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  
•       •       •

12646 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Oct 2013 at 8:12 PM (3 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 01:30:23 PM  
You accused me of saying things and providing no sources.

For what then would you like a source?
 
2013-10-16 01:36:06 PM  

grumpfuff: So then you admit early Christians changed the story to get the story to have the interpretation they wanted it to have?


Yeah, they have their own version of the story, just like the Muslims have their own entirely separate version. I wouldn't single either of them out for changing the story, since even the Jews would have adapted their own myths from stories that came before. That's kind of how religion works - all religion.
 
2013-10-16 01:41:40 PM  

grumpfuff: 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. "


Let me clarify: It was not ONLY a lack of hospitality.

There is no question that among the many sins of Sodom, inhospitability was one. Others included lustfulness, and being generally giant assholes. Homosexuality is not specifically called out, though it is implied in the general "sins of strange flesh" category, alongside adultery, forcible rape, etc. Further, since the text identifies the "visitors" as male, and the townspeople were male there is a further implication of homosexual sex. But REALLY, the problem of Sodom and Gomorrah was that these assholes were running around sticking their dicks in anything they could find and were being complete, wicked assholes. Gender crossmatching was incidental to the root problem of a town full of wicked and sinful people. God may well have smote some wicked gays, but he ALSO struck down wicked heterosexual adulterers, wicked heterosexual and homosexual rapists, wicked heterosexual or homosexual innkeepers, wicked heterosexual or homosexual PEOPLE.

The punishment of Sodom was not exclusively for being all gay and shiat. But neither was gay excluded from being punished. Homosexuality, alongside adultery and promiscuity was punished as being sinful because they are all sins of lust.

Also, they were being general assholes when people needed a place to sleep.

Would you say that is a fair interpretation in keeping with both early Jewish thinking and Christian thinking?

(also note that while I take your point of the importance of understanding the scripture in the context of the people from which it originated, Christians purposely ignore the rabbinical teachings of Judaism. It was, after all, Jesus' position and apparently what he got in trouble for.)
 
2013-10-16 01:43:31 PM  

Smackledorfer: You accused me of saying things and providing no sources.

For what then would you like a source?


That the original interpretation of the sin of Sodom is gay sex, as some people seem to be claiming.

I will state my opinion one last time.

The original interpretation of the sin of Sodom is lack of hospitality, and poor treatment of strangers. That is why god destroyed it. It had nothing to do with gay sex. The idea that the sin of Sodom was gay sex was a later addition, added by Christians to get the story to say what they wanted it to say. This does not mean they are correct. The story of Sodom was written by Jewish authors at a specific time, and therefore the interpretation of the story must be grounded in the context and society of the time and culture in which it was written.

I am NOT saying Christians don't interpret the story to mean the sin of Sodom was gay sex. I am saying they are wrong in doing so, and are co-opting a story to serve their own purposes, similar to how they sometimes say the Big Bang theory is proof that creation happened like it says in Genesis.

That is all I have been saying in this thread. You are free to argue against it, but like I said, please provide citations, either from primary sources, appropriate secondary sources(ie other Jewish writings from the time period), or a peer-reviewed paper published in a respected journal.
 
2013-10-16 01:45:37 PM  

Biological Ali: grumpfuff: So then you admit early Christians changed the story to get the story to have the interpretation they wanted it to have?

Yeah, they have their own version of the story, just like the Muslims have their own entirely separate version. I wouldn't single either of them out for changing the story, since even the Jews would have adapted their own myths from stories that came before. That's kind of how religion works - all religion.


I would like to add: they are made up stories. They are not really, angels do not exist and a sky wizard never leveled a city.

As such there are no 'writers around the time it happened' that grumpfuff claims are a source of additional clarity. Which means scholars have no sources beyond the biblical writings themselves to give them a validly superior interpretation. Which means a christian whose bible mentions sins of the flesh or whatever when the new testament folks write passages about it are perfectly valid and reasonable in assuming sodomy played a significant role. Or at least as reasonable as any jew and his version of the ancestral myths that were compiled when judaism came together as a religion out of past belief systems.
 
2013-10-16 01:50:26 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Let me clarify: It was not ONLY a lack of hospitality.

There is no question that among the many sins of Sodom, inhospitability was one. Others included lustfulness, and being generally giant assholes. Homosexuality is not specifically called out, though it is implied in the general "sins of strange flesh" category, alongside adultery, forcible rape, etc. Further, since the text identifies the "visitors" as male, and the townspeople were male there is a further implication of homosexual sex. But REALLY, the problem of Sodom and Gomorrah was that these assholes were running around sticking their dicks in anything they could find and were being complete, wicked assholes. Gender crossmatching was incidental to the root problem of a town full of wicked and sinful people. God may well have smote some wicked gays, but he ALSO struck down wicked heterosexual adulterers, wicked heterosexual and homosexual rapists, wicked heterosexual or homosexual innkeepers, wicked heterosexual or homosexual PEOPLE.


Most of this is later additions to the story from early Christians, though I will agree in general with the bolded part.

The punishment of Sodom was not exclusively for being all gay and shiat. But neither was gay excluded from being punished. Homosexuality, alongside adultery and promiscuity was punished as being sinful because they are all sins of lust.

Yes, but the gays were punished not for being gay, but for being wicked in general.

Also, they were being general assholes when people needed a place to sleep.

No argument here.

