There's so much to be taken for granted with regard to trying to dissect emotion and/or intent when interpreting fonts on a computer monitor.
Amen to that. My biggest gripe with the forums is that I can't watch people's faces to tell when they're kidding, and when they're lying, and when they're sincerely telling the truth.
On the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah the funniest part of that story to me was always Lot’s response to the men when they demanded he send the strangers outside so that they may ‘know’ them. He profusely offers them his virgin daughters instead and tells them they can do whatever they want to them.
Damn, Lot I know being a righteous man means being hospitable but that seems a little out there. Of course there was something pretty dysfunctional about that family because after the cities are destroyed and Lot’s wife is slain for looking back at the destruction his daughters get him wasted and take advantage of him….hmmm.
Actually, it's not so crazy when you think of it in the terms of the social culture in those times without projecting today's societal mores to them. Women were chattel. Property. Commodities. They came with dowries. In order to protect the guests / strangers that arrived in town from being raped, Lot offered up his daughters instead. In those times, it was his right to do so.
Now I'm not saying we have to agree to that mindset. I find it abhorrent. But that was the reality in those days.
Which brings me to an interesting point regarding Leviticus 18:22. I get annoyed when I read it from the New Living Translation when it interprets as "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin" or God's Word Translation as "Never have sexual intercourse with a man as with a woman. It is disgusting." It is erroneous. It is projecting an agenda that was not present in the original text.
The New International Version, the New American Standard Bible, or even the original English standby, the King James, has it along these lines:
"You shall not lie with a male (mankind) as one lies with a female (womankind); it is [an] abomination."
I'm not feeling overly scholarly to give discussion about the original Hebrew text (if anyone wants to, be my guest). The issue involved here isn't because it's a homosexual act; the issue is that it is an abomination (or detestable) if it were in the context where the one of the men were doing it in the form of being subservient as a wife were to be in the traditional patriarchal society of those days; chattel.
Saying that, if the "Christian Right" wants to use that as a means to rally for traditional marriage where two men should not be allowed to marry in that context, then they have a biblical stance to support it. However, what they stand to create by going that route is the presumption that in a traditional marriage model, the women are to be subservient to the man. I don't know about some of you, but a number of women in the modern American society (and I would presume in other parts of the world) aren't going to like to be told that they should be subservient and not equal to their husbands in their marriage.
*****
As for the incestuous relations following the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah, it was primarily about the propagation of the species / family. They had to survive, somehow. As far as they may have been concerned, there was no one else around. Survival instincts from a primal nature kicks in.
The amusing thing about that encounter is the family lineage. Moab was one of the offspring of that union, which in turn founded the Moabites.
Ruth was a Moabite. After demonstrating her "skills" on the sleeping Boaz on the threshing floor, their union eventually resulted in the lineage sired King David. Any layman can go to the Gospels to see who was a descendant of that lineage.
When someone starts going on a rant about certain couplings, I bring up the incest tangent and ask what their position is. The response is predictable. Then I refer to Lot and his daughters and point out the lineage and conclude it with the declaration that if God foresees the the purpose for what it is to serve to fulfill his design, who are you to presume that he isn't doing the same now?
Not that it necessarily make them change their mind or abandon their argument, but it does give an interesting pause. :)
****
P.S. It's out of context to a degree, but I saw this picture on Facebook before composing this. It highlights some of the codes in Leviticus that we don't hold as being "the important ones" to follow these days. They have their relevance in the context of their societal times, but essentially and patently absurd today.
At least I hope they are. :)
And on that note, there's a Rule 34 calling to my attention to distract from Winning. The. Internet.
You drunken goat. ;-)The drunken goat looks better.
Ram it down, why don't you! :P
There's so much to be taken for granted with regard to trying to dissect emotion and/or intent when interpreting fonts on a computer monitor.Amen to that. My biggest gripe with the forums is that I can't watch people's faces to tell when they're kidding, and when they're lying, and when they're sincerely telling the truth.
That's how my daily life is. I'm really bad with faces.
