Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Week UK)   Minister suggests raping schoolgirls is preferable to consensual gay relationships. Which minister? The Minister for Ethics and Integrity, of course   (theweek.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Ironic, morals, interpersonal relationship, David Furnish, ministers  
•       •       •

12637 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Oct 2013 at 8:12 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



344 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-10-16 01:38:06 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: grumpfuff: That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

But, like everything in the bible, it's open to interpretation. The priesthood and vatican itself are based on interpretations much less clear than that.


"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

So, no, not really.
 
2013-10-16 01:47:28 AM  

grumpfuff: The Why Not Guy: grumpfuff: That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

It's cool to mock religion, but please make sure you get your story right.

Why should we? Christians read the story as being a condemnation of homosexuality. If they can't be bothered to figure out their own fairy tales why should I be expected to?

For the same reason you mock Christians who say "evolution is just a theory." If you want to point out the error or problem with a particular stance, make sure you're getting the right stance.

And I'm just as quick to point out their interpretation is wrong. Also, it's not their fairy tale. It's a Jewish fairy tale.


It's not their fault, because it's not their book.
 
2013-10-16 01:56:23 AM  

aagrajag: Even *if* one truly believed that homosexuality is so evil and terrible that forced heterosexual sexual intercourse is necessary to correct it, how could one reasonably believe that its violent application would result in a new-found love of the D? I don't like cauliflower; I'm reasonably certain that I will like it even less if someone were to hold me down and literally cram it down my throat.


That WAS how I ate broccoli and cauliflower as a kid... cheeks squeezed until they opened.  Still don't like them.
 
2013-10-16 02:17:34 AM  

grumpfuff: The Why Not Guy: grumpfuff: That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

It's cool to mock religion, but please make sure you get your story right.

Why should we? Christians read the story as being a condemnation of homosexuality. If they can't be bothered to figure out their own fairy tales why should I be expected to?

For the same reason you mock Christians who say "evolution is just a theory." If you want to point out the error or problem with a particular stance, make sure you're getting the right stance.

And I'm just as quick to point out their interpretation is wrong. Also, it's not their fairy tale. It's a Jewish fairy tale.


I remember Lewis Black making fun of Creationists.  'It's not their fault, because it's not their Book.'
 
2013-10-16 02:19:03 AM  

grumpfuff: Either way, I'm tired and going to bed. It has been enjoyable though, and I have to give you a tip of the hat for keeping it civil.


Dang, didn't see this bit from your post. Good talking to you too; it was fun.
 
2013-10-16 02:21:15 AM  
Hey didja know there is some Lewis Black quote about it not being their book so you can't take their interpretation literally?
 
2013-10-16 02:48:58 AM  

Biological Ali: tinfoil-hat maggie: That would be the story of Sodom, I forget who the guy was but anyway the story really isn't about gay sex it's about the hospitality rules from back then, that Sodom was known to break and distrusted and killed strangers coming to their city. The hospitality rules at the time were if strangers come to you door you must offer them protection, food and water, etc.

Though we've seen softer, fuzzier versions of Christianity reinterpret the idea of the cities' primary sin as being generally about treating neighbours poorly rather than having gay sex (a somewhat recent development, it would seem), that particular part of the story is nonetheless very specifically about gay sex.


Ezekiel called.  He said to tell you that it isn't a "reinterpretation."
 
2013-10-16 02:57:54 AM  

pueblonative: grumpfuff: That's not what the story is about. Think of how annoying it is when Young Earth people say "Evolution is just a theory, so there's no proof." Their starting premise is wrong, and so their conclusion is invalid. You're doing the same thing - your starting premise is invalid, so your conclusion is invalid. Call them stupid, by all means. I'm not stopping you from doing that. All I'm arguing for is calling them stupid for the right reasons. Example in this case: Thinking offering your daughters for your neighbors to rape is a good example of hospitality. The daughters thinking they were the last people on earth, and so had to get daddy drunk and rape him. God saying he'd save Sodom if 10 righteous people were found, and when they were, he destroyed it anyway. There's plenty to chose from without making shiat up.


The story is about how the people in the cities were all evil and the rural farmers were the good pure guys who adhered to Gawd's word.  And in any case, I really don't give a good god damn about what story this knuckle-dragger uses to justify rape.  He could use Dora the Explorer and it wouldn't really matter to me.


Not gonna GIS that, nope.
 
2013-10-16 03:02:34 AM  

ciberido: Biological Ali: tinfoil-hat maggie: That would be the story of Sodom, I forget who the guy was but anyway the story really isn't about gay sex it's about the hospitality rules from back then, that Sodom was known to break and distrusted and killed strangers coming to their city. The hospitality rules at the time were if strangers come to you door you must offer them protection, food and water, etc.