Would you say that is a fair interpretation in keeping with both early Jewish thinking and Christian thinking?

Jewish thinking? No. Christian thinking? Yes.

(also note that while I take your point of the importance of understanding the scripture in the context of the people from which it originated, Christians purposely ignore the rabbinical teachings of Judaism. It was, after all, Jesus' position and apparently what he got in trouble for.)

Matthew 5:17 wants a word with you. The idea that Christians could ignore the laws of the OT is specifically Paul's idea. Other early Christians argued against him, but were squashed as heretics.
 
2013-10-16 01:53:21 PM  

Smackledorfer: Biological Ali: grumpfuff: So then you admit early Christians changed the story to get the story to have the interpretation they wanted it to have?

Yeah, they have their own version of the story, just like the Muslims have their own entirely separate version. I wouldn't single either of them out for changing the story, since even the Jews would have adapted their own myths from stories that came before. That's kind of how religion works - all religion.

I would like to add: they are made up stories. They are not really, angels do not exist and a sky wizard never leveled a city.


As I said earlier. I do not think these stories literally happened. I think they are morality tales, ala Aesop's Fables.

As such there are no 'writers around the time it happened' that grumpfuff claims are a source of additional clarity.

By "writers of the time", I meant Jewish writers of the time the story was written down.

Which means scholars have no sources beyond the biblical writings themselves to give them a validly superior interpretation.

The Midrash and various other Jewish writings would like a word with you.
 
2013-10-16 01:53:54 PM  

fusillade762: ramblinwreck: Africa?  Yep, not really relevant to most countries.  Sorry feminists if you thought you'd see Europe or North America.  Concentrate your efforts there, oh wait...you won't...because you actually believe you're oppressed in the first world.

WTF does feminism have to do with this story?


I'm guessing in his eyes, only feminists would complain about rape, says a lot about his mentality.
 
2013-10-16 01:56:00 PM  

grumpfuff: Smackledorfer: You accused me of saying things and providing no sources.

For what then would you like a source?

That the original interpretation of the sin of Sodom is gay sex, as some people seem to be claiming.

I will state my opinion one last time.

The original interpretation of the sin of Sodom is lack of hospitality, and poor treatment of strangers. That is why god destroyed it. It had nothing to do with gay sex. The idea that the sin of Sodom was gay sex was a later addition, added by Christians to get the story to say what they wanted it to say. This does not mean they are correct. The story of Sodom was written by Jewish authors at a specific time, and therefore the interpretation of the story must be grounded in the context and society of the time and culture in which it was written.

I am NOT saying Christians don't interpret the story to mean the sin of Sodom was gay sex. I am saying they are wrong in doing so, and are co-opting a story to serve their own purposes, similar to how they sometimes say the Big Bang theory is proof that creation happened like it says in Genesis.

That is all I have been saying in this thread. You are free to argue against it, but like I said, please provide citations, either from primary sources, appropriate secondary sources(ie other Jewish writings from the time period), or a peer-reviewed paper published in a respected journal.


That was an awful lot of diatribe without specifying what you want me to cite. Or why you called me out for a lack of citation earlier. I know I called you out for lack of them, but that is because you are claiming an appeal to scholar-based superiority in your position. My position is that scholars and writings of the time add NOTHING to interpreting the meanings contained within, but if they do you surely cannot be throwing out the views and teachings of the new testament believers.


On that note, why would other jewish writings 'from the time period' matter? In what year do you believe god sent angels to sodom?

If you do not believe he did this, and I know you don't, then writings of one time about a passed down religious myth surely are no more valuable than writings of another time?
Yet you so quickly put up the jewish scholars as infallable and all christian teachings as wrong and dismiss their interpretations.
 
2013-10-16 01:58:11 PM  
In case I am still unclear: what is it I have said that you want me to provide a citation for? If you cannot answer this, please walk back your earlier accusation that I provide no cites and the implication that my posts are less/not valid as a result.
 
2013-10-16 01:59:21 PM  

grumpfuff: Matthew 5:17 wants a word with you. The idea that Christians could ignore the laws of the OT is specifically Paul's idea. Other early Christians argued against him, but were squashed as heretics.


I am not saying that they ignore the Old Testament. I am saying that Christianity as a matter of theology does not accept the authority of the Rabbinical works, though they accept the authority of the Old Testament Scriptures.

When Christ says "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." He is saying that the scriptures and the words of the prophets are sound, and he stands by them. But what human interpreters of the books and the law thought about them? Not so much. It is PRECISELY because he disputed the rabbinical teachings of the jews at the time that he was crucified. SURELY you aren't arguing that Jesus of Nazareth did not come into conflict with the Jewish priest's for their take on the scriptures?

In much the same way that Protestants do not accept the authority of Catholic Church doctrine, though they accept the bible scripture (and even then they pick and choose). Martin Luther did not call for the abolition of Christianity, he said "Let's just stick to the books, because some of these interpretations are getting off course".
 
2013-10-16 02:00:54 PM  
"Matthew 5:17 wants a word with you. The idea that Christians could ignore the laws of the OT is specifically Paul's idea. Other early Christians argued against him, but were squashed as heretics."

Depends on the sect. See pentecostals.
 
2013-10-16 02:06:20 PM  

Smackledorfer:

That was an awful lot of diatribe without specifying what you want me to cite.

grumpfuff: Smackledorfer: You accused me of saying things and providing no sources.

For what then would you like a source?

