i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
"Where we don't agree is that you evidently see these rereadings of the seemingly homophobic passages of the Bible as being less far-fetched, which for the most part I don't think they are - and when they are, they're not substantial improvements."
I touched on a bit of this above last post on the previous page. And yes, we certainly don't see eye to eye on the validity of these arguments. Though, if the verse where against pederasty, that would be something of an improvement .
Something I'm not sure I've made clear is that I don't think these other translations are great improvements, per se, mostly because that still leaves the part where both parties are put to death, and that's a tad throwing the baby out with the murder...somethingsomething...
Though, the "punishment" parts are clearly ignored in modern society in the surrounding verses, anyhow. We don't banish people for having sex while a woman is menstruating, for one...
I just think there's a great deal of good that can come from showing the Bible doesn't have any blanket anti-gay statements. I can live with these verses changing to either "well, d'uh that's a bad thing" or "We'll just put this passage over here with the other verses that make no sense in a modern context" if I don't have to see "Leviticus 20:13" on a bigots protest sign, ever again.
Edit: Also
"Potentially, but not necessarily. It's not difficult to read it as, for example, prohibiting bisexual men from sleeping with other men, which is neither nonsense nor agreeable."
Eh, none of the (semi)likely alternative interpretations really leave room for this...I guess unless both where bi-sexual, and one had to play the "girl" this would still count by the "historical POV" argument...though it's so oddly specific a scenario that I doubt we'd have to worry about people marching down the street, complaining about all the bi-sexual men sex when those men should be making babies or at least having sex with gay dudes (sorry if this one came off as mean, or condescending. It was not my intent, I just couldn't marry this interpretation with anything that works with our possible alternative translations AND is anything useful to someone for spreading hateful rhetoric. )
>Something I'm not sure I've made clear is that I don't think these other translations are great improvements, per se, mostly because that still leaves the part where both parties are put to death, and that's a tad throwing the baby out with the murder...somethingsomething...
Ah, OK. I took it as read that you didn't think executing rape victims was OK, but I was a bit puzzled as to what you actually were suggesting.
I guess that reading would make it along roughly the same lines as the part about stoning women rape victims in urban areas, which we obviously don't consider acceptable nowadays, either.
But yes, I can definitely see the advantage of demonstrating that there is no blanket anti-gay sentiment in the Bible. >sorry if this one came off as mean, or condescending. It was not my intent, I just couldn't marry this interpretation with anything that works with our possible alternative translations AND is anything useful to someone for spreading hateful rhetoric.
No, it's fine. When you put it like that, yes, it was a pretty contrived objection, sorry.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
"When you put it like that, yes, it was a pretty contrived objection, sorry."
Naw, it's cool. It's just nice to talk about a religious topic where the person I'm having a discussion with isn't trying to simultaneously dismantle the entire system.
"One of the sticking points in my church is that we allow women to be vicars but the conservatives are unhappy about that fact."
I haven't looked into the statistics about which sects allow what. I'm pretty sure Catholics (the biggest group by far) don't allow women to become...erm...Church fathers.
But this is getting completely off topic, so I think I'll address it in the religion thread if anyone is interested. I found an article about the Catholics specifically I thought was interesting.
^Huh, I wasn't aware they where still around in web-only form, but I guess that shouldn't b surprising.
What does surprise me is that I had no idea they where owned by DC comics.
Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
Most congregations wouldn't allow a female prostitute to become the leader of a church despite one saving the Hebrew nation in the OT and another factoring in the NT. Also there was the other occasion in the OT where a single woman saved the entire Hebrew race, again. The Bible isn't really misogynistic at all. Patriarchal, yes.
I haven't looked into the statistics about which sects allow what. I'm pretty sure Catholics (the biggest group by far) don't allow women to become...erm...Church fathers.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
I know, that was more me thinking out loud. I just thought it was an interesting topic, is all. Hence why I've decided to bring it up in the Religious thread, cause now religious talk that has nothing to do with gays and lesbians is starting to take over this thread. :P
>It's just nice to talk about a religious topic where the person I'm having a discussion with isn't trying to simultaneously dismantle the entire system.