Though we've seen softer, fuzzier versions of Christianity reinterpret the idea of the cities' primary sin as being generally about treating neighbours poorly rather than having gay sex (a somewhat recent development, it would seem), that particular part of the story is nonetheless very specifically about gay sex.

Ezekiel called.  He said to tell you that it isn't a "reinterpretation."


I knew you would show up in this mess. Anyway even though I like arguing with you I still love you I just wanted you to know.
 
2013-10-16 03:26:49 AM  

Biological Ali: grumpfuff: Difficulty: They were Jewish stories before Christianity or Islam even existed.

Which has no bearing on Islamic and Christian traditions, because they have their own variants of each story. It's like with Greek and Roman deities - it's not as though the Greek interpretation of the gods is more "proper" than the Roman interpretation just because it came first. They're two separate mythologies.

If you think I'm determined in my arguing of a proper interpretation now, you should see me engaging Christians about the sin of Sodom. And Onan, for that matter.

As far as I can tell, the people arguing with me aren't even Christian, nor are they disputing the nature of beliefs in mainstream Christianity.


It's essentially irrelevant whether or not the people you're arguing with are Christian.  We're arguing over what a book SAYS, not whether or not we AGREE with the book.  But if it matters to you, I am a Christian, albeit a rather liberal one.  So I submit to you that it's time to retire this particular point.
 
2013-10-16 03:28:35 AM  

aagrajag: This thread has somehow devolved degenerated into a discussion about whether the horns of the unicorns are black or white.


They're only black in the mirror universe where Vulcans grow goatees.  Duh.
 
2013-10-16 03:32:58 AM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Benevolent Misanthrope: Sadly, many men believe in "corrective rape".  Even in my adult life, I've seen women threatened with it when their fathers found out they were lesbians.  It wasn't uncommon in the 80s to hear about a young woman whose father had gotten one of his friends over to "straighten her out".

There's a reason gays and lesbians are distrustful.  It's not such a long step from "OMGWTFBBQ, look at those ignorant Africans" to "All Hail Saint Reagan, let's go back to the 50s!*"

*50s as defined by TV shows and nostalgia

To be fair, I've told a couple of lesbian friends that the option was available. The general consensus was I'm a pig, but an adorable one.


You can't rape the willing.
 
2013-10-16 03:48:35 AM  

spongeboob: tjassen: anfrind: Richard C Stanford: Wait, by this logic a straight who is raped by a homo becomes homo. But that doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't getting raped by a homo make you desire women more? So, wait, the cure for the gay is for a homo to be raped by a homo so he or she becomes streight... Holy crap, I've discovered the cure for the gay! And I'm patenting this! I'm gonna make a fortune!

It depends on the combination of both sexual orientation and gender:

If a gay man has sex with a straight man, the straight man becomes gay.
If a lesbian has sex with a straight man, the lesbian becomes straight.

This is what the Ugandan minister actually believes.

Reminds me of this historical gem:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x595]

vas ist das


Racial Policy of Nazi Germany
 
2013-10-16 03:52:45 AM  
In this thread alone I've read more about the Bible than I have actually read of the actual Bible but I suppose the reason why is that I don't read fiction.
 
2013-10-16 04:10:17 AM  

aNihilV10L8tr: Hey didja know there is some Lewis Black quote about it not being their book so you can't take their interpretation literally?


I heard somebody say that.... but then atheists interpreting either book couldn't be taken seriously either and fark religion threads would be totally different. Like my aunt having a penis and being my uncle or something
 
2013-10-16 04:20:16 AM  

ciberido: It's essentially irrelevant whether or not the people you're arguing with are Christian. We're arguing over what a book SAYS, not whether or not we AGREE with the book. But if it matters to you, I am a Christian, albeit a rather liberal one. So I submit to you that it's time to retire this particular point.


I'm glad you're liberal, and if you want to personally interpret your religious texts to support your political positions, that's up to you. But the prevailing Christian belief is that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed due mainly to their supposed sexual immorality. I'm not sure what you want me to say beyond that.
 
2013-10-16 05:07:15 AM  

Biological Ali: ciberido: It's essentially irrelevant whether or not the people you're arguing with are Christian. We're arguing over what a book SAYS, not whether or not we AGREE with the book. But if it matters to you, I am a Christian, albeit a rather liberal one. So I submit to you that it's time to retire this particular point.

I'm glad you're liberal, and if you want to personally interpret your religious texts to support your political positions, that's up to you. But the prevailing Christian belief is that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed due mainly to their supposed sexual immorality. I'm not sure what you want me to say beyond that.


I want you to say "I admit it's irrelevant whether or not the people I'm arguing with about this point are Christian."
 
2013-10-16 05:31:21 AM  

ghostfacekillahrabbit: aNihilV10L8tr: Hey didja know there is some Lewis Black quote about it not being their book so you can't take their interpretation literally?