That the original interpretation of the sin of Sodom is gay sex, as some people seem to be claiming.


Or why you called me out for a lack of citation earlier.


Because you haven't provided any to justify your opinion?

I know I called you out for lack of them, but that is because you are claiming an appeal to scholar-based superiority in your position.

I provided several citations, some of which are from the very same place as the story in question and tell you how it should be interpreted.

My position is that scholars and writings of the time add NOTHING to interpreting the meanings contained within, but if they do you surely cannot be throwing out the views and teachings of the new testament believers.

Why should I care what a bunch of Christians say about the meaning of a Jewish story?

On that note, why would other jewish writings 'from the time period' matter?

Because they explain the story in greater detail, and explain why Jewish people interpret the story the way they do?

In what year do you believe god sent angels to sodom?

Seeing as how I have repeatedly said I don't think the story is literally true, never.

If you do not believe he did this, and I know you don't, then writings of one time about a passed down religious myth surely are no more valuable than writings of another time?


Again, see what I've said about context. If you want to figure out the meaning of a story, morality tale, etc, you must look at the context and society around which the story was written. Can we use modern Egyptian society to explain the meanings of the ancient Egyptian stories? No, of course not, because context matters.

Yet you so quickly put up the jewish scholars as infallable and all christian teachings as wrong and dismiss their interpretations.

I'm not saying they are infallible. What I'm saying is that if it's a Jewish story, I'll go with the Jewish interpretation. In a similar vein, I wouldn't accept a Jewish interpretation of Revelations, as it is a Christian story.
 
2013-10-16 02:11:12 PM  
BojanglesPaladin:

I am not saying that they ignore the Old Testament. I am saying that Christianity as a matter of theology does not accept the authority of the Rabbinical works, though they accept the authority of the Old Testament Scriptures.

Maybe not, but for the umpteenth time, Ezekiel(an Old Testament book, and therefore authoritative by your definition), specifically calls the sin of Sodom lack of hospitality.


When Christ says "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." He is saying that the scriptures and the words of the prophets are sound, and he stands by them. But what human interpreters of the books and the law thought about them? Not so much. It is PRECISELY because he disputed the rabbinical teachings of the jews at the time that he was crucified.

Difficulty: Jesus was executed by the Romans, who did not take orders from Jewish authorities. Why would the Romans care what Jesus said about Jewish authorities, and why would they care if Jesus did not follow Jewish law?


SURELY you aren't arguing that Jesus of Nazareth did not come into conflict with the Jewish priest's for their take on the scriptures?

Of course he came into conflict with them. He accused them of no longer following the Law, and putting themselves above God. That doesn't mean they had the authority to kill him. The punishment for breaking Jewish law is stoning. Crucifiction was a Roman punishment.
 
2013-10-16 02:15:01 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Homosexuality is not specifically called out, though it is implied in the general "sins of strange flesh" category


I always took that "strange flesh" bit to be a reference to wanting to fark the non-human angels... I'm not sure what's so "strange" about the flesh of another human who happens to have the same sexual organs as you do...
 
2013-10-16 02:31:05 PM  

grumpfuff: I am saying they are wrong in doing so, and are co-opting a story to serve their own purposes, similar to how they sometimes say the Big Bang theory is proof that creation happened like it says in Genesis.


Well, it was proposed by a Catholic priest, after all... So, it's arguably theirs initially, not really co-opted...

Though, I don't seem to recall the bits in Genesis that talk about the universe suddenly and rapidly expanding out of a singularity around 14 billion years ago...
 
2013-10-16 02:35:09 PM  

grumpfuff: J. Frank Parnell: I forget exactly where it is in the bible, but some guy has angels visiting him and everyone is crowding around and lusting after them because they're so beautiful, including guys, so he offers the crowd his young daughters to make them go away.

I suppose that could be taken to support what he's saying. It's clearer than most bible verses used to support things.

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.


Lot offering his daughters up to be raped is not a defense of rape?
 
2013-10-16 02:36:22 PM  

grumpfuff: Of course he came into conflict with them. He accused them of no longer following the Law, and putting themselves above God. That doesn't mean they had the authority to kill him. The punishment for breaking Jewish law is stoning. Crucifiction was a Roman punishment.


ummm.. yeah.

The point has been missed. I'm not even discussing the authority of the rabbis over Jesus.

You keep saying that we need to understand the story of Sodom from the perspective of the peoples from which the story originated. You reference non-scriptural jewish and rabbinical writings to explore what was meant.

I pointed out that, as a matter of policy, Christians did not consider the extra-scriptural jewish writings, or the rabbinical body of writings as a whole to have any moral weight, or authority when interpreting scripture. That, in effect, what the jews thought or continue to think about what the old testament MEANS has no real relevance from a theological standpoint. The words of the scriptures do, but not the words of the jewish priests. Now that doesn't mean they are automatically wrong, just that it is not an authority.

And Christians believe this , because that's what Jesus himself did. He said follow the scriptures and the words of the prophets. But beyond that, *HE* is the correct answer on interpretation. And it was this teaching that put him at odds with the priesthood as a challenge to their authority and which ultimately got him crucified.

That's it.
 
2013-10-16 02:39:22 PM  

RobSeace: Though, I don't seem to recall the bits in Genesis that talk about the universe suddenly and rapidly expanding out of a singularity around 14 billion years ago...


