution, and attributing heightened sexuality of both sexes to the surrounding stuff.

Leviticus isn't really taken out of context, but then I think Leviticus is so outdated that it could be completely dumped without any impact to modern practice of the religion. (Does anyone even read Leviticus anymore, aside for the homosexuality passage and other stupid rules about clothes and kosher meat?)

So I'm also good if you say you are Christian, and don't care about homosexuality or what people do behind closed doors. Clearly that is a valid pair of beliefs to have that can be held simultaneously, as you obviously do so.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 12:56 PM

And my day that started at 5 am is finally done! Hurray for self employment! (I'm technically an independent contractor teacher/therapist for that Autism program I've mentioned).

Quote:
It's better argued that heterosexuality for the Greeks and Romans then was not like the present day.

That is an excellent and more accurate point. I think we can agree that sexuality in general was different or at least viewed differently.

Quote:
Leviticus isn't really taken out of context, but then I think Leviticus is so outdated that it could be completely dumped without any impact to modern practice of the religion. (Does anyone even read Leviticus anymore, aside for the homosexuality passage and other stupid rules about clothes and kosher meat?)

I disagree with you in theory, but more or less agree in practice. I suppose a Christian could ignore Leviticus out of convenience and behave more or less in the same manner I do, but the sentiment behind the action (or perhaps inaction) is kind of important to me. Like the deference between a conscientious non-voter and an apathetic non-voter.

Quote:
So I'm also good if you say you are Christian, and don't care about homosexuality or what people do behind closed doors. Clearly that is a valid pair of beliefs to have that can be held simultaneously, as you obviously do so.

Thank you and I'll try and make this my last 'IMO the bible tells us' post if I can manage.

I believe the bible tells us all to be true to ourselves and not be ashamed of how God created us. Homosexuals shouldn't have to live in shame, fear or secrecy, least of all from Christians, who should be loving all of God's creations. I wish more Christians would speak out against the hatred and persecution of God's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender children.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 1:06 PM

Yay. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 3:12 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

... erm ... pederasty, yuck, and no one thought to mention how yucky that is so I'll do it. Yuck.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 3:31 PM

I did say salacious. That's not positive.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 6:28 PM

Just a side note about girl-on-girl, which wasn't really thrown in with guy-on-guy as "homosexuality" until the 1990s. I remember when it was considered a completely different animal, and the further back in time you go, the more this is so. Many of our moral values are very very recent.

Edit: Phooey. I apologize. I edited this post before, and sentences got connected that weren't on the same subject when I wrote them.

Re: 1980s, underage love interests were common in movies, everyone knows this, you all saw these movies, if you're old enough. Inter-racial and gay couples were pretty much unheard of in films.

This then came next, but shouldn't have:

Affairs between girls were considered to be whimsical or erotic. Affairs between men were pretty taboo outside of their own city subcultures.

I meant life in the 80s here, not movies. There were certain gay communities. I lived in Kentucky at the time, and there was a certain double standard, but it was very different than it is today.

[/edit]

This seems even more divided in the ancient world. The Greeks are just dismissive of lesbians, but accepting of gays; while the Israelites were also dismissive of lesbians and utterly rejecting of gays. I recall one website that fished through the bible (pardon the pun) for references that supported the idea of sapphic relationships, and made the case that it was okay with God. A lot of Christians might agree, but the prohibitions are explicitly against male-male. They would not have worded it this way if they didn't mean it this way.

Happy

I thought you were teaching highschool

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 7:42 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

I have always interpreted the biblical references to mean "no rutting with your same sex", I never thought it meant only men. I figure it the same way. Maybe the reason that Greek men never mention it in texts is because they just didn't pay attention to what their wives were doing.

DT, what movies have you been watching? I don't think I've ever seen an old movie about this. Of course my mind isn't stuck in junior high, as is the case with so many who are always trying to atribute meanings to things that aren't really implied much, but they see it because they're looking etc.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 9:42 PM

Yeah, well they tend not to replay them anymore, given the change in laws and morals. Pretty common stuff in the 1970s though. That's why Jodie Foster and Brooke Shields had careers. Not to mention Molly Ringwald and the Brat Pack, who were only a couple years older. It was true of basically everything that came over from Europe.

I'm not sure if that was a snark or you're alluding to something. Myself, I never made it to junior high. I went through fifth grade, if you count skipping third.

Laws and morals change all the time. There were no black heroes in movies until the mid 1990s. In the '80s, no whites listened to black music, and there were almost no interracial couples, it was pretty seriously frowned upon by both whites and blacks.

In the 60s and 70s is was different, race wasn't a big deal, and neither was gay, nor were plural relationships, like Bob Carol Ted and Alice, and there was no war on drugs. Taking drugs for recreation was considered normal, but if a school had given drugs to children, there would have been riots.

We're under this illusion that everything is ancient and timeless and goes back to the dawn of history, which is nonsense. None of the western religious traditions of today are more than a couple centuries old. Neither is anything in this society. Even the language isn't very old, but it's older than probably everything else.