I heard somebody say that.... but then atheists interpreting either book couldn't be taken seriously either and fark religion threads would be totally different. Like my aunt having a penis and being my uncle or something


Your aunt has a penis? That sounds like the type of sexual deviancy that would get her whole city destroyed. Or maybe not, as long as she/he was hospitable with said penis.
 
2013-10-16 05:49:04 AM  
This is the worst thread.
 
2013-10-16 07:05:13 AM  
*ahem*

appropriately enough, 15 years ago, my mother basically dragged me out of the closet.  she said she and dad were worried about me and wanted to be sure that i was safe at college, because they'd heard about matthew shepard.

*PSA for parents:  DO NOT HAVE THIS CONVERSATION WITH YOUR CHILD WHILE THEY ARE IN CONTROL OF AN AUTOMOBILE GOING 65 ON THE INTERSTATE*

so, back on topic, even though this was on the other side of fly-over land, they knew good and hell well it could end up here too...

ok, before i start in here, i was raised lutheran, german/norwegian on one side, swedish on the other...

so when my mother, bless her heart told me she almost walked out of a service she was assisting for, i didn't believe it. then she tells me that during the sermon, the new pastor (at the church i'd grown up in) had said lesbians and gays deserved the same treatment as rapists and serial murderers.

yup.  although i would've liked to have had a webcam in church that night because when mom told me about it, it seriously sounded like she would have willingly beaten his face in WITH the cross ON the altar...

so yeah, you were saying?
 
2013-10-16 07:10:10 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2013-10-16 07:40:07 AM  

aNihilV10L8tr: ghostfacekillahrabbit: aNihilV10L8tr: Hey didja know there is some Lewis Black quote about it not being their book so you can't take their interpretation literally?

I heard somebody say that.... but then atheists interpreting either book couldn't be taken seriously either and fark religion threads would be totally different. Like my aunt having a penis and being my uncle or something

Your aunt has a penis? That sounds like the type of sexual deviancy that would get her whole city destroyed. Or maybe not, as long as she/he was hospitable with said penis.


Maybe he/she/shklee is from Detroit and nobody noticed.
 
2013-10-16 08:33:04 AM  

Smackledorfer: grumpfuff: Biological Ali: My position is that the idea of a "proper interpretation" is incoherent when talking about poorly written fiction; the most I'll do is note what the prevailing view is based on what the majority or plurality of actual adherents to that particular religious tradition believe.

Religious scholars(even atheist ones) would disagree with you. No one cares if the story actually happened, what is important is the message the story is trying to convey. Think of it like a morality fable. Let's use Aesop as an example.

We can all agree the story of the tortoise and the hare never happened. But we can still read the story, and agree that the moral of the story is that "Slow and steady wins the race."

Earlier you said only jews can decide what their jewish folklore meant. Now you include non-jewish scholars' opinions as valuable too?


Oh ffs. That's what I get for being lazy. What I meant is that if you are going to examine a story, tradition, etc, you must do so within the context of the religion/culture that gave rise to it. This is a basic principle in most disciplines that deal with people and their culture/beliefs(comparative religion, anthropology, etc). If you want to interpret a Jewish story, you must do so from within a Jewish context.


And honestly, wtf defines 'scholar' when we are talking about a book that is a collection of stories? Even if you feel one simply must pore over every scrap of written historical interpretations closer to the time period to claim the right to a valid interpretation, what makes the people of the past right in the first place?

Err, no. I was going along the lines of people who have a degree from a respected college or program(Bob Jones doesn't count) and submits their works for review by other people in the field. Just like, say, chemistry. And in this specific case, there are quotes in the Old Testament(and other Jewish works from the time) that specifically describe Sodom and it's sin.


We have one version ostensibly written as close to the time as possible, and all other additions are merely the musings of those who later read it.

Yes, and the earliest written versions all agree that the sin of Sodom was lack of hospitality.

With your analogy, if we knew someone wrote the tortoise and the hair in year x, then your accepted scholars would be people claiming their interpretations were correct based on the extra information of other sources from year x+y. As long as y is over a generation away from the event, those additions are worthless to me.

I am arguing for using the primary sources of the time. It's other people who are adding later sources, ie Jude.

You might as well take the tea party's version of the founding fathers and use that to flesh out their own writings.

Errr, no, that's not what I'm doing at all. That would be stupid.
 
2013-10-16 08:37:39 AM  

Biological Ali: grumpfuff: And this is where we have to agree to disagree. Like I pointed out in another thread. Jesus was a Jew, and he specifically said he came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. By Jesus's own words, and in Christianity's own texts, Christians should be following Jewish law and tradition(including interpretation of their stories).