That's what she said.Ram it down, why don't you! :PYou drunken goat. ;-)The drunken goat looks better.
No; that's what WE said!
That's how my daily life is. I'm really bad with faces.
For a second, that looked like "I'm really bad with feces." And I was thinking, wow, maybe you people really are sick perverts after all! ;P
Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot and his daughters, blah blah blah.
Alright, Paizo messageboards, if you're so smart about the Pentateuch, riddle me this:
Why is Moses banned from the Promised Land?
Also, I skimmed through a great deal of Leviticus and Numbers because they were boring: what's up with Moses and the veil and where is that?
And, finally, to end at the beginning: is it just me, or do the first two chapters of Genesis tell contradictory stories about the invention of women?
On the subject of sin and hatred, my understanding is as follows:
A sin, according to most variants of Christianity, is something that is morally wrong and furthermore especially offensive to the Christian god. I separate out the two senses, but in practical terms they're the same thing. A morally right sin is a contradiction in terms.
Furthermore according to most variants of Christinity, humanity is inherently sinful. The Christian god cannot abide the presence of sin. If one sins, one's name is not written in the Book of Life and one is going instead to the lake of fire to burn in agony for all time, or near enough as makes no difference. Meanwhile all the good Christians will be bodily resurrected in the last days, etc. In the interim they get to bask in the glory of the Almighty. That's why the wages of sin are death: the rest don't get that.
But everyone's a sinner, so we're all well and thoroughly screwed. We've all got that lake of fire coming to us.
So how do we get out of it? The precise answer varies from sect to sect and I'm trying to be ecumenical and span the space here so I'll demur on all the technical details which form the vast majority of the difference between various Christian sects. The short version is one has to repent and throw oneself on Jesus's mercy, which allows you to partake of his sacrifice on the cross, be washed in the blood of the Lamb, and so forth. But the main thing for the purposes of this post is that you get to skip the lake of fire.*
Let's put it together: A sin is a bad thing one does which puts one on the road to a really horrific afterlife where one gets tortured forever. So a Christian saying that homosexuality is a sin is telling this unregenerate sodomite that because he'd like to get laid someday and isn't sorry about it he deserves to burn forever.
This is, to put it bluntly, the least loving possible doctrine to have about homosexuality. In fact with the eternal torture, it's the most hateful doctrine I can conceive and I think the most hateful it is logically possible to have. At least the worst human haters of gays want to do is murder us all.
I know Christians who do not believe all of this stuff, I should say. I know a few who think everyone sins but no one gets the lake of fire, no matter what. I know some who think everyone goes to Heaven. I know others who believe in the lake of fire but don't think a little consensual gay sex would get you there because it's either not really a sin or is so minor a sin it's not worth mentioning. I know some who hold that the religious codes are pretty much irrelevant and anybody who is good and decent goes to Heaven regardless of their tastes in consensual nookie. But none of those are the topic of this post.
*I am aware there are versions of Christianity which do not include an afterlife full of torture for unbelievers, but I'm trying to describe Christianity as adhered to by the great majority of its followers.
Good. You shouldn't appreciate Christianity being dragged through the mud. It should piss you off, upset you, motivate you. If it does, maybe you'll do something about it.I don't appreciate Christianity being dragged through the mud.
Comments like yours piss me off, upset me, motivate me & other to marginalize you.
Your comments are akin to Jerkiness and should have no place on the boards.
Your bravado comes from the silent support the moderators allow you on this matter.
Christians are easy targets. If it was a slander against any other religion, faith, philosophy, sexual orientation, ect, this thread would have been locked on the account of the Jerkiness of the posters in my humble opinion.
More rockin' Old Testament Musical Interludes
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's how my daily life is. I'm really bad with faces.For a second, that looked like "I'm really bad with feces." And I was thinking, wow, maybe you people really are sick perverts after all! ;P
** spoiler omitted **
Sick, perverted, and fabulous. :)
Comments like yours piss me off, upset me, motivate me & other to marginalize you.
Your comments are akin to Jerkiness and should have no place on the boards.