If you really went back to biblical times, you'd find rampant nudity, women wearing very short skirts, a differentiation from men, who wore long ones. People kept domestic slaves, sex slaves, and had multiple marriages, all of which is pretty much documented in the bible, and more so by the Romans. People got married very young, Mohammed married a six year old, and that was five centuries later. Often a marriage was arranged because someone rich or powerful saw a girl and thought she was hot. There's a passage in the bible I recall where David is watching a girl taking a shower, and decides to go take her to his will, and this makes her his wife, which is his third or something like that.

So, if you're taking your moral mandates from the bible, they're really going to be extremely different from what people today think, but if you want to go there:

The bible very explicitly says man with man. It's not grey on the matter. There's occasional mentions of girls gone wild, which is why we have words like sapphic and lesbian, which are both greek. But in greece, nothing was taboo really. They hadn't met taboo yet, since it's a polynesian fish. Eating it is forbidden, but you could have guessed that.

All that said, expect it to change in the future as well. It all seems totally arbitrary to me. If there were any hard and fast rules, they would not change from decade to decade.

It's true of every aspect of this artificial society we live in:

Obama just attacked Libya openly stating that he wanted to protect American interests and change Libyan economic policy. That idea would never have been accepted in 2003, which is why the whole WMD story was cooked up. If the American people would have just accept that "We're just going to go in and get oil and change policy, sign some trade agreements" then that's what they would have said.

People say the 10 commandments are timeless, but even that's not really so, first, there were 10, then it went up to 17. They got added and subtracted through the years, and what came down to us is only about 1/2 useful. Graven images? They're all over the place. Statues, stain glass windows, images of Jesus everywhere.

No other gods. What is satan then? Is he a used car salesman? He seems to have godlike powers.

Who works six days a week?

Are any places ever open on sunday?

Honor your mother and father, is this always a good idea?

Quote:
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Yes, because my neighbor has a female slave.

Really, what you take from it is thou shalt not kill or steal, and yet, we accept war, we accept police forces, and a great number other exceptions, and we accept imperialism and taxes.

So, let me get this straight. If someone goes into the church, and there is a depiction of divinity, like an image of Jesus, and you worship there, then you, your children, your grandchildren and your great grand children are all automatically condemned to hell for all eternity because God is Jealous, and that is divine of him, but you better not be covetous.

And people hold up this as the rules that all people should follow? (And they do, all the time, even non-christians. They say "well, the ten commandments are good")

No, they're not, they're terrible rules to live your life by.

While I'm at it, the constitution is not a great document. The bill of rights is a great document, but it predates the constitution by a century. The constitution creates an unelected supreme court which has lifetime rule as a high priesthood. It creates an omnipotent dictator king and hands him the armed forces, and then two representative bodies, but the more powerful one is highly disproportionate, so that a vote of someone in vermont counts 35 times as much as someone on the other side of the river.

Oh, and in passing, it mentions that indians are not people, and blacks are semi-people, and basically endorses the later treatment of them.

Point being? Values change. Nothing is sacred. Things change rapidly. Slave labor of your enemies at war was considered perfectly acceptable, as was extermination of inferiors, concentration camps, etc. by the whole civilized world in living memory of a number of people still on this earth, including some of the most powerful people in the world.

When Rockefeller and Rothschild were making their careers, European countries owned much of the world, including all of africa, where representatives of the king held supreme power.

So, yeah, I've seen radical changed in values in my lifetime, as has anyone else here with a memory. These are truly minor compared to those in the living memory of those in power, of an older generation. Project that over 2000 years, there's no hope of any kind of consistency at all.

BTW, I think the future will judge our current society no better than it judges Nazi Germany, so whatever we believe here today, rightly or wrongly, it will all be tossed out, baby and bathwater, because we as a nation believe in:

Torture
Indefinite detention without charge
Concentration camps
sieges that block food and medical supplies
population reduction
carpet bombing
chemical and biological warfare
imperialism

and we don't believe in

habeas corpus
the magna carta
the geneva conventions
the bill of rights, rights of man, etc.
the environment

These basic concepts of "good" crop up consistently enough that it's logical to assume that even after a nuclear holocaust, a future society will come up with them, and judge us by them.

Also the general identifications of evil, pure evil, are also common throughout history. History is not filled with people judging gays as evil, or even slavery, though that's closer, but a society that endures that accepts torture, genocide et al is pretty unlikely, and will not follow in our wake.

As for who will judge us? Hard to say. Possibly muslims. We, as individuals, might want to bear that in mind, since, for Germany, that judgment came after only 12 years. If you say we turned evil in 2003, then it might be 2015, and not 2250, when people are executing american leaders in front of arab palaces. It's really hard to predict the future from that kind of distance. I can usually see a few years ahead, and I'd say we've yet to do anything as monumentally stupid as invade Russia or bomb Pearl Harbor, so it's more than four years away.

When we actually do something that stupid, you'll know, it will be obvious.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 14, 2011 12:42 AM

Quote:
The bible very explicitly says man with man. It's not grey on the matter.

But bear in mind:

* Jesus says nothing about same-sex behavior.
* The Jewish prophets are silent about homosexuality.
* Only six or seven of the Bible's one million verses refer to same-sex behavior in any way -- and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as it's understood today.