Let me just ask one question, and I think this should get to the heart of what I've been trying to say. You seem like someone who can look at religion as an organic sociological phenomenon - you'd know that the most likely origin for any piece of religious fiction (even if our own historical record doesn't go that far) is that it was adapted and pieced together from earlier versions of the story.

Would these earlier versions (which might have different details and morals) be the more "proper" versions, with the Jewish myths being merely poor "interpretations" of them?


That's the key there. It depends. If the earlier story is, say, A B C D, and the adapted story is A B F Z, then a new interpretation is fine, because the story has changed. If the story is exactly the same, like it is in the case of Sodom, then no. The original interpretation is the correct one.
 
2013-10-16 08:42:50 AM  

Smackledorfer:

People aren't arguimg god exists, no.

What they are doing is applying a special layer of interpretive magic that wouldn't fly if applied to any other book.


Are you farking kidding me? I'm saying it's a Jewish story, so interpret it in a Jewish context. There's no "special layer" that I'm adding. If we were interpreting an 18th century satire, we would be interpreting it within the context of whatever was happening at that point in the 18th century, not whatever we think the story means in the 21st century.


The bible is a collection of works. ANYONE who reads that collection is equally allowed to interpret what they read. In some cases the text may be clear as day and some alternative viewpoints should accordingly be laughed at. In others it is clear as mud and I see no reason to give one reader extra respect by the simple fact that he is jewish and/or read other works at the time.

Sure, they can interpret it however they want. That doesn't mean it's the correct interpretation. Again, I could read Aesop's fable of the tortoise and the hare as being that tortoises are better. That doesn't mean I'm right. Again, other works of the same time period specifically address Sodom.

Smackledorfer: You claim it isn't about the existence of god, yet you place a value judgement on opinions based directly on the god-belief of an individual interpreter. That is nonsensical. That special distinction would only be appropriate IF AND ONLY IF god exists and the bible is true AND still doesn't account for human error in the worshipper making the interpretation.


See above. I was in a rush and spoke poorly. It's not about what god they believe in. It's about what context they base their interpretation on.
 
2013-10-16 08:47:33 AM  
chaosweaver:

I'm on the short list with a few of my lesbian friends as a surrogate penis for when they decide to have kids.

Not holding my breath, though.


Bad idea. In pretty much all jurisdictions you're 100% on the hook for 18 years of child support if you go through with that. Depending on where you are you might even end up on the hook even if the mother doesn't want you there.
 
2013-10-16 08:54:27 AM  

jso2897: I love it when assorted yokels argue about what the Bible "means".
A Sears catalogue has more real meaning.
The Bible means, kiddies, whatever the lying, scumsucking con artist trying to rape you with it at the moment wants it to mean.
It's never "meant" anything else.


And they say Christians are the bigots.

Look, genius. No one here is arguing the Bible is real, so do try to keep up.

Just because it's a work of fiction, doesn't mean it can't have a meaning. No one argues that Aesop's Fables are true stories, but people do agree the stories have morals. Do you really wanna argue that just because something is fiction, it can't have a lesson or moral or meaning or whatever? Because it that's your stance, then you might as well just destroy most books(and TV shows and movies) because they're all fiction.
 
2013-10-16 09:53:36 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: mgshamster: J. Frank Parnell: mgshamster: The Hindu holy books have not been incorporated into the Christian holy book.

You might be surprised.

I just might be. Care to elaborate?

I'm fairly familiar with the bible, as well as many other European and middle eastern myths and stories, but I'm not too familiar with Hinduism.

/Genuinely curious

The trinity is straight up Hinduism, and some other things which would take more explaining. Christ and Krisha also have essentially the same teachings, with even some similarities in their lives.


Oh wow. I knew many of the stories about Christ were taken from other religions of the time, but I didn't know they were borrowed from that far east.
 
2013-10-16 09:57:12 AM  

grumpfuff: Smackledorfer:

People aren't arguimg god exists, no.

What they are doing is applying a special layer of interpretive magic that wouldn't fly if applied to any other book.

Are you farking kidding me? I'm saying it's a Jewish story, so interpret it in a Jewish context. There's no "special layer" that I'm adding. If we were interpreting an 18th century satire, we would be interpreting it within the context of whatever was happening at that point in the 18th century, not whatever we think the story means in the 21st century.


The bible is a collection of works. ANYONE who reads that collection is equally allowed to interpret what they read. In some cases the text may be clear as day and some alternative viewpoints should accordingly be laughed at. In others it is clear as mud and I see no reason to give one reader extra respect by the simple fact that he is jewish and/or read other works at the time.

Sure, they can interpret it however they want. That doesn't mean it's the correct interpretation. Again, I could read Aesop's fable of the tortoise and the hare as being that tortoises are better. That doesn't mean I'm right. Again, other works of the same time period specifically address Sodom.