I hate to speak for others, but I'm guessing a number of people might reply with "... and vice versa."
Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot and his daughters, blah blah blah.
Alright, Paizo messageboards, if you're so smart about the Pentateuch, riddle me this:
Why is Moses banned from the Promised Land?
Also, I skimmed through a great deal of Leviticus and Numbers because they were boring: what's up with Moses and the veil and where is that?
And, finally, to end at the beginning: is it just me, or do the first two chapters of Genesis tell contradictory stories about the invention of women?
Well, Trolltsky Redbeard, this is kind of going away from the discussion of the OP's thread. I don't have a straight answer to your first question, but with regard to the contradictory stories in Genesis, you'd do well to familiarize yourself with Julius Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis. It'll get you started. Don't do it while <bubble-bubble-bubble>, it might blow your mind. Then again, on second thought ... do. ;-)
Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot and his daughters, blah blah blah.
Alright, Paizo messageboards, if you're so smart about the Pentateuch, riddle me this:
Why is Moses banned from the Promised Land?
Also, I skimmed through a great deal of Leviticus and Numbers because they were boring: what's up with Moses and the veil and where is that?
And, finally, to end at the beginning: is it just me, or do the first two chapters of Genesis tell contradictory stories about the invention of women?
Didn't it have something to do with he brings water forth from a rock and basically takes credit for it instead of giving it to God? or was it because he smashed the first set of the ten commandments? I'm many years out of sunday school. Also I think there are actually multiple creation stories in Genesis.
|
I hate to speak for others, but I'm guessing a number of people might reply with "... and vice versa."
Sadly, I have yet to read a post by Aretas that did not sound just as full of jerkiness as the posts he complains about. I hope that he doesn't mean them that way, but that is how they read. And being a subject matter expert, I'm usually fairly certain that it is how they are wrote.
I hate to speak for others, but I'm guessing a number of people might reply with "... and vice versa."Sadly, I have yet to read a post by Aretas that did not sound just as full of jerkiness as the posts he complains about. I hope that he doesn't mean them that way, but that is how they read. And being a subject matter expert, I'm usually fairly certain that it is how they are wrote.
Your right TOZ, a lot of my post have come across pretty rough. Thats all going to change my friend!
Peace!
Alright, Paizo messageboards, if you're so smart about the Pentateuch, riddle me this:Why is Moses banned from the Promised Land?
Moses cut Gerald McRaney off in traffic. Also there was something about an unauthorized miracle.
Also, I skimmed through a great deal of Leviticus and Numbers because they were boring: what's up with Moses and the veil and where is that?
You've stumped me and Google did not immediately come to the rescue. I feel betrayed. :)
And, finally, to end at the beginning: is it just me, or do the first two chapters of Genesis tell contradictory stories about the invention of women?
It's not just you. The dissimilarities in both the narrative content of the stories and their language are what twigged scholars to the fact that they must have been written as separate standalone works and then edited together instead of just one big book that really liked to repeat itself. If you want a really revealing contrast, go read the stories about David's census in Kings and Chronicles.
I hate to speak for others, but I'm guessing a number of people might reply with "... and vice versa."Comments like yours piss me off, upset me, motivate me & other to marginalize you.
Your comments are akin to Jerkiness and should have no place on the boards.
I'm going to have to side with goat boy on this one. Whereas I disagree with his perception on reading Antimony's comments, I definitely agree with his perception on Aretas' responses.
I agree that ShadowcatX could have done without the "you should do something about it" remark as it was going toward unnecessary snark (toward Aretas), but he does bring up a good point. If you (speaking in the second person) are a Christian and you don't like what your brethren in name are doing under the auspices of your beliefs, then you "shouldn't appreciate Christianity being dragged through the mud. It should piss you off, upset you, motivate you [to lead by an honorable example]."
The same goes for atheists too (of which I am one). I just want to make that clear so that no one is feeling persecuted as if this is an all-out attack on one's religious beliefs.
But we really do need to get back to the OP's topic at hand.
And I really need to sully myself with Internet porn and heavy metal music. Let's see what the Russians are peddling.
Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot and his daughters, blah blah blah.
Alright, Paizo messageboards, if you're so smart about the Pentateuch, riddle me this:
Why is Moses banned from the Promised Land?
Also, I skimmed through a great deal of Leviticus and Numbers because they were boring: what's up with Moses and the veil and where is that?
And, finally, to end at the beginning: is it just me, or do the first two chapters of Genesis tell contradictory stories about the invention of women?
Moses was banned from the promise land by God. He was banned because he lost patience with the Isrealites during the 40 years in the wilderness. They had run out of water and all came to Moses to pray to God to get them water. He prayed to God and God told him to smite a certain rock 3 times and water would flow from it. Moses did so but hit the rock in anger at the complaints of the isrealites. For his anger God said he would never enter the Promised Land.
Is That what you were looking for? That's a very commonly known story, I'm an atheist and I knew it :P
[OFF TOPIC]
Moses was banned from the promise land by God. He was banned because he lost patience with the Isrealites during the 40 years in the wilderness. They had run out of water and all came to Moses to pray to God to get them water. He prayed to God and God told him to smite a certain rock 3 times and water would flow from it. Moses did so but hit the rock in anger at the complaints of the isrealites. For his anger God said he would never enter the Promised Land.
Is That what you were looking for? That's a very commonly known story, I'm an atheist and I knew it :P
That story is well known from the layman / Sunday school lessons. There's actually a deeper societal context behind it, but it escapes me at this time as it's been well over six years since I've read this scholarly paper on the topic that was rather quite engaging. It's just not one of those that I keep in quick-access memory as it's not used as a means of moral stances and/or one taking an oppressive position by referring to that section in the bible. :)
[/OFF TOPIC]
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With regard to Aretas and others, there's a lot to be learned reading the collective posts of any individual on these Boards.
Some of you guys show a very disturbing trend of intolerance, homophobia, carefully-couched racism, sexism, and a general propensity and potential for barbarity. Character flaws that become apparent in the language of your posts over time.
Moses was banned from the promise land by God. He was banned because he lost patience with the Isrealites during the 40 years in the wilderness. They had run out of water and all came to Moses to pray to God to get them water. He prayed to God and God told him to smite a certain rock 3 times and water would flow from it. Moses did so but hit the rock in anger at the complaints of the isrealites. For his anger God said he would never enter the Promised Land.
Is That what you were looking for? That's a very commonly known story, I'm an atheist and I knew it :P
I, alas, or perhaps not, wasn't raised in a particularly religious family so a lot of these stories I missed out (or not) growing up.
When I was reading the Big Five a couple of months ago, I was reading along at the incident at Meribah and I was like, yup, okay, he did what God wanted, and, what?!?, God's now mad at him, wtf?!?
So, it's because Moses was angry when he struck the rock, huh?
Forgive me, fellow Paizoboard habituees, but that doesn't make any sense to me. But, whatever.
Thank you for the Wellhausen link, Urizen.
There's also the fact that noone who left Egypt entered Canaan. God wanted to start all over, fresh.
What about Joshua and that other dude, the son of Nunn, or whatever? Wouldn't they have had to have been born in Egypt?
Do I remember correctly that part of the reason the Levitical code is ignored is that some of the old testament is modified by the coming of Christ and the new message? I can't remember where I heard this, and my Biblical scholarship is obviously lacking, so this is a real question... I don't mean to offend anyone.The Levitical code is ignored by modern Christians.
Depends on which part of the New Testament you read. Like anything else with a book as contradictory as the bible what you get out of it is really more indicative of the reader than the book.
By and large, yes, believers do cherry pick the parts of the bible that agree with them and downplay the ones that they don't. There's a lot of fancy terms and excuses for this but its what happens.
the Hoply BibleDude, is that a book of beer recipes? Now that's a religion I'd be down with!
Have you considered converting to Ninkasi? Their prayer is the recipe for beer.
First, they aren't my ministers. Only one of them is. The other two belong to churches and denominations that I don't.