Same here. :)
>The Bible isn't really misogynistic at all. Patriarchal, yes.
I wouldn't go so far as to call the Bible itself misogynistic, but within the book you can find childbirth-as-punishment, "no evil worse than a woman", stoning rape victims, the whore of Babylon, the ban on female priests, wives as property, etc.
So, yes, the Bible contains numerous instances of misogynistic imagery and ideology, and I think it would be irresponsible to deny that. It would be no less irresponsible to call it a uniformly misogynistic text, which would be both to ignore the more positive depictions of women in the Bible and to ignore the cultural context which produced the Bible.
I don't believe there is such a thing as a "true" conservative. It's a subjective ideal.
A person is a conservative, broadly speaking, if they are perceived as such, or if they identify with conservative goals. There's not like a spectrum or a checklist to determine whether somebody is truly conservative or not.
^^^ That's true, but that's a fairly recent development and one that thankfully seems to be on the decline, at least around here.
For me, the heart of conservatism (in general, but I'm not really talking about libertarianism or neo-conservatism here) is caution, recognition of the power of tradition, and a scepticism towards radicalism and lofty ideals. In moderation, I don't think this is a bad thing.
Yeah, conservatism in the US right now is pretty much one big reactionary cult. And they want an Evil vs. Evil showdown with their Muslim counterparts in Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, while oppressing gays, blacks, and the working poor along the way. It's kind of depressing. :P
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
Comments
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Ah, OK. I took it as read that you didn't think executing rape victims was OK, but I was a bit puzzled as to what you actually were suggesting.
I guess that reading would make it along roughly the same lines as the part about stoning women rape victims in urban areas, which we obviously don't consider acceptable nowadays, either.
But yes, I can definitely see the advantage of demonstrating that there is no blanket anti-gay sentiment in the Bible.
>sorry if this one came off as mean, or condescending. It was not my intent, I just couldn't marry this interpretation with anything that works with our possible alternative translations AND is anything useful to someone for spreading hateful rhetoric.
No, it's fine. When you put it like that, yes, it was a pretty contrived objection, sorry.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Same here. :)
>The Bible isn't really misogynistic at all. Patriarchal, yes.
I wouldn't go so far as to call the Bible itself misogynistic, but within the book you can find childbirth-as-punishment, "no evil worse than a woman", stoning rape victims, the whore of Babylon, the ban on female priests, wives as property, etc.
So, yes, the Bible contains numerous instances of misogynistic imagery and ideology, and I think it would be irresponsible to deny that. It would be no less irresponsible to call it a uniformly misogynistic text, which would be both to ignore the more positive depictions of women in the Bible and to ignore the cultural context which produced the Bible.
We're off topic though.
On a forum full of American conservatives, I've just admitted I was transgendered.
Someone who I thought was a cisgendered lesbian pm'ed me saying she was trans too.
I'm talking about European style Conservatism.
I.e. Gay people shouldn't marry, Ron Paul is the saviour and Obama couldn't do any right even if he was the son of god himself.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
...this is certainly not what the phrase "European style conservatism" brings to mind.
They are all Christian Conservatives.
A person is a conservative, broadly speaking, if they are perceived as such, or if they identify with conservative goals. There's not like a spectrum or a checklist to determine whether somebody is truly conservative or not.
But, that list is a parody.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
For me, the heart of conservatism (in general, but I'm not really talking about libertarianism or neo-conservatism here) is caution, recognition of the power of tradition, and a scepticism towards radicalism and lofty ideals. In moderation, I don't think this is a bad thing.
Thats a reactionary.
Irene:I don't get it.
Bunny:I think you mean electric, not lightni-*shot*
*Or the pun*