Smackledorfer: You claim it isn't about the existence of god, yet you place a value judgement on opinions based directly on the god-belief of an individual interpreter. That is nonsensical. That special distinction would only be appropriate IF AND ONLY IF god exists and the bible is true AND still doesn't account for human error in the worshipper making the interpretation.

See above. I was in a rush and spoke poorly. It's not about what god they believe in. It's about what context they base their interpretation on.


Then if I read the bible my interpretation is as valid as theirs. We each have equal access to source material.

Stop making the bible a magical book. It is a work of fiction and nobody needs to read the collective works of all stories to weigh in on a single one.

The bible is as clear as mud. I don't get upset at some people having the wrong interpretation, because there is no such thing (within reason of course).
 
2013-10-16 10:37:58 AM  
Smackledorfer:
Then if I read the bible my interpretation is as valid as theirs. We each have equal access to source material.

Stop making the bible a magical book. It is a work of fiction and nobody needs to read the collective works of all stories to weigh in on a single one.

The bible is as clear as mud. I don't get upset at some people having the wrong interpretation, because there is no such thing (within reason of course).



If a Christian reads the Big Bang Theory and interprets it as proving the creation story told in Genesis, would that be a valid interpretation?

Is the Tea Party claiming the founders were Christian a valid interpretation of the founder's writings?

Is a Christian's interpretation of the Hindu trinity (Shiva/Vishnu/Brama) means that Hindus believe in the Christian trinity correct?

If someone interprets quantum physics as proof of new age woo, is that valid?

As to your last point, if someone watches the first 20 minutes of V for Vendetta, and then interprets the movie to be painting V as the bad guy, is that a correct interpretation?

According to your logic, all these are valid interpretations.

We're not talking about "magical" anything. We're talking about interpreting a writing in the context of the time and culture it was written in. I don't understand why this is so hard to comprehend.
 
2013-10-16 10:59:51 AM  

grumpfuff: Yes, and the earliest written versions all agree that the sin of Sodom was lack of hospitality.


Cite?
 
2013-10-16 11:10:27 AM  

ciberido: I want you to say "I admit it's irrelevant whether or not the people I'm arguing with about this point are Christian."


Of course it's relevant. When you're talking about how you prefer some interpretation for any given passage, I at least know that it corresponds to your personal beliefs. I'm not going to tell you that your interpretations are more or less empirically "proper" than that of any other member of your religion, but nonetheless your own statement counts as an individual data point when determining what Christianity as a whole represents (even if it does belong to an unorthodox school of thought within that religion).

When people who aren't even Christians start talking about the supposedly "proper" interpretation for a passage, that just makes no sense.
 
2013-10-16 11:16:57 AM  

grumpfuff: That's the key there. It depends. If the earlier story is, say, A B C D, and the adapted story is A B F Z, then a new interpretation is fine, because the story has changed. If the story is exactly the same, like it is in the case of Sodom, then no. The original interpretation is the correct one.


The story has changed. The motivations of the protagonist (in this case, the psychopath deity that destroys the cities) are a big part of any story, and the New Testament changes that when they say that the cities' sexual immorality was what doomed them.
 
2013-10-16 12:03:57 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: grumpfuff: Yes, and the earliest written versions all agree that the sin of Sodom was lack of hospitality.

Cite?


Ezekiel 16:49-50

Judges also has the exact same story with the names changed, and specifically calls the sin a lack of hospitality(I can't remember the exact chapter/verse off hand, I apologize)

Both of these are Old Testament books, written around the same time as Genesis(and definitely before Jude)


Also, various midrashs(midrashes? midrashi? whatever the plural of midrash is). Avot 5:10 for example:

"There are four types of character in people: 1) One that says, "Mine is mine, and yours is yours." This is a neutral type; some say this is a Sodom-type of character. 2) One that says, "Mine is yours and yours is mine," is an unlearned person. 3) One that says, "Mine is yours and yours is yours," is a pious person. 4) One that says, "Mine is mine, and yours is mine," is a wicked person.  "

There are plenty more midrashs/es/i that discuss it, this is just the only one I could think of off the top of my head.
 
2013-10-16 12:04:50 PM  

grumpfuff: Smackledorfer:
Then if I read the bible my interpretation is as valid as theirs. We each have equal access to source material.

Stop making the bible a magical book. It is a work of fiction and nobody needs to read the collective works of all stories to weigh in on a single one.

The bible is as clear as mud. I don't get upset at some people having the wrong interpretation, because there is no such thing (within reason of course).


If a Christian reads the Big Bang Theory and interprets it as proving the creation story told in Genesis, would that be a valid interpretation?

Is the Tea Party claiming the founders were Christian a valid interpretation of the founder's writings?

Is a Christian's interpretation of the Hindu trinity (Shiva/Vishnu/Brama) means that Hindus believe in the Christian trinity correct?