Sure you do.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the deep.
3 ¶ And God said, Let there be light:  and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
 
2013-10-16 02:42:32 PM  

Latinwolf: grumpfuff: J. Frank Parnell: I forget exactly where it is in the bible, but some guy has angels visiting him and everyone is crowding around and lusting after them because they're so beautiful, including guys, so he offers the crowd his young daughters to make them go away.

I suppose that could be taken to support what he's saying. It's clearer than most bible verses used to support things.

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.

Lot offering his daughters up to be raped is not a defense of rape?


Within the cultural context of the time, giving hospitality to strangers(in this case, protecting them from being raped) was the utmost . There's also the whole "daughters were their fathers property", so by their definition, it wasn't exactly rape, because the daughters didn't have the right to say "no". Of course, by our definition, it's totally rape.

Mind you, I'm not trying to defend it. It's a horrific story no matter how you interpret it.
 
2013-10-16 02:43:21 PM  

RobSeace: BojanglesPaladin: Homosexuality is not specifically called out, though it is implied in the general "sins of strange flesh" category

I always took that "strange flesh" bit to be a reference to wanting to fark the non-human angels... I'm not sure what's so "strange" about the flesh of another human who happens to have the same sexual organs as you do...


I've heard that as well, but there are a couple issues with that. First, in every version of the story that I've come across, the townspeople have no idea the two men are angels. While the Abrahamic god certainly is a capricious psychopath, punishing people for a sin they don't even know they're committing would be a bit silly even by his standards.

Second, I believe the "strange flesh" thing is referenced as a sin that the people of the towns had been engaging in on an ongoing basis prior to their destruction, so the implication of this version would be that those people had been routinely having sex with angels - again, that seems exceedingly silly even within the context of this already silly story.
 
2013-10-16 02:44:06 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: I think we can all agree that this Ugandan "minister" is an unchristian dangerous whackjob and is not representative of the typical American Christian


nope, we dont all agree
it's your typical christian that influenced and continues to implicitly support these policies in other countries
want me to believe otherwise? then prove your "moral high-ground"
 
2013-10-16 02:48:05 PM  
So you ask for a citation of my opinion? Which opinion? The last one I thought you wanted you said you didn't.

Be specific please.

As for whose story it is? It is as much a christian one as a jewish one.
 
2013-10-16 02:50:25 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: grumpfuff: Of course he came into conflict with them. He accused them of no longer following the Law, and putting themselves above God. That doesn't mean they had the authority to kill him. The punishment for breaking Jewish law is stoning. Crucifiction was a Roman punishment.

ummm.. yeah.

The point has been missed. I'm not even discussing the authority of the rabbis over Jesus.

You keep saying that we need to understand the story of Sodom from the perspective of the peoples from which the story originated. You reference non-scriptural jewish and rabbinical writings to explore what was meant.


Because it's a Jewish story. While the Midrash(as an example) isn't entirely scriptural, it's still authoritative(to Jews).


I pointed out that, as a matter of policy, Christians did not consider the extra-scriptural jewish writings, or the rabbinical body of writings as a whole to have any moral weight, or authority when interpreting scripture. That, in effect, what the jews thought or continue to think about what the old testament MEANS has no real relevance from a theological standpoint. The words of the scriptures do, but not the words of the jewish priests. Now that doesn't mean they are automatically wrong, just that it is not an authority.

As I've repeatedly said. The Christians took a Jewish story, ignored the Jewish interpretation of it, and twisted it to say what they(the Christians) wanted it to say. How they treat rabbinical writings, such as the Midrash, reinforces this point. They are not interested in what the story meant. They are interested in what they want it to mean.


And Christians believe this , because that's what Jesus himself did. He said follow the scriptures and the words of the prophets. But beyond that, *HE* is the correct answer on interpretation. And it was this teaching that put him at odds with the priesthood as a challenge to their authority and which ultimately got him crucified.

I missed the part where Jesus said "Don't worry about Jewish interpretations." You seem to be forgetting that Jesus was a Jew. I would argue his intent(granting the assumption that he existed) was as a sort of "reformist," to purge the corruption from the Jewish elite, similar to various prophets before him.

You also still haven't explained why the Romans crucified him for disagreeing with the Jewish authorities.
 Why do the Romans care if he challenged Jewish authorities? Romans basically cared about one thing: "Did you pay your taxes?" And Jesus specifically said that his followers should pay their taxes.
 
2013-10-16 02:51:51 PM  
I am sorry but if you keep calling for citations of 'my opnions' but refuse to specify then you are going on ignore as a troll. There is no point to such behavior beyond adding confusion and wasting my time, which is exactly the purpose of a troll.
 
2013-10-16 02:54:40 PM  

Smackledorfer: So you ask for a citation of my opinion? Which opinion? The last one I thought you wanted you said you didn't.

Be specific please.

As for whose story it is? It is as much a christian one as a jewish one.


I have pointed out twice what I want you to cite.

grumpfuff: Smackledorfer: You accused me of saying things and providing no sources.

For what then would you like a source?

That the original interpretation of the sin of Sodom is gay sex, as some people seem to be claiming.


grumpfuff: Smackledorfer:

That was an awful lot of diatribe without specifying what you want me to cite.

grumpfuff: Smackledorfer: You accused me of saying things and providing no sources.

For what then would you like a source?

That the original interpretation of the sin of Sodom is gay sex, as some people seem to be claiming.



If you don't agree with that opinion, that's fine. Just say so.
 