Keeping in mind that axiom 'What would Jesus do?' Jesus would not persecute homosexuals.

As for my teaching, I teach a middle school music afternoon enrichment class, private lessons and I am a traveling tutor/therapist for nonverbal children with Autism (working with 3 year olds at the moment). Gradually helping them become more verbal amongst other things.

Incidentally, while I know they often have trouble making eye contact, none of the Autistic children I have worked with had any difficulty making eye contact with me. My g/f thinks it's my temperament, as the 'dog that hates everyone new' warmed right up to me and has never barked at me. Or maybe it's the age or I'm lucky enough that my clients don't have that issue. Anyways, off to work.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 14, 2011 10:55 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
This 'morality' that I've seen so many people in the world say is a religious structure... It doesn't touch those who are not moral, but they can exploit the assumption that someone is moral because they attend church. That really bothers me. It bothers me almost as much to be on the other end of that, with the assumption that I am not moral because I do not attend church. I don't need church to be moral. I don't think anyone does, if they are a decent human being. Church doesn't offer morals to the immoral, it only offers them camouflage.

Excellent, in my opinion, and one of the two things that bothers me MOST about organized religion. The other is the ability for those who wish to become a “leader” within a religion, then prostitute it for their own gain, be it wealth, power, etc.

As to the “decent” thing...hey, within their own group, jihadists are considered “moral”, as they are defending Allah, right? That’s probably the worst CURRENT example, but it’s happened throughout history and is happening in this country today.

As to your “if they are a moral person”, I would have written “if they are self-aware”, because I believe, as in buddhism, that anyone who strives to become self-aware will become increasingly moral. Inside we all know right from wrong, it’s just that with far too many either life circumstances, the teaching they receive, what they internalized when young, and/or the dogma you mentioned, gets in the way. “Practice”. I like that. It’s through such practices (which every religion HAS, but which gets pushed aside either by their religious leaders or some other force for most) that one can become more self-aware, and that’s all anyone needs to be, in my opinion. Once aware of ourselves, we both learn to be accepting of ourselves and want to be better, as well as becoming more compassionate toward others. When we realize we’re flawed and are able to see clearly those flaws, it’s harder to condemn others or feel “better than”

Quote:
As to practice, ritual and practice are basically the same concept

I SERIOUSLY disagree with that! The practice of buddhism is done WITHOUT ritual—it can be done with ritual as well, certainly, but the bottom line is that we engage in the “practice” every day, every hour if we’re as conscious as we strive to be. There’s no “ritual” in taking a minute to talk to a homeless person, it’s merely compassion. There’s no “ritual” in sitting still and meditating—-again, it can be, but it doesn’t need to be, it’s just striving to be still and conscious. I think your concept of practice is kind of narrow and maybe you misunderstand how we’re using the word?

Quote:
Anyone who wants to know the literal true word of God is going go mad trying. They're going to be stuck with inconsistent conflicting texts of a society in a state of perpetual war writing in shorthand of long dead languages about Gods that don't exist

“I fixed your book”...

As in

Quote:
My problem with fundamentalism and the literal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures is that they pick and choose what they believe "no longer applies."

Meaning, they are not as literal as they say they are. They make tons of arbitrary exceptions from their literal interpretation, and then thump the Bible for the rest.

Quote:
it has little bearing on the day to day lives of most Christians

But it’s really convenient to point to in order to push one’s agenda when propagandizing the masses...

DT, I never saw the movies you mentioned:

Quote:
Affairs between girls were considered to be whimsical or erotic.

Could you cite some? I DO remember a move about two women who ran a school (can’t recall the name) and when it was just SUSPECTED that they were gay, everything went kablooey. Quite the opposite of what you seem to have seen. I know you’re talking about “girls”, but I never saw that, either. Please, I would love examples of

Quote:
Pretty common stuff in the 1970s though. That's why Jodie Foster and Brooke Shields had careers. Not to mention Molly Ringwald and the Brat Pack, who were only a couple years older.

Wow:

Quote:
In the 60s and 70s is was different, race wasn't a big deal, and neither was gay, nor were plural relationships, like Bob Carol Ted and Alice.... Taking drugs for recreation was considered normal

REALLY?? I was living around San Francisco at that time and was a “hippie”; what I saw was race was still a big deal...and, uh, remember Harvey Milk? He was elected after TOUGH battles because of his homosexuality in 1976, and assassinated in 1978,and trust me, both homosexuality AND race were big issues then. Given SF is a very liberal bastion, if that was true there, I kinda think it was elsewhere...?

Also, I’m afraid “documented in the bible” doesn’t make things historical fact, for me. A lot of things were supposedly “documented” in the Bible which directly contradict one another, so it’s not a historical cite, in my mind.

Happy, with regard to your most recent post, I think you have that same mystical thing that Frem has, and Cesar Millan as well, where creatures of ALL kinds sense something in you they feel they can trust. Not many of us have it, and oh, how I wish I did! Given what you’ve said of your work, etc., in my mind you represent what I wish all “good Christians” were. In other words, you “grok” it. I’m afraid I’m cynic enough to think not many do.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 14, 2011 11:27 AM