If someone interprets quantum physics as proof of new age woo, is that valid?

As to your last point, if someone watches the first 20 minutes of V for Vendetta, and then interprets the movie to be painting V as the bad guy, is that a correct interpretation?

According to your logic, all these are valid interpretations.

We're not talking about "magical" anything. We're talking about interpreting a writing in the context of the time and culture it was written in. I don't understand why this is so hard to comprehend.


quote: "(within reason of course)"

Did you miss me saying this, choose to ignore it, or was I unclear?

There are things that have room for multiple interpretations, and there are always going to be a variety of possible yet clearly unreasonable ones which either fail at application of critical thinking skills or assume facts not in evidence.

All of your example counterpoints are, imo, clearly the latter.
 
2013-10-16 12:06:41 PM  

Biological Ali: grumpfuff: That's the key there. It depends. If the earlier story is, say, A B C D, and the adapted story is A B F Z, then a new interpretation is fine, because the story has changed. If the story is exactly the same, like it is in the case of Sodom, then no. The original interpretation is the correct one.

The story has changed. The motivations of the protagonist (in this case, the psychopath deity that destroys the cities) are a big part of any story, and the New Testament changes that when they say that the cities' sexual immorality was what doomed them.


No, it hasn't. The story as presented in the Christian Bible is basically exactly the same as the story presented in the Torah.

Again, your justification relies on a later (Christian) book re-interpreting the story. Like I said earlier. I can say the moral of the "Tortoise and the Hare" is that tortoises are better than hares. That doesn't make me right.
 
2013-10-16 12:09:36 PM  

Smackledorfer: grumpfuff: Smackledorfer:
Then if I read the bible my interpretation is as valid as theirs. We each have equal access to source material.

Stop making the bible a magical book. It is a work of fiction and nobody needs to read the collective works of all stories to weigh in on a single one.

The bible is as clear as mud. I don't get upset at some people having the wrong interpretation, because there is no such thing (within reason of course).


If a Christian reads the Big Bang Theory and interprets it as proving the creation story told in Genesis, would that be a valid interpretation?

Is the Tea Party claiming the founders were Christian a valid interpretation of the founder's writings?

Is a Christian's interpretation of the Hindu trinity (Shiva/Vishnu/Brama) means that Hindus believe in the Christian trinity correct?

If someone interprets quantum physics as proof of new age woo, is that valid?

As to your last point, if someone watches the first 20 minutes of V for Vendetta, and then interprets the movie to be painting V as the bad guy, is that a correct interpretation?

According to your logic, all these are valid interpretations.

We're not talking about "magical" anything. We're talking about interpreting a writing in the context of the time and culture it was written in. I don't understand why this is so hard to comprehend.

quote: "(within reason of course)"

Did you miss me saying this, choose to ignore it, or was I unclear?

There are things that have room for multiple interpretations, and there are always going to be a variety of possible yet clearly unreasonable ones which either fail at application of critical thinking skills or assume facts not in evidence.

All of your example counterpoints are, imo, clearly the latter.


Of course they are unreasonable. That was the entire point of offering them. Similarly, biblical scholars find the interpretation of the sin of Sodom being teh ghey is a "clearly unreasonable one which either fail at application of critical thinking skills or assume facts not in evidence" (in this case on the part of Christians).
 
2013-10-16 12:12:43 PM  

grumpfuff: Biological Ali: grumpfuff: That's the key there. It depends. If the earlier story is, say, A B C D, and the adapted story is A B F Z, then a new interpretation is fine, because the story has changed. If the story is exactly the same, like it is in the case of Sodom, then no. The original interpretation is the correct one.

The story has changed. The motivations of the protagonist (in this case, the psychopath deity that destroys the cities) are a big part of any story, and the New Testament changes that when they say that the cities' sexual immorality was what doomed them.

No, it hasn't. The story as presented in the Christian Bible is basically exactly the same as the story presented in the Torah.

Again, your justification relies on a later (Christian) book re-interpreting the story. Like I said earlier. I can say the moral of the "Tortoise and the Hare" is that tortoises are better than hares. That doesn't make me right.


And yet despite you claiming you aren't adding mysticism to the discussion, anyone can read tortoise and the hare and be allowed to form an interpretation, yet you dismiss any interpretation not done by lifelong scholars when it comes to the bible.

Answer me this: translation issues notwithstanding, if I read a religious book, are my interpretations valid (assuming some level of reason and logic are involved)? Because if your answer is no, then you are absolutely applying a layer of special magic rules to the mix.

Which, from this atheist's perspective, is silly and yields nothing more than some no true scotsman deflections to the discussion.

Christian beliefs, which include the old testament, are defined by what christians believe. EVERYONE adds their own interpretation to their religion.
 