2013-10-16 03:03:54 PM  

Smackledorfer: I am sorry but if you keep calling for citations of 'my opnions' but refuse to specify then you are going on ignore as a troll. There is no point to such behavior beyond adding confusion and wasting my time, which is exactly the purpose of a troll.


I like how you ignore the two times(three now, but third was after you posted this) where I told you what I want you to cite(or state you do not agree, which means no citation needed), and then accuse me of trolling.
 
2013-10-16 03:11:56 PM  

grumpfuff: Smackledorfer: So you ask for a citation of my opinion? Which opinion? The last one I thought you wanted you said you didn't.

Be specific please.

As for whose story it is? It is as much a christian one as a jewish one.

I have pointed out twice what I want you to cite.

grumpfuff: Smackledorfer: You accused me of saying things and providing no sources.

For what then would you like a source?

That the original interpretation of the sin of Sodom is gay sex, as some people seem to be claiming.

grumpfuff: Smackledorfer:

That was an awful lot of diatribe without specifying what you want me to cite.

grumpfuff: Smackledorfer: You accused me of saying things and providing no sources.

For what then would you like a source?

That the original interpretation of the sin of Sodom is gay sex, as some people seem to be claiming.


If you don't agree with that opinion, that's fine. Just say so.


I never said that. Why would I have a citation for it?

That is ridiculous.have I been unclear in my disagreement about your entire argument that there is some original version of the story that is the jewish one or that only jews have a voice about it? I don't think I have, but you seem to be really straining to be as obtuse as possible here.

Are there non-strawmen that you would like to have me cite? This time I guess I will have to ask that you quote me actually saying the words you try to put in my mouth.
 
2013-10-16 03:17:23 PM  

grumpfuff: Smackledorfer: I am sorry but if you keep calling for citations of 'my opnions' but refuse to specify then you are going on ignore as a troll. There is no point to such behavior beyond adding confusion and wasting my time, which is exactly the purpose of a troll.

I like how you ignore the two times(three now, but third was after you posted this) where I told you what I want you to cite(or state you do not agree, which means no citation needed), and then accuse me of trolling.


Yes, I asked you to tell me which opinion that I have presented you want me to cite.nt which opinions you make up and attribute to me. And yes, that kind of nonsense is exactly what trolls do.

Perhaps you mistook another poster's comment for one of mine?
 
2013-10-16 03:27:30 PM  
Smackledorfer:

I never said that. Why would I have a citation for it?

Which is why I said "If that's not your argument, then just say so". It was, however,part of the discussion before you arrived. Since you continued the debate, I assumed you agreed with it. My apologies.

That is ridiculous.have I been unclear in my disagreement about your entire argument that there is some original version of the story that is the jewish one or that only jews have a voice about it? I don't think I have, but you seem to be really straining to be as obtuse as possible here.

Well, I'd argue that the original story is Jewish because the first known instance of the story is found in Jewish writings. If you know of an earlier, non-Jewish, example of the story, then provide a cite for that and I will concede the point.

As to the interpretation of it. Again, since (as far as we know) it is a Jewish story, why should we take non-Jewish interpretations of it? Should we accept a Hindu interpretation of a Christian story because hey, it's a religion, who cares if they actually understand what the Christian authors meant to convey with the story? Should we interpret ancient Egyptian beliefs in the framework of modern Egyptian beliefs?

I don't see what is so controversial about "Interpret the story within the context and culture within which it was written." It's standard practice in far more than comparative religion - anthropology comes to mind.

Are there non-strawmen that you would like to have me cite? This time I guess I will have to ask that you quote me actually saying the words you try to put in my mouth.

Calm down dude. It's just the internet. You're starting to sound like the Neckbeard Internet Atheist Brigade. Remember, I'm an atheist, too.
 
2013-10-16 03:30:18 PM  

Panatheist: it's your typical christian that influenced and continues to implicitly support these policies in other countries


I can't even fathom the reality that you live in where the "typical American" Christian or otherwise, can even find Uganda on a map, much less receive spiritual guidance from some particular nutjob. But I'm sure in your magical land, you can grab any 8 out of 10 people you meet and they will tell you they know this guy.

Panatheist: want me to believe otherwise? then prove your "moral high-ground"


I don't recall ever saying I had a moral high-ground, but YOU certainly seem to be atop an awfully high horse.

grumpfuff: I missed the part where Jesus said "Don't worry about Jewish interpretations." You seem to be forgetting that Jesus was a Jew.


Yes. I think we are all perfectly aware that Jesus was a jew. And I am SURE you know good and well that Jesus has quite a history of explicitly challenging jewish law as interpreted by the priesthood. For goodness sake, as far as I remember the ONLY time Jesus raised a hand to another human being was to kick the money lenders out of the temple. And we all know that the jewish priesthood saw this as a challenge and arranged to have him taken out of the picture for it. There should not be a disagreement there.

I'm not clear what point you are trying to make, you what point you mistakenly believe I am making, but you leep missing the target, or you re just trying to find qibbles to quibble over.

Unless you disagree with something here: "And Christians believe this, because that's what Jesus himself did. He said follow the scriptures and the words of the prophets. But beyond that, *HE* is the correct answer on interpretation. And it was this teaching that put him at odds with the priesthood as a challenge to their authority and which ultimately got him crucified.That's it."

We're good. And no I'm not going to follow you down some irrelevant rabbit trail about the legal nuances of the interplay between the jewish priesthood and the occupying Roman authority, so stop asking. It's beside the point.
 