But how do you know it's his ministers who are incorrect and not yours? Sounds to me like you swallowed what you were fed and then "corrected" someone for swallowing what he was fed.Maybe you're right, maybe he's right, or maybe you're both wrong. But you're both doing the same thing: believing what your ministers told you.
I'm a little confused. Haven't you denied being religious before?
|
Shadowcat, are you actually defending and condoning hating people because they're gay?
Yep.
Goes back to the whole idea of not liking what people say but respecting their right to say it.
Heh. Up here in Canada, we don't have freedom of speech. From what I understand its the same in England, and most other first world nations.
Here we have "Freedom of Expression" which is like freedom of speech, except that it doesn't go as far. Your right to express yourself stops just before you're infringing on the other guy's right to not be discriminated against.
So you want to hate gays, that's your business. You want to harass gays, throw eggs at them, hold up signs that say god hates f+@! in front of their home, etc, thats something you can have criminal charges pressed on you for.
Essentially you have a right to be left alone and not discriminated against because you belong to any kind of minority group; so when it goes to court, your right to be left alone is weighed against the other guy's right to express himself, and they decide which right takes precedence by what is supposedly better for the common good, or whatever.
And I dont think that's necessarily a bad thing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That said, I'm really freaking tired of Christians having a persecution complex.
It's our fault for hitting their fists with our faces again and again and again. Everyone knows that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's our fault for hitting their fists with our faces again and again and again. Everyone knows that.
That said, I'm really freaking tired of Christians having a persecution complex.
I got detention in highschool for breaking a kids hand like that...
|
|
That said, I'm really freaking tired of Christians having a persecution complex.
It's our fault for hitting their fists with our faces again and again and again. Everyone knows that.
I got detention in highschool for breaking a kids hand like that...
Wow! Me, too--I was suspended for 14 days in 1989. The other kid punched me in the face; all I got was a very minor black eye, but he broke three fingers and fractured his wrist. I never hit him, but my eye didn't really swell up at all and the bruise didn't appear until later. No-one would believe I hadn't broken his hand deliberately.
I'm a little confused. Haven't you denied being religious before?I'm sure I have. I only started going to this minister's church in the last couple of weeks.
Can I ask, do you not consider someone who believes in god(s), lives by the tenets of a religion etc. "religious" if they don't attend church/service?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm a pretty smug arrogant ass.
That's why we like you.
|
|
Shadowcat, are you actually defending and condoning hating people because they're gay?Yep.
Goes back to the whole idea of not liking what people say but respecting their right to say it.
Heh. Up here in Canada, we don't have freedom of speech. From what I understand its the same in England, and most other first world nations.
Here we have "Freedom of Expression" which is like freedom of speech, except that it doesn't go as far. Your right to express yourself stops just before you're infringing on the other guy's right to not be discriminated against.
So you want to hate gays, that's your business. You want to harass gays, throw eggs at them, hold up signs that say god hates f@%% in front of their home, etc, thats something you can have criminal charges pressed on you for.
Essentially you have a right to be left alone and not discriminated against because you belong to any kind of minority group; so when it goes to court, your right to be left alone is weighed against the other guy's right to express himself, and they decide which right takes precedence by what is supposedly better for the common good, or whatever.
And I dont think that's necessarily a bad thing.
Actually, the situation in the UK isn't quite that. The actual crimes (to the best of my knowledge. IANAL) are "Incitement to violence" which I think even the most ardent free-sepeech advocate might think was pushing things as far as legality goes and "Incitement to religious or racial hatred" (which has actually been expanded to cover sexuality as well) which might cause said advocate more trouble.
The latter law is somewhat controversial here as it is being used to prevent legitmate criticism of religions, which does not insprie hatred, as well as actually inspiring hatred. I will grant that most of the criticism is against Islam, but that doesn't mean the criticism isn't sometimes justified.
EDIT: Re Andrew Turner's comments. Yes, I probably am racist, mysogenistic, homophobic and intolerant. I try hard not to be, but I'm human and fear of the other is literally hard-wired into us.