2013-10-16 12:18:46 PM  
And I will repeat this again: the old testament is not a jews-only book. Ffs, christianity includes baptists, lutherins, and catholics. Maybe mormons too (i think so, but I don't feel like arguing on that one). Amish as well. Eastern european orthodoxy.

Judaism has fundamentalists with vastly different interpretations and lifestyles from others.

Yet you sit here insisting there is a correct interpretation based on an uncited 'all scholars agree' and get all pissy at people who say there is a possibility of other views. It is ridiculous.
 
2013-10-16 12:27:31 PM  

Smackledorfer: And yet despite you claiming you aren't adding mysticism to the discussion, anyone can read tortoise and the hare and be allowed to form an interpretation, yet you dismiss any interpretation not done by lifelong scholars when it comes to the bible.


So I assume you would consider someone's interpretation that the moral is the tortoise is better than the hare to be correct? Also, I said nothing about lifelong scholars. I said A) authors writing in the same period the original story was written and b) scholars who have their work published in peer-reviewed journal.


Answer me this: translation issues notwithstanding, if I read a religious book, are my interpretations valid (assuming some level of reason and logic are involved)? Because if your answer is no, then you are absolutely applying a layer of special magic rules to the mix.

Of course they are. I just don't think you are using logic and reason. Again, you are failing to consider the context and culture of the story at the time in which it was written. Is it proper for us to assign modern Western motives to an ancient Egyptian story? No, of course not, because it fails to take into account the culture that wrote it.


Which, from this atheist's perspective, is silly and yields nothing more than some no true scotsman deflections to the discussion.


You seem to keep forgetting I've said several times that I'm an atheist as well. I'm simply asking you to apply the same standards to this as you would to any other thing.

Christian beliefs, which include the old testament, are defined by what christians believe. EVERYONE adds their own interpretation to their religion.

Christians can believe whatever they want. That doesn't make them right(I think we can both agree on this part).
 
2013-10-16 12:30:42 PM  

Smackledorfer: And I will repeat this again: the old testament is not a jews-only book. Ffs, christianity includes baptists, lutherins, and catholics. Maybe mormons too (i think so, but I don't feel like arguing on that one). Amish as well. Eastern european orthodoxy.


I never claimed it was a Jews-only book. I said it's a Jewish-written book, and that needs to be taken into account when interpreting it.

Judaism has fundamentalists with vastly different interpretations and lifestyles from others.

Yet you sit here insisting there is a correct interpretation based on an uncited 'all scholars agree' and get all pissy at people who say there is a possibility of other views. It is ridiculous.


I've provided numerous sources in this thread(most of which are directly from the OT) which back my opinion. You've backed your opinion with "But Christians don't believe that!" and no sources. You'll have to forgive me for not bothering to spend my time looking for any papers on it that I can link to for free, because at this point I don't think it'll change your mind.
 
2013-10-16 12:46:18 PM  

grumpfuff: No, it hasn't. The story as presented in the Christian Bible is basically exactly the same as the story presented in the Torah.

Again, your justification relies on a later (Christian) book re-interpreting the story. Like I said earlier. I can say the moral of the "Tortoise and the Hare" is that tortoises are better than hares. That doesn't make me right.


What you're saying is incoherent from a basic literary criticism standpoint. The story in the Christian Bible isn't "exactly the same" as the one in the Torah, since it features a primary character with different motivations. It's a different story.

You've brought up the tortoise and hare story again, and I'll point out again that if there's hypothetical version in which the characters have different motivations than the characters in Aesop's fable, then that story would be a different story altogether. Calling one "right" and the other "wrong" is just plain incoherent.
 
2013-10-16 12:49:25 PM  

grumpfuff: Smackledorfer: And I will repeat this again: the old testament is not a jews-only book. Ffs, christianity includes baptists, lutherins, and catholics. Maybe mormons too (i think so, but I don't feel like arguing on that one). Amish as well. Eastern european orthodoxy.

I never claimed it was a Jews-only book. I said it's a Jewish-written book, and that needs to be taken into account when interpreting it.

Judaism has fundamentalists with vastly different interpretations and lifestyles from others.

Yet you sit here insisting there is a correct interpretation based on an uncited 'all scholars agree' and get all pissy at people who say there is a possibility of other views. It is ridiculous.

I've provided numerous sources in this thread(most of which are directly from the OT) which back my opinion. You've backed your opinion with "But Christians don't believe that!" and no sources. You'll have to forgive me for not bothering to spend my time looking for any papers on it that I can link to for free, because at this point I don't think it'll change your mind.


Which is it? Is it scholars (which I addressed and you claimed you didn't mean scholars only), authors of the time period (which you told me I was wrong for asking why a scholar a generation removed from the incident in question would be any more right or less open to poor interpretation - telling me that wasn't what you meant), or direct lines from the OT, which you have insisted has no room for interpretation at all, and that you go to the source over?