2013-10-16 03:39:57 PM  

grumpfuff: Smackledorfer:

I never said that. Why would I have a citation for it?

Which is why I said "If that's not your argument, then just say so". It was, however,part of the discussion before you arrived. Since you continued the debate, I assumed you agreed with it. My apologies.

That is ridiculous.have I been unclear in my disagreement about your entire argument that there is some original version of the story that is the jewish one or that only jews have a voice about it? I don't think I have, but you seem to be really straining to be as obtuse as possible here.

Well, I'd argue that the original story is Jewish because the first known instance of the story is found in Jewish writings. If you know of an earlier, non-Jewish, example of the story, then provide a cite for that and I will concede the point.

As to the interpretation of it. Again, since (as far as we know) it is a Jewish story, why should we take non-Jewish interpretations of it? Should we accept a Hindu interpretation of a Christian story because hey, it's a religion, who cares if they actually understand what the Christian authors meant to convey with the story? Should we interpret ancient Egyptian beliefs in the framework of modern Egyptian beliefs?

I don't see what is so controversial about "Interpret the story within the context and culture within which it was written." It's standard practice in far more than comparative religion - anthropology comes to mind.

Are there non-strawmen that you would like to have me cite? This time I guess I will have to ask that you quote me actually saying the words you try to put in my mouth.

Calm down dude. It's just the internet. You're starting to sound like the Neckbeard Internet Atheist Brigade. Remember, I'm an atheist, too.


I am sounding like the wrong type of atheist because I don't hold an opinion you thought I did? That makes no sense.

As for anthropology, that supports my points as much or more than yours. No anthropologist would claim society B was wrong about a story they co-opted from society A. They would say the story means something different to the two groups. Beyond that, I haven't been claiming you are not an atheist, but that you are treating religious works as different from nonreligious. Which you are. Otherwise you wouldn't keep trying to define a story, original to jews or not, as having a different meaning when co-opted by another culture.
 
2013-10-16 03:49:10 PM  
BojanglesPaladin:

grumpfuff: I missed the part where Jesus said "Don't worry about Jewish interpretations." You seem to be forgetting that Jesus was a Jew.

Yes. I think we are all perfectly aware that Jesus was a jew. And I am SURE you know good and well that Jesus has quite a history of explicitly challenging jewish law as interpreted by the priesthood. For goodness sake, as far as I remember the ONLY time Jesus raised a hand to another human being was to kick the money lenders out of the temple. And we all know that the jewish priesthood saw this as a challenge and arranged to have him taken out of the picture for it. There should not be a disagreement there.


Jesus did not challenge Jewish law. He explicitly said it had to be followed. What he did challenge, however, was what he viewed as the corruption of the priesthood. Again, I do not see why the Romans would give two shiats about a doctrinal struggle between a religious group. Nor do I think they would crucify someone just because the Jewish priests told them to.

I'm not clear what point you are trying to make, you what point you mistakenly believe I am making, but you leep missing the target, or you re just trying to find qibbles to quibble over.

Unless you disagree with something here: "And Christians believe this, because that's what Jesus himself did. He said follow the scriptures and the words of the prophets. But beyond that, *HE* is the correct answer on interpretation. And it was this teaching that put him at odds with the priesthood as a challenge to their authority and which ultimately got him crucified.That's it."


I do disagree with this, because, afaik, Jesus never claimed he was the authority on interpretation, and he never really offered any different interpretation of Jewish law. Again, his problem was the corruption of the priests(like your example of moneylenders in the temple - Leviticus explicitly forbids this, and usuary), not the law.

We're good. And no I'm not going to follow you down some irrelevant rabbit trail about the legal nuances of the interplay between the jewish priesthood and the occupying Roman authority, so stop asking. It's beside the point.
 
I think it's entirely relevant. You're claiming that the Jewish priests had the Romans execute Jesus, but have failed to provide a reason why the Romans would care what the Jewish priests wanted.
 
2013-10-16 04:00:35 PM  

Smackledorfer: I am sounding like the wrong type of atheist because I don't hold an opinion you thought I did? That makes no sense.


No, you're sounding like the wrong type of atheist because you keep jumping down my throat, calling me a troll, etc. I am trying to be civil here. It does not seem to me that you are.


As for anthropology, that supports my points as much or more than yours. No anthropologist would claim society B was wrong about a story they co-opted from society A. They would say the story means something different to the two groups.

I never said the story can't have a different meaning to Christians. Again, I am saying they took the story and changed the interpretation to mean what they wanted it to mean.

Beyond that, I haven't been claiming you are not an atheist, but that you are treating religious works as different from nonreligious. Which you are. Otherwise you wouldn't keep trying to define a story, original to jews or not, as having a different meaning when co-opted by another culture.

It has nothing to do with it being a religious book. I would assume(my apologies if I'm wrong) that you do not consider Aesop's Fables a religious book. I would reject the tortoise/hare example from before just as firmly as I reject this. To pick something I'm positive you do not take to be religious, I would reject someone trying to argue that the moral of V for Vendetta is about how awesome fascism is. I also reject Teatards trying to argue that the founders intended this to be a Christian nation. Is this clear enough? It has nothing to do with the religion(or lack there of) of the story in question. It has everything to do with the culture that produced the story.

Again, my point is that you can co-opt a story and change the interpretation to suit your needs if you want. It doesn't mean you're right about what the moral of the story is.
 
2013-10-16 04:02:19 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: RobSeace: Though, I don't seem to recall the bits in Genesis that talk about the universe suddenly and rapidly expanding out of a singularity around 14 billion years ago...

Sure you do.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the deep.
3 ¶ And God said, Let there be light:  and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.


Seems a bit of a stretch to read Big Bang universal expansion out of that bit of flowery language, I think... It covers the basic of "First there was nothing (well, other than God or the singularity, I guess), then *poof* now there's something!", but hardly seems to fit any actual details of the theory otherwise...

Not to mention, it talks about creating the Earth before creating farking light! (Which is presumably really just referring to the creation of the Sun anyway, and not actual photons, since it then goes on to talk about the light being "day" and the darkness being "night"...) Genesis seems to really just be covering the creation of our solar system, not the universe as a whole... Maybe the opening line covers that very, very vaguely with no details: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"... No real details on the means of that creation "the heaven", though... The rest of the details are just about when and how he made various things appear here on "the earth"...

Biological Ali: I've heard that as well, but there are a couple issues with that. First, in every version of the story that I've come across, the townspeople have no idea the two men are angels. While the Abrahamic god certainly is a capricious psychopath, punishing people for a sin they don't even know they're committing would be a bit silly even by his standards.

Second, I believe the "strange flesh" thing is referenced as a sin that the people of the towns had been engaging in on an ongoing basis prior to their destruction, so the implication of this version would be that those people had been routinely having sex with angels - again, that seems exceedingly silly even within the context of this already silly story.


Hmmm, I suppose that's true... (Though, I think there is some other reference in the Bible about regular sex with angels taking place... Hmmm, oh yeah, Genesis 6... Though, the big-G seems to have no problem with angel-on-hot-daughter sex there, at least... Maybe it was ok for the Nephilim but not the Seraphim, or something?)

The "strange flesh" thing could also just mean they were slutting it up and screwing anyone and everyone they could... Ie: "strange" as in "getting some strange"... Not being monogamous and faithful...

Or, maybe they were all farking goats and sheep, or something... *shrug* In any case, I still don't see how flesh that's just like your own is "strange"...
 
2013-10-16 04:12:09 PM  

Smackledorfer: you are treating religious works as different from nonreligious. Which you are. Otherwise you wouldn't keep trying to define a story, original to jews or not, as having a different meaning when co-opted by another culture.


I don't see how that follows.

The story of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round table meant different things to the French than it did to the English, and they changed a number key elements. Asserting that interpretations of the oldest, Anglo-Saxon version of the Pendragon stories are the only valid ones may be silly, but it has nothing to do with treating a text differently because of religion.
 
2013-10-16 04:17:44 PM  

grumpfuff: afaik, Jesus never claimed he was the authority on interpretation, and he never really offered any different interpretation of Jewish law.


Headpalm.

I believe that he offered a radically different interpretation of the law allowing for money lending in the temples. I believe he used a whip. It seems very clear that the jewish priesthood believed he was offering a different interpretation of the law, or there would have been no need to haul him in and have him answer questions of theology. It's really starting to feel like you have nothing better to do than quibble.

grumpfuff: I think it's entirely relevant. You're claiming that the Jewish priests had the Romans execute Jesus, but have failed to provide a reason why the Romans would care what the Jewish priests wanted.


Then you are mistaken. It is not relevant to the question of whether Jesus deviated from, or disputed the authority of rabbinical teachings. Again, I'm not going down that rabbit trail. Stop asking. Google it if you want to know more about the legal nuances of the interplay between the jewish priesthood and the occupying Roman authority.
 
2013-10-16 04:22:49 PM  

RobSeace: Seems a bit of a stretch to read Big Bang universal expansion out of that bit of flowery language, I think... It covers the basic of "First there was nothing (well, other than God or the singularity, I guess), then *poof* now there's something!", but hardly seems to fit any actual details of the theory otherwise...


Well. light is energy. Before there was nothing, and then WHAMMO! a bunch of energy.

It might help to know that the dude who came up with the Big Bang Theory was a Jesuit scientist. And that the Pope asked him to turn it down a notch because too many people were saying "See! Just like in Genesis". The pope (correctly) did not want theiology confused with physics, nor did he (correctly) wan the Catholic Church seen as advocating ANY particular scientific theory.

Anywho, I prefer to phrase it like this:

"The Big Bang Theory does not conflict with the Biblical account of the origin Creation of the universe. Nor does the origin of the universe as described in the Bible conflict with the Big Bang Theory."

Genesis has no real details.
 
2013-10-16 04:42:26 PM  
I'm a bisexual guy, if any hot women want to give me some corrective rape action to cure me, have at it!
 
2013-10-16 04:44:08 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: grumpfuff: afaik, Jesus never claimed he was the authority on interpretation, and he never really offered any different interpretation of Jewish law.

Headpalm.

I believe that he offered a radically different interpretation of the law allowing for money lending in the temples. I believe he used a whip. It seems very clear that the jewish priesthood believed he was offering a different interpretation of the law, or there would have been no need to haul him in and have him answer questions of theology. It's really starting to feel like you have nothing better to do than quibble.


Exodus 22:25 "If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him."