You are all over the road in your logic here.

"writers of the time period" only add anything if the biblical stories are true. But you insist nobody is making the argument that god is real in this discussion.

Quotes from the old testament are no citation at all, since you dismiss any christain's, or farker's, ability to read them on their own.

And I don't even know what you mean by scholars anymore, since you aren't citing them anyways and tell me I am misunderstanding you every time you use the term. You say jewish scholars only at first. Then you deny that is what you meant. Then you say peer-reviewed scholars, but you still insist christian interpretations of the OT don't count. Then you claim my reading of the OT could validly produce an opinion, but then later fall back on scholars again.

This is crazy.
 
2013-10-16 12:59:51 PM  
Oh and if you are really challenging me to provide sources that some christian groups hate gays and use the OT to support their views, you must have been locked in a tower all your life.

As my first citation: TFA about which we are discussing and the links contained within. There, that was pretty easy.
 
2013-10-16 01:01:35 PM  

Biological Ali: grumpfuff: No, it hasn't. The story as presented in the Christian Bible is basically exactly the same as the story presented in the Torah.

Again, your justification relies on a later (Christian) book re-interpreting the story. Like I said earlier. I can say the moral of the "Tortoise and the Hare" is that tortoises are better than hares. That doesn't make me right.

What you're saying is incoherent from a basic literary criticism standpoint. The story in the Christian Bible isn't "exactly the same" as the one in the Torah, since it features a primary character with different motivations. It's a different story.


How do you know the motivations have changed if the text of the story is the same?

You've brought up the tortoise and hare story again, and I'll point out again that if there's hypothetical version in which the characters have different motivations than the characters in Aesop's fable, then that story would be a different story altogether. Calling one "right" and the other "wrong" is just plain incoherent.

See above.
 
2013-10-16 01:05:27 PM  

Smackledorfer: Oh and if you are really challenging me to provide sources that some christian groups hate gays and use the OT to support their views, you must have been locked in a tower all your life.


Fark no I'm not saying that. No cites needed for that. Fark the AFA and groups like them

As my first citation: TFA about which we are discussing and the links contained within. There, that was pretty easy.

Ctrl+F: Sodom

Huh. Only one instance("sodomy"), and it's used by the author of the article to describe the crime they are being charged with, not the minister in question justifying his stance. How do you know he doesn't base his belief on Leviticus? That's usually the justification for anti-gay sentiments.
 
2013-10-16 01:15:51 PM  

grumpfuff: How do you know the motivations have changed if the text of the story is the same?


Because even the text of the story isn't the same. This:

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

...represents an addition to the story that did not previously exist.
 
2013-10-16 01:21:45 PM  

grumpfuff: Smackledorfer: Oh and if you are really challenging me to provide sources that some christian groups hate gays and use the OT to support their views, you must have been locked in a tower all your life.

Fark no I'm not saying that. No cites needed for that. Fark the AFA and groups like them

As my first citation: TFA about which we are discussing and the links contained within. There, that was pretty easy.

Ctrl+F: Sodom

Huh. Only one instance("sodomy"), and it's used by the author of the article to describe the crime they are being charged with, not the minister in question justifying his stance. How do you know he doesn't base his belief on Leviticus? That's usually the justification for anti-gay sentiments.


Before I go looking, I want to be clear.

You require a citation that there are christians who believe sodom is a tale with a message that sodomy, specifically the gay sex kind, is sinful?
 
2013-10-16 01:22:57 PM  

Biological Ali: grumpfuff: How do you know the motivations have changed if the text of the story is the same?

Because even the text of the story isn't the same. This:

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

...represents an addition to the story that did not previously exist.


So then you admit early Christians changed the story to get the story to have the interpretation they wanted it to have?
 
2013-10-16 01:24:50 PM  

Smackledorfer: grumpfuff: Smackledorfer: Oh and if you are really challenging me to provide sources that some christian groups hate gays and use the OT to support their views, you must have been locked in a tower all your life.

Fark no I'm not saying that. No cites needed for that. Fark the AFA and groups like them

As my first citation: TFA about which we are discussing and the links contained within. There, that was pretty easy.

Ctrl+F: Sodom

Huh. Only one instance("sodomy"), and it's used by the author of the article to describe the crime they are being charged with, not the minister in question justifying his stance. How do you know he doesn't base his belief on Leviticus? That's usually the justification for anti-gay sentiments.

Before I go looking, I want to be clear.

You require a citation that there are christians who believe sodom is a tale with a message that sodomy, specifically the gay sex kind, is sinful?


No. That is never what I claimed. I claimed the early Christians forced their views on the story to get it to say what they want it to, and then pretend that their interpretation is the original one.
 
Displayed 50 of 344 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report