Deuteronomy 23:19 "You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent for interest.  "

Leviticus 25:35-37 "If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you. Take no interest from him or profit, but fear your God, that your brother may live beside you. You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit. "

Jesus was angry because they turned the temple into a house of greed, and distracted from the idea of the temple being a place of worship. Furthermore, these money-changers and bankers were violating Jewish law. To me, it sounds like the priests were the ones with a radically different interpretation.
 
2013-10-16 04:58:38 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Well. light is energy. Before there was nothing, and then WHAMMO! a bunch of energy.


Yeah, but like I said, since it goes on to talk about the light being "day" and the darkness being "night", it seems clear they're not talking about "light" as in electromagnetic energy carried via photons so much as they're simply talking about the Sun shining on the Earth... It's not really talking about the creation of the universe itself but merely our little corner of it, since that's probably all they figured existed at the time aside from "the heavens", which one could interpret to mean the universe as a whole I suppose, but it doesn't really go into detail on how that was created...

BojanglesPaladin: It might help to know that the dude who came up with the Big Bang Theory was a Jesuit scientist.


Well, yes, I did realize that, since I linked to his Wikipedia page that said so in my original post that you first replied to... I didn't know about the Pope telling him to modify the theory, however...

BojanglesPaladin: Anywho, I prefer to phrase it like this:

"The Big Bang Theory does not conflict with the Biblical account of the origin Creation of the universe. Nor does the origin of the universe as described in the Bible conflict with the Big Bang Theory."

Genesis has no real details.


That much I can certainly agree with... (Though, I still hesitate to even say that what's in Genesis can even be considered to be any kind of description of "the origin of the universe", aside from maybe the opening line about creating "the heaven", without giving even the slightest details of how... So, yeah, I suppose since it gives no description at all, it can't possibly conflict with any other description of the event...)
 
2013-10-16 05:23:22 PM  

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!


I know of a bicurious man who was raped, and extorted for gay sex/homosexual sex acts by a sociopath.

Said bicurious man was in the military and the extortion led to his becoming AWOL.

When he finally reported and asked for psychiatric help, they tried to kick him out because of "don't ask, don't tell" being around at the time. Now they're keeping him for overtime, despite him trying to get out into the civilian populace.
He hasn't really been able to explore that curiosity ever since. :( Lucky for him he found a girl. Yay!
 
2013-10-16 06:54:35 PM  

RobSeace: BojanglesPaladin: Well. light is energy. Before there was nothing, and then WHAMMO! a bunch of energy.

Yeah, but like I said, since it goes on to talk about the light being "day" and the darkness being "night", it seems clear they're not talking about "light" as in electromagnetic energy carried via photons so much as they're simply talking about the Sun shining on the Earth... It's not really talking about the creation of the universe itself but merely our little corner of it, since that's probably all they figured existed at the time aside from "the heavens", which one could interpret to mean the universe as a whole I suppose, but it doesn't really go into detail on how that was created...

BojanglesPaladin: It might help to know that the dude who came up with the Big Bang Theory was a Jesuit scientist.

Well, yes, I did realize that, since I linked to his Wikipedia page that said so in my original post that you first replied to... I didn't know about the Pope telling him to modify the theory, however...

BojanglesPaladin: Anywho, I prefer to phrase it like this:

"The Big Bang Theory does not conflict with the Biblical account of the origin Creation of the universe. Nor does the origin of the universe as described in the Bible conflict with the Big Bang Theory."

Genesis has no real details.

That much I can certainly agree with... (Though, I still hesitate to even say that what's in Genesis can even be considered to be any kind of description of "the origin of the universe", aside from maybe the opening line about creating "the heaven", without giving even the slightest details of how... So, yeah, I suppose since it gives no description at all, it can't possibly conflict with any other description of the event...)


OK. now you are applying your own criteria not previously disclosed. if you find it to be insufficient by your standards, then it is insufficient by your standards. but I don't think "the light" would logically mean sunlight on the earth before the earth has actually been created.

also, I did not say the pope asked him to 'modify the theory". nothing of the sort. the pope was concerned that the language being used to describe the theory too closely associated it to the first lines of Genesis and asked them to stop associating them for reasons I outlined above.

and of course there is no "How" in Genesis. Because God, that's why. God does not need to provide his proofs when he turns in his math homework. we probably couldn't understand it anyway.

if you believe that sort of thing. but even if you don't it's silly to expect scripture to meet your modern empirical mindset. that's not what it's for. You don't expect the concept of love to include a "how to", you wouldn't expect Kierkegaard to adhere to provable experimental processes. it's like being made that music doesn't have a color chart.

science and religion are not in conflict. You only think that because the humanists and the fundamentalists tell you that so you will help advance their agenda.
 
2013-10-17 06:19:16 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: but I don't think "the light" would logically mean sunlight on the earth before the earth has actually been created.


What? The very first line is: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The Earth was created right up front... The light came next... And, it's obvious it's talking about the sun rising and setting on Earth, since it says God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day. You don't get days and nights, mornings and evenings, with generic photons floating through space; it requires a revolving planet orbiting a star...

BojanglesPaladin: science and religion are not in conflict. You only think that because the humanists and the fundamentalists tell you that so you will help advance their agenda.


I think that, do I? Even though I specifically said that I agreed with you that they weren't in this particular case? Please tell me what else I think... Because I obviously don't know!

There are specific areas where they come into conflict... But, it's less religion than religious people pushing an agenda, generally... But, I have no problem with someone believing a deity caused the Big Bang if they like... I don't see the need for it, but whatever... There's no real harm in it, either...
 
Displayed 44 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





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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